DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/06/26.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The Specification (0001) incorrectly denotes the foreign priority date as 05/20/02 rather than 05/20/22.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/11/24 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it contains two previously considered references from the IDS of 04/27/23, but does not provide Foreign References for the other two new documents. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1-8, 10, and 13, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In respect to independent claim 1, the recitation “said latch profiles arranged in a main direction of extent in a grid dimension less than or equal to 2 mm” is unclear and indefinite. The applicant claims an arrangement along a grid, with the grid dimension less than or equal to 2mm. This “arrangement” does not quantify what relationship the actual structure (e.g. spacing between latching profiles) and the grid dimension is, thus no dimensional quantification can be made of the structure. A “grid dimension” is only a hypothetical spatial relationship between other grid elements (e.g. the distance between grid lines).
In respect to claim 6, the claim additionally lacks proper antecedent basis for the term “said latching profile”.
In respect to claim 7, the claim additionally recites “from which it is configured to taper away” which is unclear since “it” does not clearly designate which element is configured to taper away. Although “it” appears to refer to each latching web, positively reciting them would clarify the claim. Furthermore, the term “configured to taper away” is unclear. It is unclear how each latching web has a configuration to taper away. As best can be construed the latching webs are configured to bend in a perpendicular direction from the main direction (see Figures 3a-3b), however they do not bend “taper” away from any discernable structure (perhaps a hypothetical plane perpendicular to the main direction). The webs taper away, in a direction away from the plate-like base region, however this is a structural feature not a “configuration”.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Speith et al. (US 2017/0282431).
In respect to claims 1-3, the claim is unclear and indefinite for the reasons stated in the 35 USC 112 rejection above, however, Speith et al. disclose a marker strip comprising: a strip-shaped labeling strip 2 formed of a plastic material including a labelling side B (0035) and an opposite side including a plurality of latching profiles 5a/5b (Fig. 1b) which are configured to latch to marking latching receptacles on serially arranged electronic devices (Abstract). Although unclear, Speith et al. disclose that the latching profiles 5a/5b are arranged in a main direction of extent, wherein they may be defined as “arranged in the main direction” of a grid dimension of less than 2 mm, including 1.5 m, as the “grid spacing” as broadly claimed, is not tied to any structural aspect) (Fig. 5).
In respect to claims 4-6, Speith et al. disclose that each latching profile includes two latching webs 5a/5b, which are parallel spaced in relation to one another in a plane oriented perpendicular to the main direction, with each of the latching webs further offset to the left and right from an adjacent latching profile (Fig. 5).
In respect to claim 7, the claim is additionally unclear for the reasons stated above, however, Speith et al. disclose that the latching web(s) are attached to a plate-like base region 3 taper in a direction away therefrom (Fig. 1b).
In respect to claim 8, Speith et al. disclose that the plate-like base regions of adjacent marker latching profiles are separated by a slot 8 (Fig. 1a).
In respect to claim 10, Speith et al. disclose a web of marking strips wherein it is configured to be cut to various lengths and explicitly discloses cutting them to desired lengths (0005).
In respect to claim 13, Speith et al. disclose that the marker strip is provided as at least one plastic material (see above). Although optional, Spieth et al. further disclose a two-plastic composition with the second plastic softer than the first (0006; Fig. 1b).
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 13, are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speith et al. (US 2017/0282431) in view Mouser Electronics (NPL, 2021).
Although the clear does not clearly define any structural dimensional for the reasons stated in the 35 USC 112 above, it is currently assumed that the applicant is attempting to claim that a dimensional spacing between adjacent latching profiles is less than 2 mm (particularly 1.5 mm). Speith et al. do not disclose any specific dimensions, including spacing between the latching profiles. However, Speith et al. do disclose discrete spacing between latching profiles of an arbitrary dimension X1 (Fig. 5) and further that the marker strip is similarly concerned with marking electronic terminals, similar to the present application.
However, Mouser Electronics discloses similar electronic terminals, including terminals with a pitch as small as 1.5 mm. It would have been obvious too one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to provide the spacing between latching profiles X1 as 1.5 mm to assure that any individual electronic terminal would include at least one latching profile i.e. larger spacing could create a scenario if a single smaller (1.5 mm pitch/width) electronic terminal was to be connected to other sized terminals, an additional connection would not be assured between the disparate electronic terminals. Furthermore, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, it is unclear what unexpected result would be effectuated by a 1.5 mm spacing, particularly, since there is no specific spacing disclosed in Speith et al.
It is further noted in respect to the unclear/indefinite recitation of the grid, the spacing could be arranged in similar sized grid irrespective of the grid size i.e. if the spacing was an obvious choice of 6 mm, or another larger quantity, in line with the disclosure of Speith et al. (with any slight deviation an obvious dimension difference with no expected result) the 6.5 mm latching profile spacing would align with the 1.5 mm grid spacing (in multiples of 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Polker et al. (US 12,260,785), Labinal (FR 1,593,558), Kato (JP H06-170983), Weldmuller (DE 20-2004-010070), Himstedt et al. (DE 10-2013-113328), Weldmuller (DE 20-2009-003250), and Reibke (DE 10-2009-006793), disclose similar inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights