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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-10, 16-20 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/18/2025.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahn (KR20020046820) with references made to attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Ahn discloses, A wire clamp (See Figs 2, 3 and 7), comprising: a clamping lever; a driving lever extending parallel to the clamping lever (Figs 2, 3 and 7 show a driver lever and a clamping lever 18, 16, See Paragraph [36]), the driving lever having an upper support (bracket 22 or 46);
a shaft that penetrates a center of the driving lever to connect to the clamping lever (the cap screws 20, protrude through the spring and connect the levers. (See Fig 7 and Paragraph [0051]);
a spring in the driving lever and on an outer circumferential surface of the shaft, the spring configured to press the driving lever against the clamping lever; and (Fig 7 shows a spring 32 in the driving lever)
an upper pivot that protrudes from an inner wall of the upper support, the upper pivot configured to isolate the upper support from direct contact with the clamping lever (the ball 26 and the disk 52 protrude from the upper support 46 and isolate the two levers from direct contact),
wherein the driving lever has a load point and an effort point at opposite ends of the driving lever and on opposite sides of the shaft, the effort point being connected in a direction of a straight line to the shaft and the effort point, the straight line intersecting the effort point, the load point, and the center of the driving lever. (This is inherent to the design of the device; the pivot is in the middle along with the spring and the load point is opposite the driving lever.)
Ahn discloses, regarding claims 2-3, the lateral surface of the driving lever is shown as being a rhombus in that it does not have any right angles. Given the manner of construction, the effort points and load point are on opposite vertices as the pivot point is in the middle. Regarding claim 6, Fig 2 shows a lower support of the driving lever at 48. Regarding claim 7, (the ball 27 and the disk 56 protrude from the lower support 48 and isolate the two levers from direct contact. Regarding claim 8, Fig 2 shows the driving lever between the upper and lower support. Regarding claim 9, Fig 2 shows a pad (not labeled at 14 on each distal end of each lever)
Regarding claim 16, Ahn discloses, Ahn discloses, A wire clamp (See Figs 2, 3 and 7), comprising: a clamping lever; a driving lever extending parallel to the clamping lever (Figs 2, 3 and 7 show a driver lever and a clamping lever 18, 16, See Paragraph [36]), the driving lever having an upper support (bracket 22 or 46);
a shaft that penetrates a center of the driving lever to connect to the clamping lever (the cap screws 20, protrude through the spring and connect the levers. (See Fig 7 and Paragraph [0051]);
a spring in the driving lever and on an outer circumferential surface of the shaft, the spring configured to press the driving lever against the clamping lever; and (Fig 7 shows a spring 32 in the driving lever)
an upper pivot that protrudes from an inner wall of the upper support, the upper pivot configured to isolate the upper support from direct contact with the clamping lever. The ball 26 and the disk 52 protrude from the upper support 46 and isolate the two levers from direct contact. The lateral surface of the driving lever is shown as being a rhombus in that it does not have any right angles. Fig 2 shows a lower support of the driving lever at 48. The ball 27 and the disk 56 protrude from the lower support 48 and isolate the two levers from direct contact. Fig 2 shows the driving lever between the upper and lower support. Regarding claim 17, wherein the driving lever has a load point and an effort point at opposite ends of the driving lever and on opposite sides of the shaft, the effort point being connected in a direction of a straight line to the shaft and the effort point, the straight line intersecting the effort point, the load point, and the center of the driving lever. (This is inherent to the design of the device; the pivot is in the middle along with the spring and the load point is opposite the driving lever. Given the manner of construction, the effort points and load point are on opposite vertices as the pivot point is in the middle.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-5, 10, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (KR20020046820).
The teachings of Ahn have been discussed above. Ahn fails to disclose, regarding claims 4, 5, 18, 19, the included angles of about 80-85 degrees or 82 degrees.
It would have been obvious to adapt Ahn to provide the claimed angles since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The angle would be chosen based on the desired clamping force to be provided.
Ahn fails to discloses, regarding claims 10 and 20, the spring has an elastic modulus of 628 gf/mm2. It would have been obvious to adapt Ahn to provide the claimed elastic modulus since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The elastic modulus would be chosen based on the desired clamping force to be provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/11/2026