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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claims 1-2, 3, 12, 14 and 19 are currently amended; claims 4-11 and 20 are original; claims 13 and 15-18 were previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 01/16/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot based on the current rejection/interpretation of DeFrance, and McKinnon necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DeFrance (U.S. Pat. No. 20130067744 A1).
Regarding claim 1, DeFrance teaches a line spacer for installation onto lines, the spacer comprising:
an end portion (end portion of 1, 2) configured to transition between an open state (fig. 1) and a closed state (fig. 2);
a first mating portion (1);
a second mating portion (2) configured to mate with the first mating portion to maintain the end portion in the closed state, wherein the spacer is configured to be installed on a line of the lines when the end portion is associated with the line and maintained in the closed state [capable/intended use]; and
a linear actuator (20) operable for providing linear actuator forces in linear opposite directions; wherein a linear actuator force of the linear actuator forces causes relative movement of the first and second mating portions;
the first mating portion defines an opening (14): and the second mating portion is received within the opening responsive to operation of the linear actuator to maintain the end portion in the closed state (portion 28 of 2).
Regarding claim 2, The spacer as set forth in claim 1, wherein:
the end portion (end portion of 1, 2) is a first end portion that comprises a first line clamp, that comprises a first clamp portion (7) and a second clamp portion (77), the spacer comprises a second line clamp that comprises a third clamp portion (6) and a fourth clamp portion (76), the second clamp portion and the fourth clamp portion are fixed relative to each other, the first clamp portion is movable relative to the second clamp portion. the third clamp
portion, and the fourth clamp portion, and the third clamp portion is movable relative to the first clamp portion, the second clamp portion, and the fourth clamp portion.
Regarding claim 7, DeFrance teaches wherein the second mating portion (7) is biased toward mating with the first mating portion (77).
Regarding claim 8, DeFrance teaches at least one of the first mating portion or the second mating portion comprises a linearly moving portion (horizontal portion of 7 and 77).
Regarding claim 9, DeFrance teaches the first mating portion (77) comprises a notch (notch 30A receiving 32A) and the second mating portion comprises a roller (32A).
Regarding claim 10, DeFrance teaches the spacer comprises a line clamp (receptacle defined by 7 and 77) that comprises a first portion (42 left) and a second portion (42 right), the first mating portion is associated with the first portion and the second mating portion is associated with the second portion.
Regarding claim 11, DeFrance teaches a second end portion (7) configured to transition between an open state and a closed state, wherein the second mating portion is configured to mate with the first mating portion (77) to maintain the second end portion in the closed state.
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McKinnon (U.S. Pat. No. 6448503 B1).
Regarding claim 19, McKinnon teaches a line spacer for installation onto lines, the spacer comprising: a first end portion, comprising an inner clamp segment (1b) and an outer clamp segment (1a), configured to transition between an open state and a closed state; a second end portion, comprising an inner clamp segment (2b) and an outer clamp segment (2a) configured to transition between an open state and a closed state; and a mechanism (4) to place the first end portion in the closed state from the open state and to place the second end portion in the closed state from the open state, wherein the spacer is configured to be installed on a first line of the lines (lines between 1a, 1b and 2a, 2b) via the first end portion when the first end portion is associated with the first line and in the closed state and the spacer is installed on a second line of the lines via the second end portion when the second end portion is associated with the second line and in the closed state, and wherein the mechanism moves the first end portion, from the open state to the closed state, and the second end portion, from the open state to the closed state. McKinnon discloses the claimed invention except for the outer clamp segments move, relatively toward each other while the inner clamp segments remain stationary relative to each other. However, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the inner and outer clamps such that the outer clamp segments move, relatively toward each other while the inner clamp segments remain stationary relative to each other, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 20, McKinnon teaches a fixing feature (13) to keep the mechanism in a condition that maintains the first end portion in the closed state and the second end portion in the closed state (see Figs. 1-2 for configuration).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-18 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights