DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/4/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 2 (a line). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of claims 2 and 3 specify a 1:1 ratio for relative heights and widths between devices. Parent claim 1 appears to contradict a 1:1 ratio wherein it specifies “wherein a ratio of the height of the second device to the height of the first device is n1:x1, wherein n1 and x1 are from the set of natural numbers and are not identical and/or a ratio of the width of the second device to the width of the first device is n2:x2, wherein n2 and x2 are from the set of natural numbers and are not identical. A ratio of 1:1 requires identical natural numbers.
Claim 7 recites “L3” lacking antecedent basis. L3 is associated with the third device introduced in claims 4 and 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nowastowski-Stock, US 2019/0326739.
Regarding claim 1:
Nowastowski-Stock discloses a set of devices comprising at least two devices for routing lines, pipes and/or cables through a building part, each comprising a housing with a housing wall, wherein the housing has an axial passage channel which is delimited by the housing wall, extends in the longitudinal direction (L), and has an opening at each opposite end, wherein the devices have a length (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5) in the longitudinal direction (L) and in each case a rectangular cross section, which is arranged perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (L), with a width (B1, B2, B3, B4, B5) in a transverse direction (B) and a height (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5) in a vertical direction (H), wherein a first device has a width (B1), a height (H1) and a length (L1), and a second device has a width (B2), a height (H2) and a length (L2), wherein a ratio of the height (H2) of the second device to the height (H1) of the first device is n1:x1, wherein n1 and x1 are from the set of natural numbers and are not identical, and/or a ratio of the width (B2) of the second device to the width (B1) of the first device is n2:x2, wherein n2 and x2 are from the set of natural numbers and are not identical, and wherein the at least two devices can be detachably connected to one another (via frame 110, refer to Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3:
Nowastowski-Stock discloses wherein a ratio of both the heights and the widths between the first and second devices is 1:2.
Regarding claims 4 and 5:
Nowastowski-Stock discloses wherein there is at least one third device with a height and a width that is also 1:2 to the height and width of the third device (refer to the figure above).
Regarding claim 6:
Nowastowski-Stock discloses wherein at least one device has a square cross section (see figure above).
Regarding claim 7:
Nowastowski-Stock discloses wherein the lengths of the devices are substantially identical.
PNG
media_image2.png
525
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8:
Nowastowski-Stock discloses wherein a frame (100, refer to Fig. 10) is provided, which is provided for attachment to a wall (via apertures 180) and defines a receiving space (140) which is provided for loading and in which at least two devices can be arranged.
Regarding claim 9:
Nowastowski-Stock discloses wherein the at least two devices for connection to one another each have at least one connection region (the longitudinal edges), wherein at least one separate connecting element (latching element 23) is provided, by which the at least two devices can be detachably connected to one another in the connection regions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al., DE 19903515 in view of Nowastowski-Stock, US 2019/0326739.
Regarding claim 1:
Bauer discloses a set of devices (Fig. 3) comprising at least two devices (E1) for routing lines, pipes and/or cables through a building part (M, Fig. 4), each comprising a housing (Fig. 1) with a housing wall, wherein the housing has an axial passage channel (2) which is delimited by the housing wall, extends in the longitudinal direction (L), and has an opening at each opposite end, wherein the devices have a length in the longitudinal direction and in each case a rectangular cross section, which is arranged perpendicularly to the longitudinal direction (L), with a width in a transverse direction and a height in a vertical direction (H), wherein a first device has a width (B1), a height (H1) and a length (L1), and a second device has a width (B2), a height (H2) and a length (L2), wherein a ratio of the height (H2) of the second device to the height (H1) of the first device is n1:x1, wherein n1 and x1 are from the set of natural numbers and are identical, and/or a ratio of the width (B2) of the second device to the width (B1) of the first device is n2:x2, wherein n2 and x2 are from the set of natural numbers and are identical, and wherein the at least two devices can be detachably connected to one another (via clips V).
Bauer does not disclose wherein the ratio of the width and/or height of the second device to the first device are different.
Nowastowski-Stock discloses a set of devices wherein these ratios differ as set forth above.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide differing device sizes thus having differing ratios to Bauer as suggested by Nowastowski-Stock in order to accommodate conduits of differing sizes.
Regarding claims 9-12:
Bauer discloses wherein the at least two devices for connection to one another each have at least one connection region (perimeter walls), wherein at least one separate connecting clip (V) is provided, by which the at least two devices can be detachably connected to one another in the connection regions;
wherein the clip has a central receiving region which is provided for the joist enclosure of a wall region of a first device and a wall region of a second device;
wherein the separate connecting element has two legs, wherein one leg in each case is designed to latch with a device.
PNG
media_image3.png
356
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13:
Bauer discloses wherein the separate connecting element has at least one region which can be actuated by a tool to detach the separate connecting element from the devices. A tool may be used to push the clip longitudinally or one could be used to pinch the legs together for removal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, for example Bauer, discloses the use of separate connecting elements to connect adjacent devices. However, the prior art of record does not disclose wherein the element has a substantially W-shaped cross-section. Reworking the separate connecting elements of the prior art to specifically have a W-shape would require improper hindsight reasoning and reconstruction that is unsupported by the teachings of the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights