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 second non-final action for application #18/276235, Apparatus For Feeding Through Strands, filed 8/7/2023. Claims 24-47 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, an engagement surface of one of the hooks extending substantially parallel to the running direction of the elongated strands to be inserted (Claim 41), and one part of the frame being screwed to another part of the frame in the region of at least one intermediate web, in particular via a link element (Claim 45) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter will be entered, therefore if not originally depicted in the Figures, then the Examiner suggests removing the claim language from the claims.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 24-47 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.
Regarding Claim 24:
-It is claimed that a link element is movable relative to the frame via a fastening element “transversely to the running direction of the elongated strands to be inserted”.
First, the running direction of an element not positively claimed (the elongated strands) cannot be positively claimed and used for reference. The Examiner suggests using an element of the frame that is positively claimed as a reference element and only referring to the elongated strands with functional language. The phrase “the running direction” used throughout the dependent claims need to be amended per the rejection of Claim 24, and will not be called out each time.
Secondly, it is unclear if the hook, the link element, or the fastening element is the portion that is moving “transversely”.
Lastly, if the transverse movement is by the link element, then this is unclear since by viewing Figures 8 and 10, the angle of the opening (16) for the fastener (11) is at an angle, and therefore the link would move along the axis of the fastener (11) which would be at the depicted angle and NOT transversely as claimed or as depicted in Figures 4 or 10 with the directional arrow. It is not clear how the link element would satisfy the claim language of moving transversely to the running direction.
Regarding Claim 29:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the assembled state”.
Regarding Claim 30:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the mounted state”.
Regarding Claim 31:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the inserted elongated strands”.
-The axis of the thread cannot be positively defined with respect to a plate of the plate since the plate is not positively claimed.
Regarding Claim 32:
-There is no antecedent basis for “the plate of the plate” and the 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 “transversely to the running direction 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 transversely to the running direction.
Regarding Claim 33:
-The phrase “and moves the link element with its movable hook” is unclear. Additionally, the phrase continues with “transversely to the running direction of the inserted elongated strands”. As noted above, the movement of the link element is NOT transverse. Additionally, there is no antecedent basis for “the inserted 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.
Regarding Claim 34:
-The phrase “on its section facing the other of the lower frame part of the frame cover” is unclear since the recesses are all on the rear face of the frame and therefore do not face each other.
-The phrase “in each case one recess for in each case one of the link elements” is unclear.
Regarding Claim 35:
-It is claimed that the sections of the at least one leg ”facing away from the other of the other frame part or frame cover have the hooks not moveable by the link element”. This is unclear since first, the hooks extend outwardly from the link elements mounted within recesses in the rear of the frame and therefore the sections do not face away from each other. Secondly, there are no hooks previously claimed as not being moveable by the link element.
Regarding Claim 36 and 37:
-Reference to the hooks that are not moveable by the link element is unclear since not previously claimed before Claim 35.
-There is no antecedent basis for “the inserted strands” in Claim 36.
Regarding Claim 38:
-The term “clipped” is unclear since there is no structure depicted that performs any clipping functionality.
Regarding Claim 41:
-It is claimed that at least one of the hooks has an engagement surface extending “substantially parallel” to the running direction. First, this is unclear since there does not appear to be an embodiment with this configuration. Figure 4 shows the hook engagement surface being oblique, and Figure 11 depicts the engagement surface being substantially perpendicular. Additionally, as noted above for Claim 24, the running direction of strands not being positively claimed cannot be positively claimed or used for reference.
Regarding Claim 45:
-It is unclear if “one part of the frame”, and “another part of the frame” is referring to portions of the frame previously claimed, or additional portions.
-There is no antecedent basis for “the region of the at least one intermediate web”.
-The configuration being claimed is unclear since not depicted in the figures and since it is not clear what the structure would be since the intermediate webs depicted in the figures are two thin to receive a fastener as shown in the legs. All claimed subject matter must be clearly depicted in the original drawings. Otherwise, the subject matter should be deleted from the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 24-27, 29, 30, 34, 35, 38, 40, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by DE 10216650A1 to Murrplastik System (hereinafter ‘Murrplastik’)].
Regarding Claim 24, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches an apparatus for feeding elongated strands through an aperture in a plate (wall 2), comprising a divided frame (1’; Figure 3), which comprises a lower frame part (10) and a frame cover (9; para [0033] of translation) which are divided transversely to a running direction of the elongated strands to be inserted (divided transversely to the central longitudinal axis of the opening 11/12, as depicted in Figures 3 and 4), and which has at least one chamber (11/12) for the insertion of at least one elastic grommet (para [0033] of translation teaching cable bushing or grommets), wherein the frame has devices (26-29) for fastening the frame (1’) to the plate (wall; para [0036]);
wherein the devices (26-29) comprise hooks for fastening the frame in the aperture of the plate or in fastening holes in the plate (para [0036]), wherein at least two hooks are provided which are designed to be movable relative to one another (via rotation or translation as depicted in the embodiments of Figures 11-15),
wherein at least one of the hooks (48; Figures 14 and 15) is movable by a link element (49) which is movable relative to the frame via a fastening element (54) transversely (**as best understood, interpreting the HOOK being the element moving transversely) to the running direction of the elongated strands to be inserted (hook 48 moves transversely about hinge 51 to hook onto 31 (para [0041] of translation).
Regarding Claim 25, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the fastening element (screw 54) can be detachably connected to the link element (49; via threads).
Regarding Claim 26, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the fastening element(54; Figure 14) is designed as a screw or comprises a threaded rod, which cooperate with a thread of the link element (49; para [0041]).
Regarding Claim 27, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the fastening element (54) is designed as or comprises a clamping element (designed as a clamping element since rotation thereof causes clamping of hook 48).
Regarding Claim 29, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the lower frame part (10) has at least one recess for the link element (49) on its rear side facing the plate (wall 2) in the assembled state (as best seen in Figures 7, 14 and 15).
Regarding Claim 30, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the link element (49) is movable via the fastening element (54), which is accessible from a front side facing away from the plate (wall 2) in the mounted state of the frame (as depicted in Figure 14 and 15; para [0041]).
Regarding Claim 34, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein at least one of the lower frame part (10) or the frame cover (9) has at least one leg (each depicted as having two legs as shown in Figure 3), wherein the at least one leg of the at least one of the lower frame part or the frame cover has, on its section facing the respective other of the lower frame part or part of the frame cover, in each case one recess for in each case one of the link elements (as best understood, each leg has a recess for a link element, with Murrplastik teaching four legs and four devices for fastening in Figure 3, and then Figures 14 and 15 depicting one embodiment of the device and showing a recess for the link element 49 to be mounted within the leg, the recesses facing the wall as also taught by the Applicant’s invention).
Regarding Claim 35, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 34, wherein the sections of the at least one leg of the at least one of the lower frame part (10) or the frame cover (9) facing away from the other of the lower frame part or the frame cover have the hooks not moveable by the link element (each leg has its own hook moveable by its own link element, therefore the link element previously claimed does not move three out of the four hook elements).
Regarding Claim 38, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the link element is clipped into a recess of the frame in the running direction of the elongated strands to be inserted (as best understood, the link element (49) is “clipped” into the recess in 30” as depicted in Figure 14 and held therein via portion 50 that is guided within the recess and the fastener 54, and has space around the link element in the same manner as the applicant’s).
Regarding Claim 40, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein at least one of the hooks (48 in Figure 14) has an engagement surface (lower surface that is contacting 31) for engagement with an edge of the plate (31) around the aperture or one of the fastening holes in the plate that is oriented obliquely to a plane transverse to the running direction of the elongated strands to be inserted (in Figure 14, the lower surface of 48 is oblique to a horizontal plane as depicted).
Regarding Claim 46, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the lower frame part and the frame cover are both substantially L-shaped, are both substantially U-shaped frame parts (as depicted in Figure 3) or are designed substantially as a U-shaped lower frame part and a straight frame cover.
Regarding Claim 47, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the at least one of the hooks (48; Figure 14,15) moveable by the link element (49) is part of the link element (as depicted).
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 24-28, 30, 31, 39, 41-43, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murrplastik in view of US 2,340,823 (Scott).
