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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 1, “a first spring component” should be changed to --a first of said spring components--.
Claim 5, line 2, “a second spring component” should be changed to --a second of said spring components--.
Claim 6, line 1, “a first spring component” should be changed to --a first of said spring components--.
Claim 6, line 2, “a second spring component” should be changed to --a second of said spring components--.
Claim 15, line 1, “a first spring component” should be changed to --a first of said spring components--.
Claim 15, line 2, “a second spring component” should be changed to --a second of said spring components--.
Claim 16, line 1, “a first spring component” should be changed to --a first of said spring components--.
Claim 16, line 2, “a second spring component” should be changed to --a second of said spring components--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 8-10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Brunt et al. (4547623).
Van Brunt et al. discloses a cable gland comprising: a gland nut (12) defining a longitudinal axis, the gland nut comprising an interior wall defining a gland nut opening; a bushing(33) disposed within the gland nut, wherein the bushing defines a bushing opening configured to receive a cable therein; a compression limiting assembly comprising a compression limiter (37) moveably disposed at least partially within the gland nut, and a spring (34/42/35) disposed between the compression limiter and the bushing; and a body (13) defining a body opening configured to receive at least a portion of the cable therein, the body configured to couple to the gland nut, wherein upon coupling of the gland nut to the body, the gland nut moves along the longitudinal axis compressing the bushing between the gland nut and the compression limiting assembly and around the cable (re-claims 1 and 20). Van Brunt et al. also discloses that the cable gland further comprises a grounding mechanism (27/28) disposed within the body opening (re-claim 8); the grounding mechanism comprising a spring (27/28) configured to ground and/or retain the cable (re-claim 9); the compression limiting assembly and the busing are secured within the gland nut opening such that the cable gland is a two-piece design (re-claim 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 2-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Brunt et al. in view of Jeng et al. (2022/0381311).
Re claims 2-5, Van Brunt et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the spring comprising a stacked wave spring which is comprised of a plurality of spring components diposed on top of each other, wherein each spring component comprises a plurality of waves extending around the spring component, and wherein the waves of a first one of the spring components are offset from the waves of a second one of the spring components
Jeng et al. discloses a stacked wave spring used in electrical connectors ([0006]), wherein the stacked wave spring comprises a plurality spring components disposed on top of each other, wherein each spring component comprises a plurality of waves extending around the spring component, and wherein the waves of the first spring component are offset from the waves of the second spring component adjacent to the first.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the stacked wave spring as taught by Jeng et al. for spring (34/42/35) of Van Brunt et al. since such spring has much higher performance in load bearing, stress strain properties and reduced height.
Re claims 12-15, Van Brunt et al. and Jeng et al. disclose the invention as claimed, see rejection of claims 2-5 above, including the cable gland comprising a grounding mechanism (27/28, see Van Brunt) and a stacked wave spring (see Jeng) (re-claim 12).
Claims 2-4, 6, 12-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Brunt et al. in view of Watson (2010/0167582).
Re claims 2-4 and 6, Van Brunt et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the spring comprising a stacked wave spring which is comprised of a plurality of spring components diposed on top of each other, wherein each spring component comprises a plurality of waves extending around the spring component, and wherein the waves of a first one of the spring components are nested within the waves of a second one of the spring components.
Watson discloses a cable gland (Fig. 1) comprising a stacked wave spring (52, Fig. 8), wherein the stacked wave spring comprises a plurality spring components disposed on top of each other, wherein each spring component comprises a plurality of waves extending around the spring component, and wherein the waves of the first spring component are nested within the waves of the second spring component adjacent to the first (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the stacked wave spring as taught by Watson for spring (34/42/35) of Van Brunt et al. to increase spring constant (Watson, [0036]).
Re claims 12-14, 16, and 18, Van Brunt et al. and Watson disclose the invention as claimed, see rejection of claims 2-4 and 6 above, including the cable gland further comprising a grounding mechanism which is comprised of a spring (27/28, see Van Brunt) configured to ground and/or retain the cable (re-claim 18) and a stacked wave spring (see Watson) (re-claim 12).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Brunt et al. in view of Jeng et al. as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Meernik (2005/0103579).
Claims 7 and 17 additionally recite the spring having a height of less than about 0.25 inches. Meernik discloses a gland (10) comprising a wave spring (22) which has a height of less than about 0.25 inches ([0028], 0.9 mm = 0.035 in.). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the spring in the modified cable gland of Van Brunt et al. with a height of less than about 0.25 inches as taught by Meernik to meet the specific use of the resulting gland.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Brunt et al.
Van Brunt et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the spring or the stacked wave spring being formed from steel. Although not disclosed in Van Brunt et al., it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use steel for the spring or stacked wave spring in the modified cable gland of Van Brunt et al. to meet the specific use of the resulting gland since steel is known in the art for being used to form springs because of its high strength.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12184049. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of said patent disclose the invention as claimed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights