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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that De reference does not disclose zig-zag shaped openings, as the passages 61,62,63,66 and 67 of De are strictly straight, intersecting orthogonal passages.
Examiner notes that De discloses zig-zag shaped openings as seen in examiner annotated fig 7 below.
Applicant argues that for Claim 7, Gilmore reference does not disclose the presence of O-rings.
Examiner notes that Gilmore teaches O-rings as part of the elastomeric seal at its ends forming rounded elastomer, which are O-rings, similar to the applicant’s disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
860
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 – 5 and 8 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De et al. (U.S. Patent # 3330563).
Regarding Claim 1, De figs 6 and 7 disclose a vent seal (47) disposed in a wall of a sealed enclosure ( wall of 32), comprising:
a barrier defining a balloon portion (48) and an integral sealing element (49, 49), wherein the balloon portion extends through an opening in the wall (opening of 54) of the sealed enclosure (32) and wherein the sealing element (49) is disposed within a groove (groove with 49) defined in the wall of the sealed enclosure (wall of 32); and
an air router (air router with openings 61, 62, 63, 66, 67) disposed within a recess defined in the wall of the sealed enclosure ( recess in the wall of 32),
the air router holding the sealing element within the groove ( air router with passages 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, holding 49 within the groove), wherein the air router defines one or more openings comprising a circuitous route for the passage of air into an interior cavity of the balloon portion of the barrier (air router with openings 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 forming a circuitous route),
wherein the circuitous route comprises one or more zig-zag-shaped openings ( air router with openings 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 forming zig-zag-shaped openings as seen in examiner annotated fig 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
860
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, De discloses the vent seal wherein the barrier is composed of flexible rubber (Col 2 : Lines 51 – 52).
Regarding Claim 3, De discloses the vent seal wherein the air router is composed of plastic ( Col 2 : Lines 34 – 36).
Regarding Claim 4, De discloses the vent seal wherein the circuitous route for the passage of air inhibits the passage or particulates therethrough and into the interior cavity of the balloon portion ( air router with openings 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 forming a circuitous route configured to inhibit the passage or particulates therethrough and into the interior cavity of the balloon portion 48).
Regarding Claim 5, De discloses the vent seal wherein the wall of the sealed enclosure defines a cut-out (cut out of 33) around the opening (opening of 54) sized and shaped to accommodate expansion of the balloon portion ( cut out of 33 configured to accommodate expansion of the balloon portion 48).
Regarding Claim 8, De discloses the vent seal wherein the balloon portion expands into an interior of the enclosure when air pressure outside of the enclosure is greater than air pressure in the interior of the enclosure (48 configured to expands into an interior of the enclosure when air pressure outside of the enclosure is greater than air pressure in the interior of the enclosure).
Regarding Claim 9, De discloses the vent seal wherein the balloon portion collapses when air pressure outside of the enclosure is lower than air pressure in the interior of the enclosure ( 48 configured to collapse when air pressure outside of the enclosure is lower than air pressure in the interior of the enclosure).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De in view of Fournier (U.S. Paten # 3940152).
Regarding Claim 6, De discloses the vent seal.
De does not disclose wherein the cut-out is conically shaped.
However, Fournier teaches wherein the cut-out is conically shaped (cut out with 40 is conically shaped, fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cut-out around the opening of De to be angular as in Fournier with a reasonable expectation of success so that the cut-outs retain the shape of the balloon portion of the barrier.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De in view of Gilmore (U.S. Patent # 4394022).
Regarding Claim 7, De discloses the vent seal.
De does not disclose wherein the sealing element is an 0-ring and further wherein the groove is circular in shape and formed in the recess around an exterior of the opening through which the balloon portion extends.
However, Gilmore teaches wherein the sealing element is an 0-ring (as seen in examiner annotated fig 2 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sealing element of De to be an O-ring as in Gilmore with a reasonable expectation of success so that the O-ring is retained in the circular groove.
The combination of De and Gilmore discloses further wherein the groove is circular in shape ( De groove of 49) and formed in the recess around an exterior of the opening through which the balloon portion extends (De groove of 49 forms recess around an exterior of the opening of 54 through which the balloon portion 48 extends).
PNG
media_image2.png
567
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. SUSMITHA KONERU whose telephone number is (571) 270-5333. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9 A.M.- 4 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached on 571.272.8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights