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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected because of the limitations “the cable tie body and the grip handle are integrally formed” lacks support in the original specification which filed 11-07-2022; therefore such lack of detailed support in the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (8,348,113) in view of Chmelar (2016/0119018).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Huang teaches a cable tie handle for enabling an object to be lifted, the cable tie handle (figs 1-11) comprising:
a cable tie head (members 4 and 14) with a strap passageway (member 400) extending through the cable tie head;
a cable tie body (member 1) extending from the cable tie head, wherein the cable tie body having an end (member 13) for feeding into the strap passageway to form a loop; and
a grip handle (member 12) positioned between the cable tie body and the cable tie head, wherein the grip handle has a plurality of projections (member 120) for forming an easy to grip surface.
Huang does not teach a bump stop extending from a side of the cable tie body, wherein the bump stop prevents the cable tie body from being pulled through the cable tie head.
Chmelar teaches cable tie (figs 4A to 4B) having a bump stop (member 340) extending from a side of the cable tie body, wherein the bump stop prevents the cable tie body from being pulled through the cable tie head (para 0040 and 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the device of Huang by adding a bump stop of Chmelar to prevent fracturing of the device.
It is noted that the lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim (i.e. a grip handle molded with the cable tie body) makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). Office personnel should note that reliance on the alternative grounds of 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 does not eliminate the need to explain both the anticipation and obviousness aspects of the rejections. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device Huang-Chmelar discloses the plurality of projections have various heights forming a pattern to accommodate holding the grip handle (Huang, fig 6).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device Huang-Chmelar discloses the cable tie body having teeth (Huang, member 130) and the strap passageway having a locking wedge (Huang, member 431) that engages the teeth on the cable tie body (Huang, fig 8).
Regarding claims 6-7, the modified device Huang-Chmelar discloses the cable tie body (Chmelar, figs 4A to 4B) having a first side and a second side, wherein the cable tie body having teeth (Chmelar, member 320) on the first side and a bump stop (Chmelar, member 340) on the second side, wherein the bump stop is a projection extending outwardly from the second side of the cable tie body (Chmelar, para 0040 and 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the device of Huang by adding a bump stop of Chmelar to prevent fracturing of the device.
Regarding claims 9-10, the modified device Huang-Chmelar teaches all limitations of the claims and Chmelar further teaches the end has a bent tip (fig 1A and 1B the portion at the end of member 300), wherein the cable tie body is configured to form a loop to surround or couple to one or more objects, and wherein the grip handle is positioned proximate to the end of the cable tie body (figs 5A to 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the device of Huang by making the tip bent, as taught by Chmelar, to make the circle easier.
Regarding claim 11, the modified device Huang-Chmelar does not clearly teach the cable tie body and the grip handle are molded together. However, Chmelar further teaches the device structures being molded together (para 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the device by molding as taught by Chmelar as the technique is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 12, the modified device Huang-Chmelar discloses the cable tie body is configured to surround one or more pipes.
It is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this instant case, Huang teaches an apparatus, as presently claimed, that would be capable of surrounding one or more object (i.e. pipes). Also, Miyazawa has the same apparatus structure with comprising all of the units as claimed, therefore it would come up with the same produce as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, the modified device Huang-Chmelar discloses the cable tie body is configured to couple with one or more packing straps.
It is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this instant case, Huang teaches an apparatus, as presently claimed, that would be capable of coupling with one or more object (i.e. straps). Also, Miyazawa has the same apparatus structure with comprising all of the units as claimed, therefore it would come up with the same produce as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, the modified device Huang-Chmelar discloses the cable tie body and the grip handle are integrally formed (Huang, fig 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, date 03-31-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C §102 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive because applicant argues that there cannot be the combination between Huang and Chmelar because the device could not move forward to fasten the rod. However, the examiner respectfully disagree since the bump stop of Chmelar allow the body to move forward but prevent move backward.
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 BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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, KHOA D. HUYNH can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights