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
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS59156901U (hereinafter, JP901) in view of Marchant US4889282 (hereinafter, Marchant).
Regarding claim 1, A clamp device (see Fig. 2) comprising a cap portion 9 slidably mounted on a base portion 6 and secured together by a locking bolt 7, wherein the cap portion comprises a body (body of cap portion 9 in Fig. 1) and a nose (N as indicated in annotated Fig. 2) which extends laterally outwardly from the body along a nose axis (see nose extending outward from the cap body), the body of the cap portion comprising arcuate surface (A1, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2) on the underside thereof which is seated on a complementary opposed arcuate (A2, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2) mating surface of the base portion,
wherein the bolt 7 comprises a head 17 and a shaft (shaft of the bolt 7 in Fig. 3) upstanding from the head for engaging a nut (8, see Fig. 2) that seats against a flat on the cap portion, the head being rotatably mounted to the base portion for pivotable movement about an axis which extents parallel to the rotational axis of the cap portion and perpendicular to the shaft of the bolt (such functional limitations is considered obvious and achieved by assembly shown in Figs. 1-3 during installation steps), and
wherein the head of the bolt comprises an arcuate surface (see curved surface of the head 17 in Fig. 3) from which the shaft extends.
JP901 in embodiment shown in Fig. 2 fails to show a convex arcuate surface in cap portion and a concave arcuate mating surface of the base portion.
However, JP901 in embodiment shown in Fig. 1 shows a conventional rail fixing hardware commonly used, having a convex like arcuate surface on the underside of the cap body and a concave like arcuate surface on the base portion.
Additionally, changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the shape of contact portion in cap portion and the base portion to be arcuate convex and arcuate concave as an obvious change in shape.
Further, the Examiner interprets the modified surfaces permits rotational movement of the cap portion relative to the base portion about a rotational axis which extends perpendicular to the nose axis due to tightening force while the use.
JP901 fails to teach the arcuate surface of the head bearing against a complementary arcuate surface on the base portion of the clamp.
However, Marchant teaches a rail clip assembly having a part 2 having an extension 5 and part 1 as a base surface, connected by a T-bolt 7 wherein the arcuate surface of the bolt head bear against a complementary arcuate surface on the base portion of the clamp (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to assembly of JP901 modified to have such complementary arcuate surfaces as taught by Marchant so the head of the bolt is secured within a recess and is prevented from being bent.
PNG
media_image1.png
172
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 2, JP901 in view of Marchant teaches and/or make obvious of the clamp device as claimed in claim 1, arranged such that tightening of the bolt causes rotational movement of the cap portion of the clamp relative to the base portion in a clamping direction.
The Examiner interprets JP901 in view of Marchant teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations of claim 1, and is capable of meeting limitations as set forth in claim 2 above. As established in rejection of claim 1 above, modified arcuate convex and concave surface is capable of causing rotational movement of the cap portion due to tightening of the nut 8 and bolt 7 while in use.
Regarding claim 3, A clamp device as claimed in claim 2, in which the rotational axis of the cap portion relative to the base portion is disposed on an opposite side of the clamp to the nose, the bolt acting to constrain the cap portion against the base portion in a region defined by the arcuate mating surfaces.
It is the Examiner’s position that the Prior Art JP901 modified by Marchant teaches and/or make obvious of the structural and functional limitations of claim 3 above. The clamp 11 in Fig. 2 is capable of having the rotational axis of the cap portion relative to the base portion disposed on the opposite side of the clamp to the nose. Further, the bolt 7 in Fig. 2 is acting to constrain the cap portion against the base portion 6 in a region defined by the arcuate mating surfaces (see portion of the circle formed by the arcuate portion in Fig. 2 and see para. [0009]) defined by the arcuate mating surfaces (see Fig. 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP901 in view of Marchant, in further view of BYGRAVE et al. US20180222726 (hereinafter, BYGRAVE).
Regarding claim 7, As best understood, JP901 in view of Marchant teaches and/or make obvious of a clamp device as claimed in claim 1.
However, JP901 discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of bolts.
However, BYGRAVE teaches similar fastening device having the clamp device comprising a plurality of bolts (see Fig. 5, bolts 19, 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the clamp in JP901 to have a plurality of bolts as taught by BYGRAVE for secured fastening of the components (see para. [0002 & 0066]).
Further, the Examiner interprets it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamp to have a plurality of bolts, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding drawing objections has been considered, therefore drawing objections in previous office action has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered.
However, rejection based on existing and newly found prior has been established. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights