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
Newly submitted claim 18 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The originally presented independent claims are drawn toward “An apparatus connection device for connection of an electromedical apparatus, the apparatus connection device comprising:” (Claims 1 and 17) and “An apparatus, comprising:” (Claims 13 and 15) with all claim language drawn towards the structure of the connection device comprising first and second swivel anchor couplings and a mounting device (hooking-in element/receptacle element), but none of these claims require the structure of an electromedical apparatus. The newly submitted claim 18 requires at least a first electromedical apparatus comprising a bottom surface and either one of a second electromedical apparatus or a support comprising a top surface.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 18 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wecke (U.S. Pat. No. 5361925).
With respect to claim 13, Wecke discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1, terminal box 100) comprising: a bottom (Fig. 1, base 1); a first swivel anchor (first locking bolt 3) rotatably connected to the bottom to extend therefrom (Fig. 7, first locking bolt 3 is inserted and rotated in bore 10 of base 1 connecting to base 1 and extending upward from base 1) and to rotate about a first axis (first locking bolt 3 rotates about a first vertical axis that runs through first bores 10 and 4), a second swivel anchor (second locking bolt 3) rotatably connected to the bottom to extend therefrom (Fig. 7, second locking bolt 3 is inserted and rotated in bore 10 of base 1 connecting to base 1 and extending upward from base 1) and to rotate about a second axis (second locking bolt 3 rotates about a second vertical axis that runs through second bores 10 and 4) that is arranged parallel and with distance to the first axis; (first vertical axis) and a hooking-in element or a receptacle element (Fig. 1, mount 18 with hexagon socket 19 for attachment of devices) connected to the bottom to extend therefrom (mount 18 is fixed onto the bottom 17 of base 1) that is arranged with distance to the first swivel anchor (first locking bolt 3) and the second swivel anchor (second locking bolt 3); wherein the first swivel anchor (first locking bolt 3) comprises a first locking member (Fig. 3, blade 9) and the second swivel anchor (second locking bolt 3) comprises a second locking member (blade 9), wherein the first and second locking members (first and second locking bolt 3) each comprise two blades (blade 9 has left and right wing-like portions) that project radially from a hub (shank 7a): and wherein the blades (left and right wing-like portions) of the first locking member (first locking bolt 3) are oriented transversely to the blades (left and right wing-like portions) of the second locking member (second locking bolt 3) when first and second locking members are in a locking position (Fig. 2 shows first and second bore holes are oriented transversely to each other, Col. 3, lines 25-27, “each locking bolt 3 is slightly turned, for example by 90 degrees, so that the blades 9 are moved away from the radial slots 11” therefore the wing-like portions of first and second locking bolts 3 are oriented transversely of each other).
With respect to claim 14, Wecke further discloses wherein the first and second swivel anchors (first and second locking bolts 3) and the hooking-in element or receptacle element (mount 18) are arranged in a triangle (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royon (FR3079063A1) in view of Cysewski (U.S. Pat. No. 11773585).
With respect to claim 1, Royon discloses an apparatus connection device comprising: a first swivel anchor coupling (Fig. 1, left assembly key 4 coupling assembly walls 7 together) comprising a first swivel anchor (left assembly key 4) rotatable around a first axis (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and a first anchor socket (left hole 17), wherein the first swivel anchor (left assembly key 4) is configured to be anchored in the first anchor socket (Figs. 5-7, assembly key 4 anchored into hole 17), and a second swivel anchor coupling (Fig. 1, right assembly key 4 coupling assembly walls 7 together) comprising a second swivel anchor (right assembly key 4) rotatable around a second axis (see annotated Fig. 1 below) and a second anchor socket (right hole 17), wherein the second swivel anchor (right assembly key 4) is configured to be anchored in the second anchor socket (Figs. 5-7, assembly key 4 anchored into hole 17); and a mounting device (Fig. 3, female and male sockets 15 and 16) that is arranged with distance to the first swivel anchor coupling (Fig. 1, left assembly key 4 coupling assembly walls 7 together) and the second swivel anchor coupling (Fig. 1, right assembly key 4 coupling assembly walls 7 together); wherein the first axis and the second axis are arranged parallel and with distance to one another (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
448
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Royon fails to disclose wherein the mounting device comprises a hooking-in element and a receptacle slot having an open end that is oriented away from an imaginary line extending between the first and second swivel anchor couplings such that the one of the hooking-in element and the receptacle slot, and he first and second anchor sockets form a three-point mounting; and wherein the receptable slot comprises a section having a width that is less than a width of the hooking-in element.
Cysewski discloses wherein the mounting device (Fig. 3, system 104 with slot case 106) comprises a hooking-in element (assembly of cover 128 with first and second latches 124 and 126) and a receptacle slot (Fig. 5, insertion recess 156 on lateral wall 150) having an open end that is oriented upward (opening of insertion recess 156 opens upward); and wherein the receptacle slot (156) comprises a section having a width that is less than a width of the hooking-in element (Fig. 5 shows the narrowest portion of the insertion recess 156 on lateral wall 150 has a width less than the width of the assembly of cover 128 and first and second latches 124 and 126).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the female/male sockets of Royon to include latches and an insertion recess, such as taught by Cysewski, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to securely align and attach the projecting socket to the receiving socket before inserting the assembly key fasteners.
The combination further discloses the receptacle slot (Cysewski, insertion recess 156) having an open end that is oriented away from an imaginary line extending between the first and second swivel anchor couplings (Royon, left and right assembly keys 4 with holes 17) such that the one of the hooking-in element and the receptacle slot, and the first and second anchor sockets form a three-point mounting (see annotated Fig. 3 below, the upward-facing opening of insertion recess 156 opens away from the line extending between left and right holes 17).
PNG
media_image3.png
320
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
With respect to claim 3, Royon in view of Cysewski discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Royon) further discloses the first swivel anchor (left assembly key 4) is connected with a first swivel lever (Fig. 4, operating portion 4d) comprising a first handle (end of operating portion 4d) for manual rotation of the first swivel anchor (left assembly key 4) and wherein the second swivel anchor (right assembly key 4) is connected with a second swivel lever (Fig. 4, operating portion 4d) comprising a second handle (end of operating portion 4d) for manual rotation of the second swivel anchor (right assembly key 4).
With respect to claim 4, Royon in view of Cysewski discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Royon) further discloses wherein the first and second swivel anchors (left and right assembly keys 4) are configured to be rotated between a locking position (Fig. 7 shows assembly key in locking position) and a release position (Fig. 6 shows assembly key 4 in release position).
With respect to claim 5, Royon in view of Cysewski discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Royon) further discloses wherein the first and second swivel anchors (left and right assembly keys 4) are configured to rotate one-quarter of one rotation to shift between the locking position and the release position thereof (Fig. 6 shows assembly key 4 in release position, Fig. 7 shows assembly key rotated 90 degrees from release position into locking position).
With respect to claim 6, Royon in view of Cysewski discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Royon) further discloses wherein the first and second swivel levers (operating portion 4d of assembly keys 4) are oriented at the respective first and second swivel anchors (assembly keys 4) so that the first and second swivel levers (operating portion 4d of assembly keys 4) have sections (see annotated Fig. 4 below, end face of assembly key 4) that are oriented parallel to one another respectively in a release position (end faces of assembly keys 4 would be parallel to each other in release position as shown in Figs. 3 and 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
253
365
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
With respect to claim 7, Royon in view of Cysewski discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Royon) further discloses wherein the first and second swivel levers (operating portion 4d of left and right assembly keys 4) are oriented at the
respective first and second swivel anchors (left and right assembly keys 4) so that the
first and second swivel levers (operating portion 4d of left and right assembly keys 4)
have sections oriented parallel or antiparallel to one another in a locking position (Fig. 1
shows end face (see annotated Fig. 4 above) of left and right assembly keys 4 are parallel to one another in the locked position of Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 10, Royon in view of Cysewski discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Royon) further discloses wherein the first anchor socket (left hole 17) comprises a first locking member receptacle having a first non-circular opening (hole 17 with radial parts 17b are non-circular) and that the second anchor socket (right hole 17) comprises a second locking member receptacle having a second non-circular opening (hole 17 with radial parts 17b are non-circular).
