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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/14/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 1/14/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search would not entail a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has merely alleged that there would be no serious burden without providing evidence to support such a claim and the separate inventions are clearly classified highly differentiated and non-overlapping CPC symbols.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-11 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 1 recites “a connecting element” and further recites “the connecting element is configured such that a matching part of connecting elements can be connected to each other…”, however, the disclosure does not set forth identical connecting elements. So, it is unclear if the “pair of connecting element” includes two unique connecting elements or a pair of identical connecting elements. Although this limitation sets forth a “configured such that” clause, the “pair of the connecting elements” is positively recited in Claim 9. The Examiner cannot determine the metes-and-bounds of the limitation “connecting element” or “pair of the connecting elements”.
Claim 9 positively recites the “pair of the connecting elements” which is not understood as set forth above.
Claim 9 states “…that one connecting element is inserted into a cavity of the other connecting element…” which creates further confusion. Is one connecting element completely inserted into the other connecting element?
The remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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) 1-5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahmed, U.S. Patent 11,412,723.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood, Ahmed teaches:
A body (28), which has a base surface (see below), an end side (see below) extending
laterally relative to the base surface, and a cavity (see below) open toward the end side, a slot (see below) opening toward the end side being provided in a wall of the cavity facing the base surface; and
a plug-in component (11), which protrudes from the base surface, is spaced apart from the end side, and has a stalk portion (see below) and a head portion (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
481
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
**Examiner's Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “when the connecting element…in a connected state”, which does not constitute a recitation of positively claimed structural elements, but a recitation of function which the claimed device must be capable. The prior art of Ahmed ‘723, is interpreted as capable of these functions. See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3], see Ex Parte Marsham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 2, Ahmed teaches:
The connecting element has a spacer (26) protruding laterally from the stalk portion of the plug-in component, the spacer divides the stalk portion into two sections, and the spacer.
**Examiner's Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “configured to space…the base surface”, which does not constitute a recitation of positively claimed structural elements, but a recitation of function which the claimed device must be capable. The prior art of Ahmed ‘723, is interpreted as capable of these functions. See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3], see Ex Parte Marsham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 3, Ahmed teaches:
The stalk portion and the head portion are respectively formed as a plate-shaped component (see above), and the connecting element has two spacers (see 26, note both sides) protruding laterally from two side surfaces of the stalk portion.
Regarding Claim 4, Ahmed teaches:
The connecting element has a positioning component (11).
**Examiner's Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “configured to fix…the stalk portion.”, which does not constitute a recitation of positively claimed structural elements, but a recitation of function which the claimed device must be capable. The prior art of Ahmed ‘723, is interpreted as capable of these functions. See MPEP 2111.04 [R-3], see Ex Parte Marsham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding Claim 5, Ahmed teaches:
The positioning component is formed as latch element (see 15-17, 37).
Regarding Claim 9, (see rejection of Claim 1) insofar as the claim is understood (see 112 rejection above) Ahmed ‘723 teaches:
A pair of connecting elements (28, 11) are connected to each other such that one connecting element is inserted into a cavity (see rejection of Claim 1) of the other connecting element with its head portion (see rejection of Claim 1) inserted from an end side (see rejection of Claim 1) of the other connecting element, wherein during insertion, the one connecting element is guided with its stalk portion (see rejection of Claim 1) in a slot (see rejection of Claim 1) of the other connecting element, and base surfaces(see rejection of Claim 1, see element 12) of the pair of connecting elements are opposing each other and are spaced apart from each other in a connected state (see Figs. 2-13.
Regarding Claim 10, (see rejection of Claim 2), Ahmed teaches:
Wherein one of the connecting elements includes a spacer (see rejection of Claim 2) protruding laterally from the stalk portion of the plug-in component (see 11), the spacer dividing the stalk portion into two sections (see rejection of Claim 1, see 11), and the spacer being configured to space a first member (element 8) received on a first side of the spacer facing the base surface apart from a second member (element 2) received on a second side of the spacer facing away from the base surface; and wherein the other connecting element does not have a spacer (see Fig. 3, no spacer on element 28).
Regarding Claim 11, Ahmed teaches:
One connecting element has a positioning component formed as a latch element (15-17, 37) and the other connecting element has a positioning component formed as a protrusion (30-31, 34) protruding from its base surface.
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed ‘723.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Ahmed appears to teach the connecting element formed integrally, but this is not explicitly disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Ahmed with the connecting element formed integrally and being formed of a plastic material by injection molding because an integral component would not require assembly which would reduce manufacturing costs and plastic is an ideal material for integral formation which is also ideal for use in water as this device is intended.
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that these claims are considered to be product-by-process claims due to the limitations “injection molding“. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966. See MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed ‘723 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen, U.S. Patent 11,658,383.
All the aspects of the instant invention are disclosed above but for the connecting element configured to be used for a base station antenna
Chen teaches a base station antenna attached to a pole clamp (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an attachment between the base station and pole clamp being the connecting element (connecting elements? See 112 rejection above) because that would permit easy removal of the base station from the clamp to reduce the weight on the clamp if the clamp must be repositioned.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677