DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on February 26th, 2025 in which claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
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 .
Issue with Foreign Priority Claim
The foreign priority claim has not been perfected. See office communication 7/29/25 indicating issue with document retrieval. For further questions, contact pdx@uspto.gov.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
The current abstract is 158 words and should be 150 or less.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 6 after “independent optical unit” add –P—
The term “PCT” on Page 7 is unclear as to what the acronym stands for, as no definition has been provided; should amendments define the term in the specification, applicant should submit evidence that this is a well known term in the art and support for how the amendment is not new matter; otherwise, examiner recommends amending such that the term can be deleted
Page 8 delete “SMD” and substitute – SMT—as only the definition for “SMT” was provided on page 4 “surface mounting technology”; as best understood, the term “SMD” stands for “surface-mounted devices” as defined in assignee’s IDS patent USPN 9394635—however, an IDS is not part of the original disclosure
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 4 before “release” delete “its” and substitute –the weft thread—
Claim 1 Line 10 delete “it”
Line 1 in Claims 2-12 before “weaving looms” add –the—
Claim 2 Line 2 before “functions” delete “the”, especially as Claim 1 Line 9 recites “logical functions of the weft feeder” whereas Claim 2 Line 2 is to the optical unit, and not necessarily “logical”
Claim 2 Line 3 before “functions” delete “the”, especially as Claim 1 Line 9 recites “logical functions of the weft feeder” whereas Claim 2 Line 3 is to the electromagnet group and not necessarily “logical”
Claim 5 Line 3 before “optical sensors” add –one or more—
Claim 8 Line 4 before “copper” delete “the”
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
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.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the components" in Lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As such, the term “the components” in Claim 8 Lines 4-5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as “the optical elements,” especially based on the dependency of Claim 8 on Claim 6.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 5, 6-- the recitations are being treated as a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art; more specifically:
the structure of Claim 5 is said optical unit includes a printed circuit board on which are emitting and receiving optical elements of said optical sensors
the structure of Claim 6 is a rigid-flex printed circuit board including two rigid portions on which are optical elements
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballabio et al (USPN 9394635), herein Ballabio, in view of Lilja (USPN 5966211), and Dandolo (WO 2006/002893).
Regarding Claim 1, Ballabio teaches weft feeder for weaving looms (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; nevertheless, see Fig. 1; Col. 3 Line 44 "Fig. 1 shows…weft feeder"; abstract "weft feeder device for threads, in particular for weaving looms") including
a winding group (3) to wind a weft thread on a weft feeder drum (T) (see Fig. 1; Col. 4 Lines 31-33 "when rotor 3 is driven into rotation, the thread collected from the reel is arranged into successive coils on the sectors 4 of drum T"; see abstract for weft thread as thread of a weft feeder),
an optical unit (E/R) provided with one or more optical sensors to monitor the weft thread winding in the drum and its release from said drum (see Fig. 3 for E; Col. 4 Lines 63-65 "emitting sensors E are embedded in the upper sector 4s of drum T"; see Fig. 6 for R; Col. 5 Line 67-Col. 6 Line 3 "invention…concerns the arrangement of receiving sensors R, in order to be able to couple them correctly and effectively with…emitting sensors E"; for monitoring-- Col. 5 Lines 6-13 "the emitting sensors E are 4 and precisely a sensor E1 meant to detect the thread coils incoming onto drum T…and finally a pair of sensors Es and Ez which allow to count the coils going out from the drum"),
an electromagnet group to control the movement of a stop pin which prevents the weft thread from being released from said drum (electromagnet group being electromagnetic thread-stopping device; see Fig. 6; Col. 3 Lines 55-57 "Fig. 6…block housing the electromagnetic thread-stopping device…incorporating the receiving sensors"; Col. 4 Lines 44-52 "from the upper area of the main body 1 of the weft feeder…a control block 10 projects, within which…both receiving sensors R are housed and the electromagnetic stopping device of the thread collection from drum T, consisting of a pin which comes out of block 10 and enters a corresponding hole F of sector 4s of drum T facing thereon, preventing the unwinding of the thread coils from the drum"; Ballabio teaches the pin which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of stopping, especially in light of the recitations pertaining to prevention and being of a stopping device),
said electromagnet group being enclosed within a cup-shaped shell from which said stop pin protrudes to interfere with said drum (see Fig. 1, Col. 6 Line 61 “box-shape of block 10” teaches cup-shaped shell inasmuch as cup has been defined in the claims; Col. 4 Lines 44-52 "a control block 10...within which…both receiving sensors R are housed and the electromagnetic stopping device of the thread collection from drum T, consisting of a pin which comes out of block 10 and enters a corresponding hole F of sector 4s of drum T facing thereon and enters a corresponding hole F of sector 4s of drum T facing thereon, preventing the unwinding of the thread coils from the drum", wherein the pin in hole interferes with drum with the recitation of preventing),
and a weft feeder processing board which controls the functions of the weft feeder (Col. 1 Lines 30-32 "during its evolution over the years, in addition to the basic functions recalled above, the weft feeder has acquired additional control functions"; Col. 1 Lines 42-43 "these different functions are obtained due to the presence, aboard the weft feeder, of a processing unit which operates"; Claim 1 in Col. 8 Lines 5-6 "relative feeding and control circuit"; Claim 2 in Col. 8 Lines 13-15 "feeding and control circuit...is...printed circuit (13)"), wherein 13 processes inasmuch as it controls),
said optical unit is electrically connected to said weft feeder processing board by wiring (see Fig. 3; Col. 5 Lines 3-4 "emitting sensors E are…wired…to the flexible printed circuit 13"; Claim 2 in Col. 8 Lines 13-15 "feeding and control circuit, whereon emitting sensors (E) are wired", wherein at least a portion of optical unit is electrically connected via the wiring).
Ballabio does not explicitly teach that the weft feeder processing board controls the logical functions,
and is electrically connected to said weft feeder processing board by a direct wiring.
Lilja teaches the weft feeder processing board controls the logical functions (wherein the optical unit is at least receivers R1, R2; Col. 5 Lines 35-36 "both receivers R1, R2 are connected to an evaluation circuit C…which operates according to the differential principle and produces a useful signal from the difference between the photoelectric response signals of receivers R1, R2", wherein circuit C is the board, wherein the board processes receiver response signals; as for logical --Col. 5 Lines 53-56 "in the evaluation circuit C the value zero or a constant signal value (e.g. a voltage value) follows from the difference of the response signals of the two receivers R1, R2"),
and is electrically connected to said weft feeder processing board by a direct wiring (see Fig. 2B for direct, as there are no other structures between).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballabio’s weft feeder with the logical processing board and direct connection of Lilja as a known method of operating a weft feeder.
Ballabio also does not explicitly teach said optical unit is contained in a protection box,
and wherein said protection box is housed and removably fixed inside said cup-shaped shell.
However, Ballabio already teaches the optical unit being removably fixed inside said cup-shaped shell (Col. 6 Lines 17-22 "receiving sensors R…in position by a single clamp 21 fastened to said portion 19 by screw means"; screws are removably fixed, wherein shell is 10 (19+20); Col. 6 Lines 6-9 "control block 10...consists of...lower portion 19...and an upper portion 20 serving...as a lid", wherein the cup-shaped shell has the electromagnetic stopping device).
Dandolo teaches said optical unit is contained in a protection box (summarily-- cup-shaped shell is 1 + C = H; wherein H + stopping device is inside 19; as such, see Fig. 3 for protection box being H (1+C); see extrinsic evidence Word Hippo NPL for the term “box” being rectangular, met by 1 and C; page 5 "optoelectronic yarn sensor assembly S, a housing part 1 which is covered by a transparent cover C"; page 5 "housing H of the yarn sensor assembly S"; pages 5-6 "housing H consists of...housing main part 1....at a, preferably, planar lower surface of the housing main part 1 a transparent cover C is placed (as indicated in dotted lines in Fig. 1). The cover C may be secured in a recess 6 (Fig. 3) of the bottom surface of the housing main part 1...cover C ...is completely sealed in order to prevent the intrusion of contamination into the light channels LC of the housing H"; Dandolo teaches the box H which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of protecting, especially in light of pages 5-6 "The cover C preferably, is completely sealed in order to prevent the intrusion of contamination into light channels LC of the housing H"),
and wherein said protection box is housed and removably fixed inside said cup-shaped shell (see Fig. 1; page 6 "casing 19 fixed to the housing 16 contains a not shown stopping device for measuring the respective weft yarn length released for each pick. In addition, the casing 19 contains at least one optoelectronic yarn sensor assembly S, a housing part 1 which is covered by a transparent cover C"; wherein cup-shaped shell is casing 19; as such, protection box with S is housed inside cup-shaped shell 19 having not shown stopping device/electromagnetic device; for at least a portion removable-- page 5 "cover C may be secured in a recess 6 (Fig. 3) of the bottom surface of the housing main part 1"; if an element can be secured, the element can be removable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballabio with the protection box of Dandolo having upper/lower part as a known structure to protect components, especially as Ballabio has similar upper/lower protection for the shell for cleanliness (Col. 6 Lines 61-64; Col. 7 Lines 5-7).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ballabio teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Ballabio further teaches wherein the functions of said optical unit are independent and autonomous with respect to the functions of the electromagnet group enclosed within the same cup-shaped shell (Col. 4 Lines 46-49 "a control block 10 projects, within which…both receiving sensors R are housed and the electromagnetic stopping device of the thread collection from drum T"; independent inasmuch as there are different functions between the optical receiving sensor and the stopping device; autonomous inasmuch as no human intervention is taught).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ballabio teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Dandolo further teaches wherein said protection box includes a lower half-box and an upper-half box which are mutually joined (see Fig. 1; page 5 "The cover C may be secured in a recess 6 (Fig. 3) of the bottom surface of the housing main part 1 such that it is flush with the bottom surface"; see extrinsic evidence Merriam-Webster NPL for the term “half” being of a pair, met by 1 and C).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ballabio teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 3.
Dandolo further teaches wherein said protection box is dust- and liquid-tight sealed (see Fig. 1; pages 5-6 "The cover C preferably, is completely sealed in order to prevent the intrusion of contamination into light channels LC of the housing H"; Dandolo teaches the sealed protection box which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being sealed from dust and liquid).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ballabio teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Ballabio further teaches wherein said optical unit includes a printed circuit board onto which emitting and receiving optical elements of said optical sensors are soldered (Col. 5 Line 67-Col. 6 Line 3 "invention…concerns the arrangement of receiving sensors R, in order to be able to couple them correctly and effectively with…emitting sensors E"; Col. 6 Lines 18-19 "receiving sensors R...wired on two separate, rigid printed circuits"; wherein R/E is an optical element and is connected at R to the PCBs; as for a single PCB-- Col. 6 Lines 2-30 "possible to use in this case ...a single…printed circuit containing all receiving sensors R"; as for soldered--see claim interpretation; the recitation “soldered” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Ballabio’s method results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other attachment methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use Ballabio’s method as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art. In other words, the printed circuit board on which are emitting and receiving optical elements of said optical sensors of Ballabio teaches the soldering of Claim 5 because it has the structure of Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Ballabio teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 3.
Modified Ballabio further teaches optical channels and diaphragms of said optical sensors, which are integrally formed with said protection box (see Fig. 6; Ballabio Col. 6 Lines 17-21 "receiving sensors R…introduced into suitable pre-formed seats in lower portion 19 of block 10"; wherein seats indicate channel/diaphragm for each optical sensor; even in light of the modification with Dandolo, the structures are integral inasmuch as the elements are of one invention).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Ballabio teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Modified Ballabio further teaches wherein said optical channels and diaphragms are respectively formed in said lower half-box and in said upper half-box (see Figs. 1-3; optical channels are LC; diaphragms are structure around axes X,Y through to detection zone 11, such as 3, 4 and elements of 1/C; page 6 "housing main part 1 (Figs. 2 and 3) contains two light channels LC"; page 6 "each light channel LC has an inner part consisting of...channel section 5, a positioning socket 3 at one end, and a holding structure 4 adjacent to the lower mouth which is situated in the bottom surface of the housing main part 1...channel section 5 extends between the positioning socket 3 and the holding structure 4"; optical channel in lower/upper; as such, LC's 5 is with upper half-box 1; and as LC's optical channel allows light through to detection zone 11 through lower half-box C, the optical channel is also formed in said lower half-box C; inasmuch as LC is formed through the diaphragm and LC is in upper/lower, so is diaphragm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballabio with the channels/diaphragms to be in upper/lower half of box as taught by Dandolo as a known arrangement for optical units for weft feeders, such for clear and reliable output signal (page 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballabio et al (USPN 9394635), herein Ballabio, in view of Lilja (USPN 5966211), and Dandolo (WO 2006/002893), further in view of Altium (NPL).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ballabio teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Ballabio further teaches wherein said printed circuit board including two rigid portions onto which said optical elements are soldered (Col. 6 Lines 17-18 "receiving sensors R …wired on two separate, rigid printed circuits"; see claim interpretation and aforementioned rejection of Claim 5 for soldered).
Ballabio does not explicitly teach wherein said printed circuit board is a rigid-flex printed circuit board.
Altium teaches a rigid-flex printed circuit board (see NPL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballabio’s PCB to with the rigid-flex PCB of Altium for durability, cost-efficiency and space efficiency, especially as Ballabio already desired compactness within the shell (Col. 6 Lines 55-56), within which is the PCB.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballabio et al (USPN 9394635), herein Ballabio, in view of Lilja (USPN 5966211), and Dandolo (WO 2006/002893), further in view of Comotto et al (USPN 11208759), herein Comotto, and Haas et al (USPN 7094463), herein Haas.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ballabio teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Ballabio does not explicitly teach wherein darkening elements of foam material are further provided, arranged on said optical elements.
Comotto teaches wherein darkening elements preventing light diffusion are further provided, arranged on said optical elements (Col. 6 Lines 31-39 "through-hole 5 receives the optical source of the light emitter 1 and shields its lateral emission of light radiation. This lateral shielding…is also performed…by the lower and upper walls of septum 7, thus safely preventing the light radiation diffused into the environment by the light emitter 1 from affecting the optical detector of the light receiver 2, which may otherwise contaminate the detection of the light radiation reflected by the reflective disk R"; Comotto teaches the shielding which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of darkening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballabio’s optical elements with the darkening elements of Comotto to ensure that the receivers receive accurate detection (Col. 6 Lines 31-39).
As such, modified Ballabio teaches all of the elements of the instant invention as discussed in detail above except providing the darkening element being foam. Although modified Ballabio does not directly teach this limitation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ballabio by making its darkening element of foam. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a commonly used material, in the apparel art, to make liquid metal on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, the use of foam would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a well-known material for a zipper is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742,82, USPQ2d 1382, 1396 (2007).
Nevertheless, Haas teaches foam darkening elements preventing light diffusion (abstract "foam is useful as...diffuse reflector for use in optical applications"; Haas teaches the foam element which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being darkening, especially in light of being an optical diffuse reflector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballabio’s darkening elements, as provided by Comotto, to be foam as taught by Haas as a known diffusion reflector in optical applications, which Ballabio (as modified by Comotto) is also directed to.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballabio et al (USPN 9394635), herein Ballabio, in view of Lilja (USPN 5966211), Dandolo (WO 2006/002893), and Altium (NPL), further in view of Sierra Circuits (NPL).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ballabio teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 6.
Modified Ballabio further teaches wherein said two rigid portions of the printed circuit board have different inclinations (see rejection of Claim 6 which already taught single rigid-flex PCB; Ballabio Col. 6 Lines 17-18 "receiving sensors R …wired on two separate, rigid printed circuits"; see Fig. 6 for R1 and R2 having different inclinations; Col. 6 Lines 23-24 "first...inclined attitude....receiving sensor R1; Col. 6 Lines 24-25 "second...horizontal attitude ...receiving sensors R2, Rz, Rs").
and are connected by a flexible portion of said printed circuit board (see Altium which teaches as such with a rigid-flex PCB).
As such, modified Ballabio teaches wherein the flexible portions interconnects the components mounted said two rigid portions (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections).
Modified Ballabio does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible portion contains inside the copper traces.
Sierra Circuits teaches wherein flexible portions are of copper traces (page 4 "a flex board will have the following materials: conductor: copper foil...extensively used in making PCB circuits...thinnest possible construction").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballabio’s flexible portion to be of copper traces as taught by Sierra Circuits as a known compact material to utilize in PCBs (page 4), especially depending on intended frequency of bend and extent of bend (pages 2, 3).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballabio et al (USPN 9394635), herein Ballabio, in view of Lilja (USPN 5966211), and Dandolo (WO 2006/002893), further in view of Muhlberg et al (USPN 5283623), herein Muhlberg.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ballabio teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Ballabio does not explicitly teach wherein said wiring includes a wiring cable electrically connected to said printed circuit board and to said weft feeder processing board via plug connections.
However, Ballabio at least suggests wherein said wiring includes a wiring cable electrically connected to said printed circuit board via plug connections (see Fig. 6).
Furthermore, modified Ballabio already taught a direct wiring connection between PCB and optical unit (see rejection of Claim 1, wherein Lilja already taught that Ballabio’s wiring is direct between processing board and optical unit, wherein the optical unit is where PCB is located as taught in the rejection of Claim 5).
Muhlberg teaches wherein said wiring includes a wiring cable electrically connected to said printed circuit board and to a processing board via plug connections (see Fig. 3; Col. 6 Lines 56-60 "The power supply of the signal processing circuit 21 and of the light sources 11 or the pulse-controlled output stage 27 is via a power supply line 29, which together with the two signal lines 23, 24 is taken to a plug connector 30"; Col. 5 Lines 37-46 "The light emitted from the light sources 11 and focussed in each case by a condenser lens 15 passes through a transparent disc 13, laterally shielded in strip form, and forming the face of the housing 10, onto the knitted structure of the length of fabric indicated at 5. The light reflected by the latter passes through the transparent disc 13 and a lens similar to lens 15 in the housing 10 also exposed to the light sources 11 to (in the present case six) light detectors 16"; abstract "system for the detection of faults in a length of textile fabric, the length of fabric is continually scanned by an electro-optical sensor head. Light detectors...assembled ...and emit group-specific fault signals").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballabio’s wiring between PCB and weft feeder processing board to be a wiring cable with plug connections as taught by Muhlberg as a known arrangement to supply power in optical detection devices (Col. 6 Lines 56-60; abstract).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballabio et al (USPN 9394635), herein Ballabio, in view of Lilja (USPN 5966211), Dandolo (WO 2006/002893), and Muhlberg et al (USPN 5283623), herein Muhlberg, further in view of Gong et al (USPN 9050937), herein Gong.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Ballabio teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 9.
Ballabio does not explicitly teach a rubber gasket sealing an exit hole of the wiring cable coming out of said protection box.
However, Ballabio at least suggests an element sealing an exit hole of the wiring cable coming out of a shell (see Fig. 6).
Furthermore, modified Ballabio already taught that the power plug/wiring cable is to the receivers/emitters as taught by Muhlberg in the rejection Claim 9, wherein the receivers/emitters of Ballabio are within the protection box as taught by Dandolo in the rejection of Claim 1; as such, the wiring cable would be from the protection box.
Gong teaches a rubber gasket sealing an exit hole of the wiring cable coming out of a device (see Fig. 1; Col. 4 Lines 46-52 "A conductive wire is passed through the rubber plug into the [logo] device 100 and connected to the circuit board 140 so as to provide control signals and electrical power to the illuminating element 141. The rubber plug provides sealing between the conductive wire and the opening in the second shell 150, thereby preventing moisture and dirt from entering the interior of the logo device 100").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballabio's cable for power plug, as provided by Muhlberg, with a power plug leaving an interior sealed with a rubber gasket as taught by Gong to protect from contaminants (Col. 4 Lines 46-52), especially as Ballabio also desired contaminant protection (Col. 6 Lines 61-64; Col. 7 Lines 5-7) for the shell, within which would be the protection box, and/or as known arrangement for power plugs to exit an interior of a device before attaching to power, and/or to protect the power cable going into a device with a rubber gasket.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Halvarsson (USPN 6062501) directed to a sensor protection box within a shell for electromagnetic device; Brovarone et al (WO 2004/094285) directed to shell for sensor; Zenoni et al (USPN 5613528), Eichenberger (USPN 42796910), Hellstroem (WO 2008/055571), Hellstroem (USPN 6095200), Halvarsson (USPN 6279619), Hellstroem et al (USPN 6513554), Magnusson et al (USPN 6409114), Maina (USPN 5046537), Maina (USPN 5123455), Maina (USPN 4901771) directed to protection box for sensor; Teragawa (US Publication 2009/0279313) directed to darkening elements of foam; Tsay (USPN 5509281), Panapoulos et al (USPN 9629220), Hoffman et al (USPN 10082227), Honda et al (USPN 9976735), Majerczyk (USPN 11326769) directed to rubber gasket sealing; Salton (WO 2005/102892) directed to upper/lower half.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732