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 .
This is a non-final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 11/26/2025.
Claims 5, 7-20 and 23 have been canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6, 21, 22 and 24-29 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24, line 3 “cause the jaws to deform the floatation device” should be - - configure to cause the jaws to deform a flotation device - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 21 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US Patent No. 9,267,517), in view of Antz (DE 3546181 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson et al. discloses a system for securing a flotation device, the system comprising:
a clamp (see annotated Fig. 2) configured to connect to the flotation device, the clamp comprising:
an end portion (see annotated Fig. 2);
a pair of opposing jaws (see annotated Fig. 2); and
a bolt coupled to a portion of the clamp such that, when the bolt is extended through the clamp, the bolt forces the jaws closed (see annotated Fig. 2);
Wilson et al. does not disclose a line length adjuster comprising an end portion, wherein the line length adjuster is configured to adjust a length of a line to a given length; and
a connector that is (i) removably connected to the end portion of the clamp and (ii) removably connected to the end portion of the line length adjuster, the connector comprising a gate that, when opened, allows the connector to be connected or disconnected from the clamp or the line length adjuster.
However, Antz teaches a line length adjuster comprising an end portion, wherein the line length adjuster is configured to adjust a length of a line to a given length (see annotated Fig. 6a); and
a connector that is removably connected to the end portion of the line length adjuster, the connector comprising a gate that, when opened, allows the connector to be connected or disconnected (see Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 6a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a clamp from Wilson et al. with the line length adjuster and the carabiner from Antz in order to connect the carabiner with the clamp, and secure a tarp by adjusting the length of the line.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
433
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wilson et al. in view of Antz discloses the claimed invention except for the given length is between 1 and 7 feet. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the given length is between 1 and 7 feet, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner V. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to have a line to a given length for the application being use.
Regarding claim 4, Wilson et al. discloses, wherein the clamp is a first clamp (see annotated Fig. 2), and wherein the system further comprises:
a second clamp, wherein the second clamp is configured to connect to a flotation device (more than one clamps, see Col. 5, lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wilson et al. in view of Antz discloses, wherein the line length adjuster is selected from the group consisting of a rope adjuster and a retractable pulley device (see annotated Fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Wilson et al. in view of Antz discloses, wherein the connector comprises a carabiner (see Fig. 5 and annotated Fig. 6a).
Regarding claim 24, Wilson et al. discloses, wherein each of the pair of opposing jaws comprise a serrated surface that, when the pair of opposing jaws are forced closed via the bolt, cause the jaws to deform the floatation device (see annotated Fig. 2, and Fig 4).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Wilson et al. in view of Antz discloses wherein the clamp further comprises a first hole that is proximate to the end portion of the clamp (see annotated Fig. 2 from Wilson et al.),
wherein the line length adjuster further comprises a second hole proximate to the end portion of the line length adjuster (see annotated Fig. 6a from Antz), and
wherein the connector is (i) removably connected to the end portion of the clamp via the first hole and (ii) removably connected to the end portion of the line length adjuster via the second hole (see annotated Fig. 6a from Antz).
Regarding claim 26, Wilson et al. discloses, wherein the clamp further comprises a hinge connected to each of the pair of opposing jaws (see annotated Fig. 2), and
wherein the pair of opposing jaws move relative to the hinge when opening and closing (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Wilson et al. further discloses, further comprising a cap affixed to the bolt that enables a user to extend the bolt through the clamp (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28, Wilson et al. discloses, wherein the cap comprises a textured surface that enables a hand of the user to grip the cap in order to extend the bolt through the clamp (see annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US Patent No. 9,267,517), in view of Antz (DE 3546181 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chartier (US Patent No. 3,986,746).
Regarding claim 2, Wilson et al. as modified by Antz does not disclose the clamp comprises a spring clamp.
However, Chartier teaches the clamp comprises a spring (28) clamp (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamp from Wilson et al. by including the compression spring from Chartier in order the spring acts to bias the jaws apart to the limits allowed by the bolt.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US Patent No. 9,267,517), in view of Antz (DE 3546181 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fister et al. (US Patent No. 5,005,266).
Regarding claim 22, Wilson et al. as modified by Antz does not disclose the gate comprises a spring-loaded gate that, when pressure is applied to the spring-loaded gate, opens thereby allowing the connector to be connected or disconnected from one or both of the clamp or the line length adjuster.
However, Fister et al. teaches the gate comprises a spring-loaded gate that, when pressure is applied to the spring-loaded gate, opens thereby allowing the connector to be connected or disconnected (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector from Antz with the connector from Fister et al. that has a spring-loaded gate in order to keep the gate to a closed position, and secure the clamp and line length adjuster together.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US Patent No. 9,267,517), in view of Antz (DE 3546181 A1), and Fister et al. (US Patent No. 5,005,266).
Regarding claim 29, Wilson et al. discloses a system for securing a flotation device, the system comprising:
a clamp configured to connect to the flotation device (see annotated Fig. 2), the clamp comprising:
an end portion (see annotated Fig. 2);
a first hole proximate to the end portion of the clamp (see annotated Fig. 2);
a pair of opposing jaws (see annotated Fig. 2);
a hinge connecting the pair of opposing jaws (see annotated Fig. 2); and
a bolt coupled to a portion of the clamp such that, when the bolt is extended through the clamp, the bolt forces the jaws closed (see annotated Fig. 2).
Wilson et al. does not disclose a line length adjuster configured to adjust a length of a line to a given length while the clamp is connected to the flotation device, the line length adjuster comprising:
an end portion; and
a second hole proximate to the end portion of the line length adjuster; and
a carabiner that is (i) removably connected to the first hole and (ii) removably connected to the second hole, the carabiner comprising a spring-loaded gate that, when pressure is applied to the spring-loaded gate thereby opening the spring-loaded gate, allows the carabiner to be connected or disconnected from one or both of the end portion of the clamp or the end portion of the line length adjuster.
However, Antz teaches a line length adjuster (see annotated Fig. 6a), the line length adjuster comprising:
an end portion (see annotated Fig. 6a); and
a second hole proximate to the end portion of the line length adjuster (see annotated Fig. 6a); and
a carabiner that is removably connected to the second hole (see annotated Fig. 6a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a clamp from Wilson et al. with the line length adjuster and the carabiner from Antz in order to connect the carabiner with the clamp and secure a tarp by adjusting the length of the line.
Also, Fister et al. teaches the carabiner comprising a spring-loaded gate that, when pressure is applied to the spring-loaded gate thereby opening the spring-loaded gate, allows the carabiner to be connected or disconnected (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carabiner from Antz with the carabiner from Fister et al. that has a spring-loaded gate in order to keep the gate to a closed position, and secure the clamp and line length adjuster together.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 29 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in Wilson et al., in view of Antz. The proper combination of Wilson et al. in view of Antz broadly discloses a clamp, a line length adjuster and a connector, depicted on annotated Figs. 2 and 6a.
Examiner’s Comment
In view of applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted in the reply filed on 11/26/2025, the drawing objections indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn. The claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677