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 § 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 1-6, 8-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bondenson (US 2,116,474) in view of Kruger (US 10,758,275) and Williams (US 4,911,572).
Regarding claim 1, Bondenson discloses a grounding clamp system, comprising: a grounding clamp (Fig. 1) having a frame (10) with a fixed clamping member (19), a threaded receiving portion (at 16), and at least one ground connecting point (28); and a threaded rod (23) having threads and passing therethrough the threaded receiving portion and connected to a movable clamping member (21) such that rotation of the threaded rod in a first direction engages the threads with the threaded receiving portion to selectively move the movable clamping member closer to the fixed clamping member, and rotation of the threaded rod in a second direction engages the threads with the threaded receiving portion to selectively move the clamping member farther away from the fixed clamping member; wherein the ground connecting point is configured to connect a grounding cable (37) to the grounding clamp in electrical continuity.
Bondenson discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the use of multi-start threads. Kruger teaches the use of multi-start threads, as alternative to single threads (col. 3, lines 1-3). Multi-start threads are known to increase linear movement and power transfer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use multi-start threads, as taught by Kruger, in order to increase linear movement and power transfer.
Williams teaches a fixed clamping member (64) having a securing surface with a first portion and a second portion arranged at an angle relative to each other (V-shaped), opening in a direction of the threaded receiving portion, and defining a vertex; a threaded rod defining an axis of rotation (62) extending through the vertex, and such that the first portion and the second portion advance away from the axis of rotation in a direction of the threaded receiving portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the axis of rotation aligned with the vertex of the fixed clamp, as taught by Williams, in order to provide a more stable and predetermined seat position for the conductor, while minimizing bending strain on the threaded rod.
Regarding claim 2, Bondenson discloses the composition of the grounding clamp frame being uniform (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Bondenson does not disclose the specific material of the ground clamp. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use aluminum, brass, or steel as the preferred material for the clamp frame, in order to provide a durable and reliable material and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design preference. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, Bondenson discloses a capture portion (19b).
Regarding claim 5, Bondenson discloses the capture portion comprising a hook (19b) adjacent to the fixed clamping member.
Regarding claim 6, Bondenson discloses a coupling feature (hexagonal head) on the threaded rod distal from the movable clamping member.
Regarding claim 8, Kruger teaches the threaded rod having a double start thread (multi includes double or more).
Regarding claim 9, Kruger teaches the threaded rod having a pitch relative to a lead of at least 1:2 (i.e. two threads).
Regarding claim 10, Bondenson discloses a method of using a grounding clamp system, comprising: providing a grounding clamp (Fig. 1) having: a frame (10) with a fixed clamping member (17), a threaded receiving portion (at 16), and at least one ground connecting point (at 28); a threaded rod (23) passing therethrough the threaded receiving portion and connected to a movable clamping member (21) such that rotation of the threaded rod selectively moves the movable clamping member relative to the fixed clamping member; a capture space (not labeled, see Fig. 1, between 20 and 22) disposed between the fixed clamping member and the movable clamping member; deploying the grounding clamp with the movable clamping member adjacent to the threaded receiving portion such that a conductor to be grounded is disposed within the capture space; and rotating the threaded rod in a first direction to engage the threads with the threaded receiving portion to move the movable clamping member closer to the fixed clamping member so as to secure the conductor between the movable clamping member and the fixed clamping member (first column of page 2, lines 29-38), and rotating the threaded rod in a second direction (opposite the first direction) to engage the threads with the threaded receiving portion to selectively move the movable clamping member farther away from the fixed clamping member.
Bondenson discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the use of multi-start threads. Kruger teaches that multi-start threads are an alternative to single threads. Multi-start threads are known to increase linear movement and power transfer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use multi-start threads, as taught by Kruger, in order to increase linear movement and power transfer.
Williams teaches a fixed clamping member (64) having a securing surface with a first portion and a second portion arranged at an angle relative to each other (V-shaped), opening in a direction of the threaded receiving portion, and defining a vertex; a threaded rod defining an axis of rotation (62) extending through the vertex, and such that the first portion and the second portion advance away from the axis of rotation in a direction of the threaded receiving portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the axis of rotation aligned with the vertex of the fixed clamp, as taught by Williams, in order to provide a more stable and predetermined seat position for the conductor, while minimizing bending strain on the threaded rod.
Regarding claim 11, Bondenson, as modified, does not disclose the rotating step requires fewer than 6 full rotations of the threaded rod when the movable clamping member begins adjacent to the threaded receiving portion to secure the conductor. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use a rotating step requiring fewer than 6 full rotations of the threaded rod when the movable clamping member begins adjacent to the threaded receiving portion to secure the conductor, in order to provide a quicker connection and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Bondenson, as modified by Kruger, discloses the rotating step requiring fewer rotations of the threaded rod when the movable clamping member begins adjacent threaded receiving portion to secure the conductor than a single start thread requires (i.e. a result of multi-start threads).
Regarding claim 13, Bondenson, as modified by Kruger, discloses the threaded rod having a pitch relative to a lead of at least 1:2 (i.e. a result of multi-start threads).
Regarding claim 14, Bondenson discloses a kit for a grounding clamp system, comprising: at least one grounding clamp set (Fig. 2) having: a first grounding clamp (top 10) having a frame with a fixed clamping member (17), a capture portion (head of 23), a threaded receiving portion (16), and a threaded rod (23) passing therethrough the threaded receiving portion and connected to a movable clamping member (21) such that rotation of the threaded rod selectively and reversibly moves the movable clamping member relative to the fixed clamping member; a second grounding clamp (bottom 10) having a frame with a fixed clamping member (17), a capture portion (head of 23), a threaded receiving portion (16), and a threaded rod (23) passing therethrough the threaded receiving portion and connected to a movable clamping member (21) such that rotation of the threaded rod selectively and reversibly moves the movable clamping member relative to the fixed clamping member; and a conducting cable (37) connected at a first end to the first grounding clamp and at a second end to the second grounding clamp such that the first grounding clamp and the second grounding clamp are in electrical communication.
Bondenson discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the use of multi-start threads. Kruger teaches the use of multi-start threads. Multi-start threads are known to increase linear movement and power transfer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use multi-start threads, as taught by Kruger, in order to increase linear movement and power transfer.
Williams teaches a fixed clamping member (64) having a securing surface with a first portion and a second portion arranged at an angle relative to each other (V-shaped), opening in a direction of the threaded receiving portion, and defining a vertex; a threaded rod defining an axis of rotation (62) extending through the vertex, and such that the first portion and the second portion advance away from the axis of rotation in a direction of the threaded receiving portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the axis of rotation aligned with the vertex of the fixed clamp, as taught by Williams, in order to provide a more stable and predetermined seat position for the conductor, while minimizing bending strain on the threaded rod.
Regarding claim 15, Bondenson discloses a ground lifting tool (to match the head of 23) having at least one end configured to engage with and rotate the threaded rods of the first grounding clamp and the second grounding clamp.
Regarding claim 17, Bondenson discloses a grounding clamp comprising: a frame (10) including a fixed clamping member (17), a threaded receiving portion (16), and at least one ground connecting point (at 28); the fixed clamping member having a securing surface (19) with a first portion (19a) and a second portion (19b) arranged at an angle relative to one another, the angle opening in a direction of the threaded receiving portion and defining a vertex; a threaded rod (23) extending through the threaded receiving portion and defining an axis of rotation; a movable clamping member (21) coupled to the threaded rod; the threaded rod further including threads threadedly engaging the threaded rod in the threaded receiving portion, such that rotation of the threaded rod in a first direction and a second direction moves the movable clamping member closer to and further from, respectively, the fixed clamping member; the first portion and the second portion are oriented so as to advance, in a projection plane, away from the axis of rotation in the direction of the threaded receiving portion.
Bondenson discloses substantially the claimed invention except for the use of multi-start threads. Kruger teaches the use of multi-start threads (col. 3, lines 1-3). Multi-start threads are known to increase linear movement and power transfer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use multi-start threads, as taught by Kruger, in order to increase linear movement and power transfer.
Williams teaches a fixed clamping member (64) having a securing surface with a first portion and a second portion arranged at an angle relative to each other (V-shaped), opening in a direction of the threaded receiving portion, and defining a vertex; a threaded rod defining an axis of rotation (62) extending through the vertex, and such that the first portion and the second portion advance away from the axis of rotation in a direction of the threaded receiving portion; and the axis of rotation extends through the vertex, in the projection plane. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the axis of rotation aligned with the vertex of the fixed clamp, as taught by Williams, in order to provide a more stable and predetermined seat position for the conductor, while minimizing bending strain on the threaded rod.
Regarding claim 18, Kruger teaches the multi-start threads including a double start thread (multi includes double or more).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bondenson, Kruger and Williams, and further in view of Flojo (US 8,517,776).
Regarding claim 7, Flojo teaches a coupling feature with a ring (68). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a ring, as taught by Flojo, in order to facilitate manual actuation of the coupling feature.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bondenson in view of Kruger and Williams, and further in view of Marshall et al. (US 7,563,124).
Regarding claim 16, Marshall teaches the use of one or more of a grounding stake (404) and an insulated conducing cable (401/500). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to include a grounding stake and an insulated conducting cable, as taught by Marshall, in order to easily connect the device to ground.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e. that none of the references teach a movable jaw clamp with multi-start threads), please note that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Bondenson discloses a jaw clamp with regular threads. Kruger teaches the use of multi-start threads (col. 3, lines 1-3).
In response to Applicant's arguments that Kruger does not support that single-start threads and multi-start threads are alternative, please note that Kruger presents the options with the conjunction “or”. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “or” as “used as a function word to indicate an alternative,” or “the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases”.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a cursory web search conveys that multi-start threads are used for movement and power transmission. See Difference: single-start, double-start and multi-start threads, https://threadingtoolsguide.com/en/blog/difference-single-start-double-start-multi-start-threads/.
In response to applicant's argument that Kruger teaches different benefits and drawbacks, please note that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to Applicant's arguments that the prior art of record does not include a single refence that is a movable jaw clamp that utilizes multi-start threads, please note that the claim are rejected under 35 USC 103 and thus the rejection does not require all the limitations to be shown by a single reference.
In response to applicant’s argument against the combination of Bondenson and Williams, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the axis of rotation aligned with the vertex of the fixed clamp, as taught by Williams, in order to provide a more stable and predetermined seat position for the conductor, while minimizing bending strain on the threaded rod.
In response to Applicant's arguments that an offset alignment is necessary in Bondenson, please note that it would have been within the skill of a worker in the art to modify features to provide a different benefit based on its desired priority, e.g. economy vs. efficiency. It would be within the skill of a worker in the art replace the offset arrangement for an aligned one, where locking and/or vibration are not a concern.
In response to Applicant's arguments that rejection does not provide a benefit, please note that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the axis of rotation aligned with the vertex of the fixed clamp, as taught by Williams, in order to provide a more stable and predetermined seat position for the conductor, while minimizing bending strain on the threaded rod.
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 FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached on 571-272-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833