PNG
media_image2.png
448
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Claim 11, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royon (FR3079063A1) in view of Cysewski (U.S. Pat. No. 11773585) in further view of Wecke (U.S. Pat. No. 5361925).
With respect to claim 11, Royon in view of Cysewski discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the second non-circular opening is oriented transversely relative to the first non-circular opening.
Wecke discloses a second non-circular opening (Fig. 2, right bore 10 has radial slots 11 and is therefore non-circular) is oriented transversely relative to the first non-circular opening (Fig. 2, left bore 10 has radial slots 11, and is oriented transversely to right bore 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the holes of Royon in view of Cysewski to be oriented transversely to each other, such as taught by Wecke, with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
With respect to claim 16, Royon in view of Cysewski discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the first anchor socket and second anchor socket each comprise a longitudinal axis along which the respective anchor socket extends; wherein the longitudinal axis of the first anchor socket is oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis of the second anchor socket.
Wecke discloses wherein a first anchor socket (Fig. 2, left bore 10) and second anchor socket (right bore 10) each comprise a longitudinal axis along which the respective anchor socket extends (see annotated Fig. 2 below, first and second longitudinal axis); wherein the longitudinal axis of the first anchor socket is oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis of the second anchor socket (see annotated Fig. 2 below, first longitudinal axis and second longitudinal axis are oriented transversely to each other).
PNG
media_image5.png
547
681
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the holes of Royon in view of Cysewski such that their longitudinal axes are oriented transversely to each other, such as taught by Wecke, with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
With respect to claim 19, Royon in view of Cysewski discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Royon) further discloses wherein the first swivel anchor (left assembly key 4) comprises a first locking member (Fig. 4, locking portions 4C of left assembly key 4) and the second swivel anchor (right assembly key 4) comprises a second locking member (locking portions 4C of right assembly key 4), wherein the first and second locking members (4C) each comprise two blades (Fig. 4, locking portions 4C are made up of a left blade and a right blade) that project radially from a hub (body 4a.
The combination fails to disclose wherein the blades of the first locking member are oriented transversely to the blades of the second locking member when first and second locking members are in a locking position.
Wecke discloses the blades of the first locking member (Fig. 3, left and right wing-like portions of blade 9 of first locking bolt 3) are oriented transversely to the blades of the second locking member (left and right wing-like portions of blade 9 of second locking bolt 3) when first and second locking members are in a locking position (Fig. 2 shows first and second bore holes 10 are oriented transversely to each other, Col. 3, lines 25-27, “each locking bolt 3 is slightly turned, for example by 90 degrees, so that the blades 9 are moved away from the radial slots 11” therefore the wing-like portions of first and second locking bolts 3 are oriented transversely of each other when in the locked position).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the holes of Royon in view of Cysewski such that their longitudinal axes are oriented transversely to each other, such as taught by Wecke, with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding the amended claim 17, the closest prior art is Okada (U.S. Pat. No. 4186976) and Huang (U.S. Pat. No. 6741460). Okada discloses limitation of claim 17, except the receptacle element comprising a receptacle slot having an open end that is oriented away from an imaginary line extending between the first and second swivel anchor couplings. While Okada does discloses a receptacle element (Figs. 3 and 7, mounting aperture 3) having a receptacle slot (insertion-removal holes 5 and 6), Okada fails to disclose the slot has an open end. Huang discloses a raised retaining unit 32 having a slot 321 with an open end. However, the open end of slot 321 functions to receive a mounting post 28 with top and bottom annular flanges that are wider than the slot. The retaining unit 32 of Huang must be raised away from the flat panel 26 in order to receive the mounting post 28. However, it would not be obvious to modify any portion of the insertion-removal holes 5/6 to have an open end since the head part 18 already fits into hole 5 and is slid into the narrow hole 6 for securing the tabletop to the desk body. Further, the raised unit of Huang would not allow the table to sit flush on the desk body. Based on the configuration, it would be improper hindsight to modify Okada to include these features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
Independent Claim 1
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to remove limitations related to the locking member blades, and to further include the limitations previously presented in claims 2 and 12 including a hooking-in element and a receptacle slot.
Wecke (U.S. Pat. No. 5361925) fails to disclose a mounting device comprises a hooking-in element and a receptacle slot. Therefore the 102 rejection is withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection as mapped in the claim 1 rejection above over Royon (FR 3079063) in view of Cysewski (U.S. Pat. No. 11773585).
Independent Claim 13
Applicant has amended independent claim 13 to recite “An apparatus comprising: a bottom; a first swivel anchor rotatably connected to the bottom to extend therefrom and to rotate about a first axis, a second swivel anchor rotatably connected to the bottom to extend therefrom and to rotate about a second axis; and a hooking-in element or a receptacle element connected to the bottom to extend therefrom....”
Applicant argues that the locking bolts are rotatably connected to the cover 2 and/or top end of base 1, but are not rotatably connected to the bottom 17 of the base to extend therefrom.
Examiner agrees that the locking bolts are rotatably connected to the cover 2 and top end of base 1 of Wecke, however they are also rotatably connected to bottom 17. The locking bolts are attached at/connected to bottom 17 via the sidewalls of base 1, and the locking bolts rotate relative to bottom 17. Therefore, the locking bolts are rotatably connected to the bottom 17. Applicant has further amended the limitation to require the swivel anchors to be rotatably connected to the bottom to extend therefrom and to rotate about an axis, and argues that the locking bolts of Wecke do not extend from bottom 17.
Examiner notes that claim 13 does not describe any structure related to the “bottom”. Having “a bottom” does not necessarily mean a bottom face or panel of an object. “A bottom” may also mean the lower element of an object consisting of several vertically stacked elements. For instance, “a bottom” of a shoebox may refer to either the lowermost face of the box, or the entire portion of the box located underneath the box lid. Wecke discloses an apparatus (terminal box) with a bottom (base 1) having all the features of claim 13 as mapped in the rejection above. As discussed above, the locking bolts (3) of Wecke are rotatably connected to the “bottom” base (1). Figures 6 and 7 also clearly show that the locking bolts (3) extend from the base (1). Therefore, Wecke discloses the limitations of newly amended claim 13.
Independent Claim 15
Applicant has canceled independent claim 1.
Independent Claim 17
Independent claim 17 has been indicated as allowable subject matter as explained in the allowable subject matter section above.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to remove limitations related to the locking member blades, and to further include the limitations previously presented in claims 2 and 12. In the non-final rejection dated 10/24/2025, independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 were rejected over Royon (FR 3079063) in view of Wecke (U.S. Pat. No. 5361925) and dependent claim 12 was rejected over Royon (FR 3079063) in view of Wecke (U.S. Pat. No. 5361925) in further view of Cysewski (U.S. Pat. No. 11773585).
Examiner notes that in the Remarks dated 2/24/2026, Applicant has not presented an argument regarding the rejection made over Royon in view of Wecke in further view of Cysewski.
As mapped in the claim 1 rejection above, Royon in view of Cysewski disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
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 ELIZABETH IRENE ARTALEJO whose telephone number is (571)272-4292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/E.I.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights