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 .
Priority
This application has Provisional 63/618,625 filed on January 8, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 2, 2025, and June 11, 2025
are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “include a” should read “includes a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “130” has been used to designate both open cells and closed cells. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 11, 15, 17, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinnard et al. (US 7,381,890).
In regard to claim 1, Kinnard teaches a recessed outlet housing comprising: an outlet box (see figure 1) having a plurality of first side walls, a rear wall, and an open front configured to receive an electrical device (see the figure below); a mounting flange (14) extending from the outlet box, the mounting flange (14) comprising a plurality of cells (see openings/holes in flanges (14), figure 1); a base (4) extending from the outlet box, the base having a plurality of second side walls (see the figure below), wherein the base (base insert 38) is configured to receive a lid (54,66).
In regard to claim 2, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet housing of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cells includes a first open cell and a first closed cell (see figure 1; ungrooved or perforated, column 4, line 23).
PNG
media_image1.png
611
1001
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet housing of claim 1, wherein the flange (14) includes a mounting slot configured to receive a fastener (see the figure in claim 1; column 3, line 65- column 4, line 18).
In regard to claim 6, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet housing of claim 1, wherein the flange (14) is positioned between the outlet box and the base (figures 1, 4).
In regard to claim 7, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet housing of claim 1, further comprising a siding flange (figure 1, 30) configured to be slidably positioned around the base (figure 1).
In regard to claim 8, Kinnard teaches a recessed outlet housing comprising: an outlet box (see figure 1) having a plurality of first side walls, a rear wall, and an open front configured to receive an electrical device (see the figure below); a mounting flange (14) extending from the outlet box, the mounting flange (14) comprising a plurality of cells (see openings/holes in flanges (14), figure 1); a base (4) extending from the outlet box, the base having a plurality of second side walls (see the figure below), and a lid (54,66) movably connected to the base (base insert 38, movable via hinge (56)).
In regard to claim 9, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet housing of claim 8, wherein the plurality of cells includes a first open cell and a first closed cell (see figure 1; ungrooved or perforated, column 4, line 23).
In regard to claim 11, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet housing of claim 8, wherein the base (38) has a cable groove ( (72)) to permit passage of a cable from an interior of the base to an exterior while the lid is in a closed position (column 5, lines 48-62).
In regard to claim 15, Kinnard teaches a recessed outlet housing comprising: an outlet box (see figure 1) having a plurality of first side walls, a rear wall, and an open front configured to receive an electrical device (see the figure below); a mounting flange (14) extending from the outlet box; a base (4) extending from the outlet box, the base having a plurality of second side walls (see the figure below), wherein the base (base insert 38) is configured to receive a lid (54,66); and a siding flange (24). removably connected to the base (38).
In regard to claim 17, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet of claim 15, wherein the base (38) includes a protrusion (66) configured to limit movement of the siding flange (24)(when in a closed position, figure 1).
In regard to claim 18, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet of claim 15, wherein the siding flange (28) includes a first half (32) releasably connected to a second half (28).
In regard to claim 19, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet of claim 18, wherein the first half is connected to the second half by a connecting tab (34) extending from the first half mating with a first slot on the second half (see slots positioned in sleeve (30))(figure 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinnard et al. (US 7,381,890).
In regard to claim 3, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet housing of claim 1.
Kinnard et al. does not explicitly teach the plurality of cells have a hexagonal configuration.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the plurality of cells have a hexagonal configuration, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
In regard to claim 4, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet housing of claim 1.
Kinnard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the flange has a honeycomb configuration.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the flange has a honeycomb configuration, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
In regard to claim 10, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet housing of claim 8.
Kinnard et al. does not explicitly teach the plurality of cells have a hexagonal configuration.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the plurality of cells have a hexagonal configuration, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
In regard to claim 20, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet housing of claim 15.
Kinnard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the flange has a honeycomb configuration.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the flange has a honeycomb configuration, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinnard et al. (US 7,381,890) in view of Shotey (US 2002/0112873).
In regard to claim 14, Kinnard teaches the recessed outlet housing of claim 8, and the lid (54).
Kinnard does not explicitly teach the lid is biased to a closed position.
Shotey teaches a lid biased to a closed position (bias the lid closed upon the base, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have made the lid of Kinnard biased in a closed position to provide additional protection against the weather (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13, 16 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vagedes (US 6,723,921) teaches an exterior mounting block for electrical fixtures. Gretz (US 6,965,078) teaches a rainproof recessed outlet box with a flange having webbing. Gretz (US 7,115,820) teaches a movable lid. Gretz (US 7,319,192) teaches an electrical box having a flange with open cells.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached on (571)-272-2229. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
