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 .
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of legal phraseology “means”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-10 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Daoud (US 6,462,275).
Re claim 1, Daoud discloses a cable gland, comprising:
an entry component (62) including lower opening, an upper opening, and a channel defined between the lower opening and the upper opening; and
an armor stop (10) removably engaged in the channel through the lower opening of the entry component, the armor stop having an elongated hollow body (20) with a distal end, a proximal end (50), and at least one slot (12) extending at least partially along a length of body;
wherein the proximal end of the armor stop is compressible, by means of the slot, in a lateral direction to insert and remove the armor stop from the lower opening of the channel (Fig 3).
Re claim 2, wherein the armor stop has at least one rib (42) on an outer surface of the body (Fig 1).
Re claim 5, wherein the at least one rib extends up to ninety degrees around a circumference of the outer surface of the armor stop (Fig 1).
Re claim 6, wherein the at least one rib extends up to fifty degrees around a circumference of the outer surface of the armor stop (Figs 1, 3).
Re claim 7, wherein the at least one rib is positioned in a lower half of the body of the armor stop (Fig 3).
Re claim 9, wherein the armor stop includes a channel (32, 132) extending from the proximal end to the distal end of the armor stop, wherein the channel of the armor stop has an inner diameter less than an inner diameter of the channel of the entry component (Fig 3).
Re claim 10, wherein the proximal end of the armor stop has an outer diameter (see ref # 50) greater than an outer diameter of a central portion of the body defining a step between the proximal end and the central portion of the body (Fig 3).
Re claim 16, Daoud discloses an armor stop (10) for a cable gland, comprising:
an elongated hollow body (20) with a distal end, a proximal end (50), and at least one slot (12) extending at least partially along a length of body;
wherein the proximal end of the armor stop is compressible, by means of the slot, in a lateral direction to insert and remove the armor stop from a lower opening of the cable gland (Fig 3).
Re claim 17, further comprising at least one rib (42) on an outer surface of the body capable of engaging within a corresponding annular groove within the cable gland which is not positively claimed (Fig 3).
Re claim 18, wherein the at least one rib includes a first rib (42) on a first side of the armor stop and a second rib (40) on a second side of the armor stop opposite the first side, each of the first rib and the second rib extending up to ninety degrees around a circumference of the outer surface of the armor stop (Fig 1).
Re claim 19, wherein the proximal end of the armor stop has an outer diameter (see ref # 50) greater than an outer diameter of a central portion of the body defining a step between the proximal end and the central portion of the body (Fig 3).
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) 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daoud (US 6,462,275).
The teaching as discussed above does not disclose the slot has a width that decreases along a length of the slot from the proximal end of the body towards the distal end of the body (re claim 8), a diameter of the proximal end is compressible up to twenty-five percent (re claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the slot of Daoud by employing the decreased width along the length of the slot or employing compressible diameter of Daoud up to twenty-five percent for intended use, since more than a mere change of form is necessary for patentability. In re Span-Deck Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daoud (US 6,462,275) in view Maass et al (US 2024/0072527).
The teaching as discussed above does not disclose the distal end of the armor stop includes a chamfered edge.
Maass et al teach the use of a distal end of the armor stop (110) includes a chamfered edge (Fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distal end of the armor stop of Daoud by employing the chamfered edge for easily inserting the entry component.
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daoud (US 6,462,275) in view of Gehre (US 2020/0169073).
The teaching as discussed above does not disclose a middle nut removably connected to the entry component (re claim 13), a back nut removably connected to the middle nut (re claim 14).
Gehre teach the use of a middle nut (10) removably connected to the entry component, a back nut (33) removably connected to the middle nut (Fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the middle nut and the back nut with the cable gland of Daooud for clamping the cable.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daoud (US 6,462,275) in view of Gehre (US 2020/0169073) as applied to claims 13, 14 above, and further in view of Maass et al (US 2024/0072527).
The teaching as discussed above does not disclose an ingress seal compressible between the back nut and the middle nut.
Maass et al teach the use of an ingress seal (120) compressible between the back nut and the middle nut (Fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the ingress seal with the modified Daoud for sealing the cable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG V NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-1979. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 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, Imani 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.
/HUNG V NGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights