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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 24, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 24, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
(ii) With regard to page 6 (line 6), the term "mechanism5" should be changed to the term --mechanism 5--.
(iii) With regard to page 6 (line 21), the term "space3a" should be changed to the term --space 3a--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara (US 2017/0263290 A1) in view of Rose (US 5,600,091).
As per claim 1, Uehara (US 2017/0263290 A1) discloses a recording device (e.g. see Fig. 2) comprising: a base (e.g., 12) accommodating an internal mechanism (e.g. 23, 22, etc.) in a space having an opening (e.g. see Fig. 2 -the inner space in which the aforementioned internal mechanism is provided on the base (12)); a cover (e.g., 14) attached to the opening of the base (12) to close the space; and a gasket (e.g., 20) extending along an outer peripheral portion of the cover (14) in a circumferential shape (e.g., see Figs. 3A, 3B) and compressed by contact to the base (12) (e.g., see Figs. 4, 5), .
As per claim 1, however, Uehara (US 2017/0263290 A1) does not expressly disclose wherein the gasket has a large width portion being relatively large in width spanning between an inside and an outside of the circumferential shape and a small width portion being relatively small in the width, and one or each of the cover and the base has a projection portion in a compression direction of the gasket at a portion corresponding to the small width portion to increase a compression ratio of the small width portion.
Such gasket/cover/base features, however, are known in the art.
As just one example, Rose (US 5,600,091) discloses an analogous enclosure for an electronic device, including a base (e.g., 4) accommodating an internal components in a space having an opening (e.g. see Fig. 2 -the inner space in which the aforementioned internal mechanism is provided on the base (12)); a cover (e.g., 6) attached to the opening of the base (4) to close the space; and a gasket (e.g., 46) extending along an outer peripheral portion of the cover in a circumferential shape and compressed by contact to the base (4) (e.g., see, inter alia, col. 4, ll. 6-10), wherein the gasket (46) has a large width portion (e.g., see Fig. 3 - as seen in the width or lateral direction, portions of the gasket (46) outside of not contacting tongue (22) are considered to be large width portions since they are not in direct compression contact with tongue (22)) being relatively large in width spanning between an inside and an outside of the circumferential shape (the inside faces toward the inside of the enclosure, and the outside is facing outward of the enclosure) and a small width portion (e.g., see Fig. 3 - as seen in the width or lateral direction, portion of the gasket (46) in direct compression contact with tongue (22) which is are considered to be small width portion since it is in direct compression contact with tongue (22) and is smaller in vertical height due to such compression, relative to the uncompressed portion of the gasket (46)) being relatively small in the width, and one or each of the cover (6) and the base (4) has a projection portion (e.g., 22) in a compression (vertical) direction of the gasket (46) at a portion corresponding to the small width portion to increase a compression ratio of the small width portion.
Additionally, as per claim 2, Rose (US 5,600,091) further discloses wherein the gasket (46) has a transition portion (the portion between the small width portion and the large width portion) between the small width portion and the large width portion, the transition portion being "gradually" reduced from the large width portion toward the small width portion in height in the compression (vertical) direction. Note: the step between the small width portion and the large width portion is considered the "gradual" transition portion,
As per claim 5, Rose (US 5,600,091) further discloses wherein the projection portion (22) is provided on the base (4).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Rose (US 5,600,091), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the gasket of Uehara (US 2017/0263290 A1) as having a large width portion being relatively large in width spanning between an inside and an outside of the circumferential shape and a small width portion being relatively small in the width, and one or each of the cover and the base has a projection portion in a compression direction of the gasket at a portion corresponding to the small width portion to increase a compression ratio of the small width portion (including the features of claims 2 and 5), as taught by Rose (US 5,600,091), in order to advantageously provide HF shielding associated with electronic devices, in addition to sealing gaskets to protect the internal, sealed environment of the electrical device, as taught and suggested by Rose (US 5,600,091).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 are tentatively objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but, pending an updated search, amendments or arguments presented by the Applicant and considered by the Examiner in reply to this office communication, would be favorably considered if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-10 are tentatively considered allowable over the art of record, pending an updated search, amendments or arguments presented by the Applicant and considered by the Examiner in reply to this office communication.
Reasons for allowance will be provided at the time prosecution on the merits is closed and a Notice of Allowability is issued, when all outstanding matters, including informalities, objections, rejections, and prior art - including any future prior art references cited by the Examiner and/or Applicant, have been fully addressed, in response to this office action.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein gaskets are provided between covers and bases of various housings, to seal such devices.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights