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 .
The following correspondence is a Final Office Action for application no. 18/071,871 for a SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A SUPPORT CLIP TO ATTACH TO A DECORATIVE ELEMENT, filed on 11/30/2022. This correspondence is in response to applicant's reply filed on 6/16/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (U.S. Pat. 9,273,803) in view of Goodfellow et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,737,527).
Regarding claim 1, Adams teaches a support clip comprising: a first coiled end; an arcuate body portion extending from the first coiled end; a second coiled end extending from a point on the arcuate body portion that is distal from the first coiled end, with the second coiled end positioned at a point proximal to the first coiled end; and one or more support hooks positioned along the arcuate body portion between the first coiled end and the second coiled end, and extending outwardly from the arcuate body portion, but does not teach the first coiled end terminating in a first bulbous portion; the second coiled end terminating in a second bulbous portion and at least one of the one or more support hooks terminating in a third bulbous portion. Goodfellow, however, teaches a hook (32) with an end terminating in a bulbous portion (40) in order to restrain items on the hook. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the clip of Adams comprising the first coiled end terminating in a first bulbous portion; the second coiled end terminating in a second bulbous portion and at least one of the one or more support hooks terminating in a third bulbous portion in order to retain objects on the coiled ends and hooks and to prevent them from being dislodged easily, in view of Goodfellow.
.
[AltContent: textbox (1st coiled end)]
PNG
media_image1.png
297
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd coiled end)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Arcuate body portion)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Support hook)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 2, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 1, wherein the one or more support hooks extend outwardly from the arcuate body portion in a direction distal from the first coiled end and the second coiled end.
Regarding claim 3, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 1, wherein the one or more support hooks extends outwardly from the arcuate body portion in substantially the same direction as the first coiled end and second coiled end.
Regarding claim 4, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 1, wherein the one or more support hooks are formed of one or more substantially linear segments (right angles as discussed at col. 3, lines 11-13 would comprise linear segments).
Regarding claim 5, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 1, wherein the one or more support hooks comprises two or more support hooks (col. 3, lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 6, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 1, wherein the arcuate body portion, the first coiled end, and the second coiled end are substantially co-planar.
Regarding claim 7, Adams teaches a support clip (see figure above) comprising: a first coiled end comprising a textured surface (9); an arcuate body portion extending from the first coiled end; a second coiled end extending from a point on the arcuate body portion that is distal from the first coiled end, with the second coiled end positioned at a point proximal to the first coiled end; and one or more support hooks positioned along the arcuate body portion between the first coiled end and the second coiled end, and extending outwardly from the arcuate body portion; but does not teach the first coiled end terminating in a first bulbous portion and the second coiled end terminating in a second bulbous portion. Goodfellow, however, teaches a hook (32) with an end terminating in a bulbous portion (40) in order to restrain items on the hook. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the clip of Adams comprising the first coiled end terminating in a first bulbous portion and the second coiled end terminating in a second bulbous in order to retain objects on the coiled ends and to prevent them from being dislodged easily, in view of Goodfellow.
Regarding claim 8, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 7, wherein the textured surface comprises a plurality of ridges.
Regarding claim 9, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 7, wherein the second coiled end further comprises a textured surface (9).
Regarding claim 10, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 7, wherein the one or more support hooks comprises two or more support hooks (col. 3, lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 11, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 7, wherein the arcuate body portion, the first coiled end, and the second coiled end are substantially co-planar.
Regarding claim 12, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 9, wherein the arcuate body portion, the first coiled end, and the second coiled end are substantially co-planar.
Regarding claim 13, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 7, wherein the one or more support hooks extend outwardly from the arcuate body portion in a direction distal from the first coiled end and the second coiled end.
Regarding claim 14, Adams and Goodfellow teach the clip of claim 7, wherein the support hook extends outwardly from the arcuate body portion in substantially the same direction as the first coiled end and second coiled end.
Regarding claim 15, Adams teaches a method for manufacturing a support clip comprising: forming a support clip (see figure above) comprising: a first coiled end; an arcuate body portion extending from the first coiled end; a second coiled end extending from a point on the arcuate body portion that is distal from the first coiled end, with the second coiled end positioned at a point proximal to the first coiled end; and one or more support hooks positioned along the arcuate body portion between the first coiled end and the second coiled end, and extending outwardly from the arcuate body portion, but does not teach the first coiled end terminating in a first bulbous portion and the second coiled end terminating in a second bulbous portion. Goodfellow, however, teaches a hook (32) with an end terminating in a bulbous portion (40) in order to restrain items on the hook. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable degree of success, to construct the clip of Adams comprising the first coiled end terminating in a first bulbous portion and the second coiled end terminating in a second bulbous in order to retain objects on the coiled ends and to prevent them from being dislodged easily, in view of Goodfellow.
Regarding claim 16, Adams and Goodfellow teach the method of claim 15, wherein at least one of the first coiled end and the second coiled end further comprises a textured surface (9).
Regarding claim 17, Adams and Goodfellow teach the method of claim 15, wherein the arcuate body portion, the first coiled end, and the second coiled end are substantially co-planar.
Regarding claim 18, Adams and Goodfellow teach the method of claim 16, wherein the arcuate body portion, the first coiled end, and the second coiled end are substantially co-planar.
Regarding claim 19, Adams and Goodfellow teach the method of claim 15, wherein the one or more support hooks extend outwardly from the arcuate body portion in a direction distal from the first coiled end and the second coiled end.
Regarding claim 20, Adams and Goodfellow teach the method of claim 15, wherein the support hook extends outwardly from the arcuate body portion in substantially a same direction as the first coiled end and second coiled end.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 June 28, 2024
Prosecution Insights