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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final action for application #18/276235, Apparatus For Feeding Through Strands, filed 8/7/2023. Claims 24-32 and 34-47 are pending. This Final Office Action is in response to applicant's reply dated 4/9/2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-32 and 34-47 are 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.
Regarding Claim 24:
-The phrase “which are divided perpendicular to a direction of movement of the elongated strands to be inserted” is new matter. First, the division is not taught to be “perpendicular” in the specification. By viewing the figures, the division could be interpreted as going from left-to-right or from front-to-back, and as seen in the figures, the surfaces where the cover and lower frame part connect vary depending on the embodiment. Secondly, there is no “direction of movement of the elongated strands” disclosed. The only movement disclosed is that of the link element. This phrase is used throughout claim 24 as well as the dependent claims.
-It is claimed that a fastening element is “perpendicular to the direction of movement of the elongated strands”. The fastening element is element 11, which as depicted in the figures is NOT perpendicular, but rather at an angle. The only portion of the specification that discloses a fastener being perpendicular is when discussing the prior art and why the current invention is an improvement over a perpendicular fastener.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-32 and 34-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The Examiner notes that throughout the claims, reference is made to elongated strands to be inserted, and the plate. These elements are NOT positively claimed and therefore cannot be positively referred to when defining other elements. They may only be functionally claimed. The Examiner suggests using an element of the frame that is positively claimed as a reference element. The Examiner made this rejection in the previous office action but the claims still rely on these non-claimed elements.
Regarding Claim 24:
-The phrase “wherein at least one of the hooks is movable by a link element” makes it unclear if referring to one of the “two hooks”.
-The phrase “the at least one of the hooks that is perpendicular to the direction of movement of the elongated strands to be inserted” is unclear. The hooks extend from the rear of the frame which would be in the same direction as the elongated strands.
-The phrase “at least one of the hooks not moveable by the link element” is unclear since a hook not moveable by the link element was not previously claimed.
**The Examiner has provided a proposed claim amendment for Claim 24 below.
Regarding Claim 31:
-The axis of the thread cannot be positively defined with respect to the elongated strands or to a plane of the plate since not positively claimed.
Regarding Claim 32:
-Movement of the link element cannot be positively defined with respect to the plate since the plate is not positively claimed.
-It is claimed that the link element moves obliquely to the plane of the plate during its movement “perpendicular to the direction of movement of the elongated strands to be inserted”. This is referring to the embodiment depicted in Figure 11. However, since the link element is moving obliquely, it is NOT moving perpendicular. Additionally, as explained above, the elongated strands, or insertion thereof, cannot be used as a positive reference.
Regarding Claim 34:
-The phrase “on a section of the at least one leg nearest the other of the lower frame part of the frame cover” is unclear.
Regarding Claim 35:
-The entirety of the claim is unclear. The sections being defined are not clear, and there is no antecedent basis for “the hooks not moveable by the link element”.
Regarding Claim 36:
-The phrase “with respect to a movement perpendicular to the direction of movement of the elongated strands to be inserted is unclear”. It is not clear which “movement” is being referred to.
Regarding Claim 38:
-The phrase “in the direction of movement of the elongated strands” is unclear. The recesses are formed in the rear of the frame.
Regarding Claim 39:
-The phrase “perpendicular to the direction of movement of the elongated strands” is unclear since the plane of the frame extends in the same direction that the strands would extends. Only the front or rear surfaces of the frame would be considered substantially perpendicular to the direction of the strands. However, as noted above, the strands cannot be relied upon.
Regarding Claim 40:
-As noted above, the strands cannot be relied upon for reference.
Regarding Claim 45:
-It is unclear if the screwing of the cover to the lower frame part is in addition to the fastening element already claimed in Claim 24.
-The phrase “via a link with or without a hook” is unclear since there are no depictions of a fastener connecting the cover to the lower frame part into a link element without a hook.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-32 and 34-47 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The Examiner notes that while these claims have been indicated as allowable subject matter, any amendment that changes the scope of the claims may alter the allowability of the claims.
Proposed Claim Amendment
The Examiner has included a proposed claim amendment for Claim 24 for Applicant’s review to clarify the invention. Since many of the dependent claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, the Examiner notes that each claim should be carefully reviewed and amended accordingly. A Request for Continued Examination should be filed to continue prosecution.
Claim 24: An apparatus for feeding elongated strands through an aperture of a plate, the apparatus comprising:
a divided frame having a front, a rear, an upper side, and a lower side, the divided frame including:
a lower frame part and a removeable frame cover; and,
at least one chamber for the insertion of at least one elastic grommet;
devices for fastening the frame to the plate;
wherein the devices comprise a plurality of hooks for fastening the frame in the aperture of the plate or in fastening holes of the plate, the plurality of hooks including movable hooks and stationary hooks,wherein at least one of the movable hooks is movable by a link element which is movable relative to the frame via a fastening element that is angled such that when an inserted end of the fastening element is inserted into a receptacle in the frame, the inserted end extends towards the rear of the frame and is coupled to the link element, thereby connecting the removeable frame cover to the lower frame part and moving the link element so that the link element and the at least one movable hook moves away from at least one of the stationary hooks and towards the upper side of the frame.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has fully considered all of the Applicant’s arguments but they are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Additionally, many of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections previously made still stand since the current claims still use the elongated strands and plate as a reference when defining the structure.
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 INGRID WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Tuesday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights