This is a Final office action for serial number 17/757,243.
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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-25, 28-30, 35, 37-39, 41, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the clamping plates" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner can not determine if the “clamping plates” are the same at the “at least three clamping plates” recited in line 6 therefore the claim is indefinite and confusing.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the clamping plates" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner can not determine if the “clamping plates” are the same at the “at least three clamping plates” recited in line 6 or the “clamping plates” recited in line 7 therefore the claim is indefinite and confusing.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "a clamping plate” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner can not determine if the “clamping plate” is one of the “at least three clamping plates” recited in line 6 of claim 23 or including in the “clamping plates” recited in line 7 of claim 23 or the middle clamping plate recited in line 26 of claim 23 therefore the claim is indefinite and confusing or the
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
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.
(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.
(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) 31 is/are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Lucien FR79737. The applicant is reminded that the one elongate flexible envelope, a number of sheaths, one or more lines are not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to one elongate flexible envelope, a number of sheaths, one or more lines. (It is known to have cylindrical lines within Blockley et al. 20120230636A1 therefore Lucien is capable of supporting one elongate flexible envelope, a number of sheaths, one or more lines).
Blanchet discloses claim:
31. An end fastening device for fastening an end of a line guide device which is displaceable to-and-fro and has at least one elongate, flexible envelope, which has a number of sheaths for one or more lines extending in a longitudinal direction from a first end to a second end, the end fastening device comprising: at least two clamping plates with substantially flat major faces for exerting a clamping force, wherein the clamping plates in each case have two lateral end portions and two long end faces, which extend parallel to a principal direction, and are arrangeable with the end faces perpendicular to the envelope; and a number of strain relief elements, each with a clamping surface for one or more lines and for opposing arrangement between facing major faces of the clamping plates; wherein two separate plate connectors are provided, in order to retain the at least two clamping plates at in each case one of the two lateral end portions, wherein each plate connector has two vertically opposing bracket portions for connection with two clamping plates, which wherein the bracket portions in each case interact at least form-fittingly with an end portion of one of the two clamping plates, and the plate connectors are configured to hold the at least two clamping plates together by gripping of the clamping plates at the long end faces of the clamping plates.
[AltContent: textbox (First clamping plate upper (2)
Flat major face
Strain relief element (3-6 and 3a-6a)
2nd clamping plate lower (1)
Flat major face)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
312
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1st Plate connector (8a and 8b) 2nd plate connector (7a and 7b)
Lateral sides of clamping plate
End portion one clamping plate interacts with bracket portion)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Long end face )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vertical opposing bracket portions connecting two clamping plates (2 and 1) wherein )][AltContent: textbox (Lateral sides)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
312
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vertical opposing bracket portions)][AltContent: textbox (Vertical opposing bracket portions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
308
196
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 24-25, 28-30, 37, 38-39, 41, and 44 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that,
As the Applicant understands from the Office Action, the Office appears to be of a view that the end fastening device according to the independent claim 31 is not novel over Lucien, and interprets the elements 7a, 7b as the plate connectors in the sense of independent claim 31. However, the Applicant respectfully submits that previously presented independent claim 31 sets forth that "each plate connector has two opposing bracket portions". The Office interprets the foot part of each element 7a, 7b of Lucien (see annotated FIG. 1 of Lucien with arrows below) with which each of the elements 7a, 7b connects with a respective profile 1 or 2 as the "two opposing bracket portions" in the sense of independent claim 31.
Besides, each one of the elements 7a, 7b of Lucien does not connect anything - the respective element 7a or 7b only provides for a through-opening for receiving of the bolt 18b. Otherwise, each of the elements 7a, 7b of Lucien holds on only one of the profiles
Moreover, with regards to technical effect, the Applicant respectfully submits that the plate connectors hold two clamping plates together even when the bolts (if any are used for additional clamping force) are removed. After removal of the bolts, the end fastening device does not fall apart. Therefore, it is more convenient in assembly and disassembly. The end fastening device of independent claim 31 addresses the technical problem of providing for an end fastening device which is convenient in assembly and disassembly.
Is hereby traversed by the following remarks. The applicant interprets the claim limitations “two separate plate connectors” as having only two plate connectors being only two connectors being a first one piece connector on one end of the clamping plate and a second one piece connector on the other end of the clamping plate. However, when the claim is interpreted in the broadest sense Lucien clearly teaches/discloses claim 31 as long as the plate connectors (7a and 7b together) retain at least two clamping plate (1 and 2) is located at the two lateral end portions of the clamping plates (1 and 2), and include two vertically opposing bracket portions (near 53). Lucien clearly teaches/discloses wherein two separate plate connectors (7a and 7b together being the first plate connector but separate from the second plate connector being 8a and 8b together being the second plate connector) are provided, in order to retain the at least two clamping plates (1 and 2) at in each case one of the two lateral end portions, wherein each plate connector (7a and 7b together being the first plate connector, 8a and 8b together being the second plate connector) has two vertically opposing bracket portions (end projections on 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, see figure below) for connection with two clamping plates (1 and 2), which wherein the bracket portions in each case interact at least form-fittingly with an end portion of one of the two clamping plates, and the plate connectors are configured to hold the at least two clamping plates (1 and 2) together by gripping of the clamping plates at the long end faces of the clamping plates.
[AltContent: textbox (First clamping plate upper (2)
Flat major face
Strain relief element (3-6 and 3a-6a)
2nd clamping plate lower (1)
Flat major face)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
312
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (1st Plate connector (8a and 8b) 2nd plate connector (7a and 7b)
Lateral sides of clamping plate
End portion one clamping plate interacts with bracket portion)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Long end face )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vertical opposing bracket portions connecting two clamping plates (2 and 1) wherein )][AltContent: textbox (Lateral sides)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
312
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vertical opposing bracket portions)][AltContent: textbox (Vertical opposing bracket portions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
308
196
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631