Regarding Claim 24, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches an apparatus for feeding elongated strands through an aperture in a plate (wall 2), comprising a divided frame (1’; Figure 3), which comprises a lower frame part (10) and a frame cover (9; para [0033] of translation) which are divided transversely to a running direction of the elongated strands to be inserted (divided transversely to the central longitudinal axis of the opening 11/12, as depicted in Figures 3 and 4), and which has at least one chamber (11/12) for the insertion of at least one elastic grommet (para [0033] of translation teaching cable bushing or grommets), wherein the frame has devices (26-29) for fastening the frame (1’) to the plate (wall; para [0036]);
wherein the devices (26-29) comprise hooks for fastening the frame in the aperture of the plate or in fastening holes in the plate (para [0036]), wherein at least two hooks are provided which are designed to be movable relative to one another (via rotation or translation as depicted in the embodiments of Figures 11-15),
Murrplastik does not specifically teach wherein at least one of the hooks is movable by a link element which is movable relative to the frame via a fastening element transversely to the running direction of the accommodated elongated strands to be inserted (**as best understood, interpreting the LINK ELEMENT being the element moving transversely).
However, Scott, which also teaches an apparatus for feeding elongated strands (electrical wires) through an aperture in a plate (wall), the apparatus comprising a frame (1,2,8) that has devices for fastening the frame to the plate (wall; Figure 3) where the devices comprise hooks (4) for fastening the frame (1,2,8) in the aperture (wall hole; Figure 3) of the plate or in fastening holes in the plate, wherein at least two hooks (4) are provided which are designed to be movable relative to one another (see Figures 2 and 3 depicting movement; page 1, col 1, ln 55-col 2, ln 46), further teaches wherein at least one of the hooks (4) is movable by a link element (7) which is movable relative to the frame via a fastening element (9) transversely to the running direction of the accommodated elongated strands to be inserted (as best understood, the link element 7 moves generally sideways and towards the wall as depicted between Figures 2 and 3. The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s would also move generally sideways and towards the wall). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use fastening devices as taught by Scott on the apparatus of Murrplastik since this would allow the apparatus to be installed in an existing opening in the wall that is larger than what the hooks of Murrplastik would be able to attach to thereby making the apparatus more universal to attach to a variety of different sized holes.
Regarding Claim 25, as best understood, Murrplastik and Scott combined teach the apparatus according to claim 24, and Scott further teaches wherein the fastening element (9) can be detachably connected to the link element (7; via threads).
Regarding Claim 26, as best understood, Murrplastik and Scott combined teach the apparatus according to claim 24, and Scott further teaches wherein the fastening element (9) is designed as a screw or comprises a threaded rod, which cooperate with a thread of the link element (7; page 1, col 2, ln 14-22).
Regarding Claim 27, as best understood, Murrplastik and Scott combined teach the apparatus according to claim 24, and Scott further teaches wherein the fastening element (9) is designed as or comprises a clamping element (designed as a clamping element since rotation thereof causes clamping of hook 4).
Regarding Claim 28, as best understood, Murrplastik and Scott combined teach the apparatus according to claim 27, and Scott further teaches wherein the clamping element is designed as an eccentric clamping lever (see element 9 passing eccentrically through 7 and rotation of 9 causes clamping via 4).
Regarding Claim 30, as best understood, Murrplastik and Scott combined teach the apparatus according to claim 24, and Scott further teaches wherein the link element (7) is movable via the fastening element (9), which is accessible from a front side (as depicted in Figure 2) facing away from the plate in the mounted state of the frame (accessible through 1).
Regarding Claim 31, as best understood, Murrplastik and Scott combined teach the apparatus according to claim 26, and Scott further teaches wherein a central axis of the thread (of 7) is formed obliquely to the running direction of the inserted elongated strands and obliquely to a plane of the plate (wall) around whose aperture the frame is arranged (see Figures 2 and 3 where the axis of the thread of 7 is oblique to both a central axis of 2 and the surface of the wall).
Regarding Claim 39, as best understood, Murrplastik and Scott combined teach the apparatus according to claim 26, and Scott further teaches wherein a central axis of the thread (of link 7) is arranged at an angle of 20 to 60° to a plane transverse to the running direction of the elongated strands to be inserted (as depicted in Figure 3, the angle of the thread axis of 7 is reasonably within the claimed range with respect to the horizontal surface of the wall).
Regarding Claim 41, as best understood, Murrplastik and Scott combined teach the apparatus according to claim 24, and Scott further teaches wherein at least one of the hooks (4) has an engagement surface extending substantially parallel to the running direction of the elongated strands to be inserted (as best understood, the engagement surface of the Applicant’s invention is substantially parallel to the plate, not the running direction, and the engagement surface of 4 is depicted as parallel to the wall in Figure 3).
Regarding Claims 42 and 43, as best understood, Murrplastik and Scott combined teach the apparatus according to claim 24, but do not specifically teach wherein the link element is formed from a fiber-reinforced plastic or from a metallic material, or wherein the link element is made of zinc die casting. However, choosing a material for manufacture is well within routine experimentation and design for one of skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to determine the optimum material based on cost, availability, desired characteristics, the environment that the apparatus will be used in, and required strength.
Regarding Claim 46, as best understood, Murrplastik and Scott combined teach the apparatus according to claim 24, and Murrplastik further teaches wherein the lower frame part and the frame cover are both substantially L-shaped, are both substantially U-shaped frame parts (as depicted in Figure 3) or are designed substantially as a U-shaped lower frame part and a straight frame cover.
Regarding Claim 47, as best understood, Murrplastik and Scott combined teach the apparatus according to claim 24, and Scott further teaches wherein the at least one of the hooks (4) moveable by the link element (7) is part of the link element (via 5/6; Figure 4).
Claims 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murrplastik in view of WO 2018/096136 A1 to Ehmann et al. (hereinafter ‘Ehmann’).
Regarding Claim 44, as best understood, Murrplastik teaches the apparatus according to claim 24, wherein the frame has two legs (one leg on either side of the central chamber), but does not specifically teach at least one intermediate web located between the legs, so that at least two chambers for accommodating grommets are formed in the frame. However, Ehmann, which is also drawn to an apparatus for feeding elongated strands through an aperture in a plate, further teaches that instead of just one chamber, the frame additionally has intermediate webs (3) between the legs (1.1, 1.2) in order to create additional chambers for accommodating grommets (see Figure 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use intermediate webs as taught by Ehmann in order to create a plurality of chambers for accommodating a plurality of strands.
Regarding Claim 45, as best understood, Murrplastik and Ehmann combined teach the apparatus according to claim 44, and Ehmann further teaches wherein one part of the frame can be screwed to another part of the frame in the region of the at least one intermediate web, in particular via a link element with or without a hook (as best understood, Figure 1 depicts vertical fasteners attaching the cover to the lower frame part at the legs portions, and also one through an intermediate web). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a frame with intermediate webs as taught by Ehmann in order to support a plurality of strands, and since the frame is longer then additional fasteners through an intermediate web would assist in retaining the upper and lower frame members in a clamped state.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32, 33, 36, and 37 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 45:
The Applicant argues that the claimed limitation is disclosed in the specification. The Examiner has fully considered this but it is not persuasive since all claimed subject matter must be depicted in the drawings, and this configuration was not disclosed in the drawings.
With respect to the previously indicated allowable subject matter:
The Examiner notes that there are numerous 112 issues throughout the claims and many amendments that changed the scope of the claimed invention. New grounds of rejection are presented with respect to the claims. In an effort to further prosecution, even though the claim amendments changed the scope of the claims, since the Examiner reviewed the functionality of the transversal movement and determined that it was not clear and could not function as initially determined, the Examiner has made this office action non-final.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art has been listed in the PTO-892 form.
US 2017/0005460 (Lee) teaches an apparatus mounted to an opening with a fastener that actuates a link element with an integral hook.
US 4,679,368 (Pettinga et al.) teaches a fastening device having one fixed hook and one adjustable oppositely directed hook.
US 2016/0020592 (Beele) teaches an apparatus mounted in and around an opening in a wall via fasteners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INGRID M WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-M-T 7-5:00pm.
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