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
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: awkward grammar “fixed within each one of at least one of the pass-throughs”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 16 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein the lid engagement feature is one of a tongue or a groove of a tongue-and-groove coupling" and “the base engagement feature is another one of the tongue or the groove of the tongue-and-groove coupling”. However, claim 2 recites “the lid engagement feature comprises one of a tongue or a groove of a tongue-and-groove coupling, and the base engagement feature comprises another one of the tongue or the groove of the tongue-and- groove coupling”. It is unclear whether the tongue-and-groove coupling of claim 5 is to be that of claim 2 or a separate/new and additional coupling, and which coupling that of the base engagement feature of claim 5 is referring to. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the same coupling of claim 2.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the hinge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the hinge". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the at least one wire tensioner”, “the shape” and “the corresponding pass through". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the engagement groove". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the wiring". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the closed position". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "trailer electrical components". It is unclear whether this limitation refers to the “at least one set of electrical components”, or to new/additional trailer electrical components”. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as referring to those of line 2 of the same claim.
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) 1-7, 10-12, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub No. 2008/0083547 (Pinol Pedret et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 3A-3C, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses: A junction box for housing wiring of a trailer (“vehicle” see background, vehicles can be towed), the junction box comprising: a base (14), within which the wiring is securable (paragraph 0030), wherein the base comprises a closed bottom (15), at least three sides (14a, 14b, 14c, and 14d) connected to the closed bottom, an open top (see Fig. 2), and a lid engagement feature (24), and wherein at least one of the at least three sides comprises one or more wire pass-throughs (34); and a lid (12), comprising a base engagement feature (16) that is selectively releasably engageable with the lid engagement feature of the base (24) to prevent the lid from opening relative to the base and to enclose an interior cavity (17) of the junction box when the lid is in a closed position (see Figs. 3B and 3C).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (“for housing wiring of a trailer”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
PNG
media_image1.png
763
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the lid engagement feature comprises one of a tongue or a groove of a tongue-and-groove coupling (groove formed between 24, receives tongue 16d), and the base engagement feature comprises another one of the tongue (16d) or the groove of the tongue-and-groove coupling.
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the base engagement feature (16) comprises at least one latch (16d) of a latch coupling; and the lid engagement feature (24) comprises at least one catch of the latch coupling (see paragraph 0026).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including a hinge (28, 29, 30, 32) pivotally coupling the lid to the base, such that the lid is pivotable relative to the base between, and inclusive of, the closed position and an open position, in which the interior cavity is not enclosed (see paragraph 0029).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the lid engagement feature is one of a tongue or a groove of a tongue-and-groove coupling, and the base engagement feature is another one of the tongue or the groove of the tongue-and-groove coupling (as in re claim 2 above).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the base engagement feature is at least one latch of a latch coupling, and the lid engagement feature is at least one catch corresponding to the at least one latch of the base engagement feature the pair combine to form a latch coupling (as in re claim 3 above).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including a locking mechanism configured to selectively lock the lid in the closed position (18 utilized with features 16 and 24 locks lid closed, paragraph 0026).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the base further comprises at least one external securement tab configured to secure the junction box to a vehicle trailer.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (“to secure the junction box to a vehicle trailer”) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (External Tab)]
PNG
media_image2.png
369
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the at least one external securement tab extends perpendicularly from at least one wall (14b, see Fig. 1A above) of the base.
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including a grommet fixed within each one of at least one of the pass-throughs (paragraph 0030 teaches usage of a grommet).
In re claim 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including a gasket (sealing member at 40/42, see Fig. 3C) positioned within the engagement groove (groove shown within portion 12b, see Figs. 3A and 3C) (paragraph 0031).
In re claim 16, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses: A system, comprising: a vehicle trailer (as in re claim 1 above), having at least one set of electrical components (“electrical assembly…such as a fuse and or electrical distribution box”, paragraph 0025); a junction box (10), coupled to the vehicle trailer and comprising: a base, within which the wiring is securable, wherein the base comprises a closed bottom, at least three sides connected to the closed bottom, and an open top, and wherein at least one of the at least three sides has one or more wire pass-throughs (as in re claim 1 above); a lid, engageable with the open top of the base to enclose an interior cavity of the junction box; a lid-base retention system comprising a lid engagement feature and a base engagement feature (as in re claim 1 above), wherein the lid engagement feature and the base engagement feature of the lid-base retention system are selectively releasably engageable to prevent the lid from opening relative to the base and to enclose the interior cavity when the lid is in the closed position (paragraph 0026); and trailer electrical components within the interior cavity (paragraph 0025); and at least one electrical cable passing through a corresponding one of the wire pass-throughs and electrically connected to at least one of the trailer electrical components (paragraph 0024 and 0030).
In re claim 17, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the junction box further comprises a hinge rotatably coupling the lid to the base (top portions of hinge portions 28, 29 rotate relative lower hinge portions 30 and 32), such that the lid is rotatable relative to the base between, and inclusive of, a closed position, in which the lid is engaged with the open top of the base (see Fig. 3A).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the lid engagement feature is one of a tongue or a groove of a tongue-and-groove coupling; and the base engagement feature is another one of the tongue or the groove of the tongue-and-groove coupling (as in re claim 5 above).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses a method for housing a trailer wiring system, the method comprising: moving a lid of a junction box away from an open top of a base of the junction box into an open position (paragraph 0029), wherein in the open position, an interior cavity of the junction box is accessible through the open top of the base; inserting a cable through a pass-through formed in the base (paragraph 0030); securing the cable to a wire tensioner (grommet, paragraph 0030) of the base, which is located within the interior cavity of the junction box; moving the lid toward the base of the junction box, from the open position to a closed position, wherein in the closed position the interior cavity of the junction box is not accessible through the open top of the base; and engaging a lid engagement feature of the base and a base engagement feature of the lid when the lid is in the closed position to selectively releasably retain the lid in the closed position relative to the base (paragraph 0026).
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinol Pedret et al. as applied to claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 9,478,956 (Elbaz hereinafter).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein the hinge comprises: a base knuckle fixed to the base and comprising a first channel; a lid knuckle fixed to the lid and comprising a second channel; and a pin extending through the first channel and the second channel to pivotally couple together the base knuckle and the lid knuckle, wherein the pin defines a rotational axis of the hinge.
However, with reference to Fig. 1, Elbaz discloses a junction box with a hinge, wherein the hinge comprises: a base knuckle (30) fixed to the base and comprising a first channel (through which 28 extends); a lid knuckle (32) fixed to the lid and comprising a second channel (through which 28 extends); and a pin (28) extending through the first channel and the second channel to pivotally couple together the base knuckle and the lid knuckle, wherein the pin defines a rotational axis of the hinge (column 3, lines 60-67).
PNG
media_image3.png
607
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the hinge of Pinol Pedret et al. to have included hinge knuckles and a pin as taught by Elbaz, for the purposes of predictably enhancing the structural longevity of the box by replacing a bending hinge with a rotating/pin hinge to minimize undue strain on the material of the hinge. Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 0082-84, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (i.e. a knuckle/pin hinge vs. a bending/tab hinge vs. a living/one-piece hinge, etc.)
In re claim 18, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein a base knuckle fixed to the base and comprising a first channel; a lid knuckle fixed to the lid and comprising a second channel; and a pin extending through the first channel and the second channel to pivotally couple together the base knuckle and the lid knuckle, wherein the pin defines a rotational axis of the hinge.
However, with reference to Fig. 1, Elbaz discloses a junction box with a hinge, wherein the hinge comprises: a base knuckle (30) fixed to the base and comprising a first channel (through which 28 extends); a lid knuckle (32) fixed to the lid and comprising a second channel (through which 28 extends); and a pin (28) extending through the first channel and the second channel to pivotally couple together the base knuckle and the lid knuckle, wherein the pin defines a rotational axis of the hinge (column 3, lines 60-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the hinge of Pinol Pedret et al. to have included hinge knuckles and a pin as taught by Elbaz, for the purposes of predictably enhancing the structural longevity of the box by replacing a bending hinge with a rotating/pin hinge to minimize undue strain on the material of the hinge. Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 0082-84, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (i.e. a knuckle/pin hinge vs. a bending/tab hinge vs. a living/one-piece hinge, etc.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinol Pedret et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2022/0131356 (Crook et al hereinafter).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein the hinge forms a one-piece monolithic construction and is co-molded with the base and the lid; and the hinge spans from the base to the lid and comprises a flexible material that flexes as the lid pivots relative to the base.
However, with reference to Fig. 1 below, Crook et al. discloses a junction box with a hinge, wherein the hinge (21) forms a one-piece monolithic construction and is co-molded with a base (4) and a lid (6) (see paragraph 0021 and Crook et al. claim 1: “living hinge being formed from a one-piece injection molding process”); and the hinge spans from the base to the lid and comprises a flexible material that flexes as the lid pivots relative to the base.
PNG
media_image4.png
561
653
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have formed the hinge of Pinol Pedret et al. as a one-piece hinge for example to facilitate a simplified molding process as taught by Crook et al., since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 0082-84, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (i.e. the type of hinge).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinol Pedret et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,013,872 (Lockwood et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein the base further includes at least one wire tensioner within the interior cavity.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, Lockwood et al. discloses a junction box wherein a base (10) further includes at least one wire tensioner (24) within an interior cavity (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
541
495
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a wire tensioner as taught by Lockwood et al. within the cavity of Pinol Pedret et al. for the purposes of preventing inadvertent withdrawing of wiring from the box and/or preventing disconnection of the electrical connection (Lockwood et al., column 2, lines 41-42).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Pinol Pedret et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein at least one wire tensioner includes at least one channel, which corresponds to a shape of a corresponding pass through and is vertically aligned with the corresponding pass through.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, Lockwood et al. discloses a junction box wherein a base (10) further includes at least one wire tensioner (24) within an interior cavity (see Fig. 2), wherein at least one wire tensioner includes at least one channel (54/34), which corresponds to a shape of a corresponding pass through (18) and is vertically aligned with the corresponding pass through (18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a wire tensioner as taught by Lockwood et al. within the cavity of Pinol Pedret et al. for the purposes of preventing inadvertent withdrawing of wiring from the box and/or preventing disconnection of the electrical connection (Lockwood et al., column 2, lines 41-42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p EST.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733