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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krisel (U.S. 7,730,592).
As for Claim 1, Krisel discloses a system comprising:
a body (110) having an insertion channel (112) extending through the body, the channel including a first channel wall (wall for 130) and a second channel wall (wall for 120) opposite the first channel wall,
at least one engagement member (130) disposed on the first channel wall;
at least one biasing member (120) disposed on the second channel wall; and
a strap (150) extending from the body, the strap having a first strap surface and a second strap surface (top and bottom surface of 150), the second strap surface comprising strap engagement members (152 or 154), the strap being adapted to be advanced through the insertion channel in a direction of insertion (see Figs. 11-13), and wherein the strap extends from the body in a direction parallel to the direction of insertion (see Figs. 11-13); wherein when the strap is inserted in the insertion channel, the at least one biasing member contacts against the first strap surface and as a result of the contact against the first strap surface, the at least one biasing member urges the strap engagement members into engagement with the at least one engagement member on the first channel wall (see Figs. 11-13 disclosing the surface of teeth 122 engaging the surface of teeth 152);
wherein the second strap surface is parallel to one of the first channel wall and the second channel wall (see Figs. 11-13).
2. The in-line object bundling system of claim 1, wherein the at least one biasing member comprises a barbed flexure (flexure portion of 120) having a first end integral to the second channel wall (see Fig. 11) and a cantilevered second end (body of 120), the first end being adjacent to the first face of the body (see Figs. 11-13).
3. The in-line object bunding system of claim 2, wherein the barbed flexure is configured to apply a biasing force against the first strap surface (see Figs. 11-13 and Col. 3 lines 22-64).
4. The object bunding system of claim 2, wherein the barbed flexure is configured to apply a biasing force against the first strap surface such that the strap engagement members are urged into engagement with the at least one engagement member on the first channel wall upon the strap being advanced in a direction opposite the insertion direction (see Figs. 11-13 and Col. 3 lines 22-64).
5. The in-line object bunding system of claim 3, wherein the at least one engagement member comprises at least one holding edge (edge of 130 defined by teeth 132).
6. The in-line object bunding system of claim 5, wherein the strap includes a plurality of corresponding engagement members (152 or 154), each of the corresponding engagement members comprising a leading edge (edge of 152 or 154 that define the teeth) and a holding edge (other edge of 152 or 154 defining the teeth).
7. The in-line object bundling of claim 6, wherein the holding edge of the strap engages the holding edge of the at least one engagement member upon advancement of the strap in a direction opposite the direction of insertion (see Figs. 11-13).
8. The in-line object bundling system of claim 2, wherein the at least one biasing member comprises a single barbed flexure (flexure portion of 120).
10. The in-line object bundling system of claim 1, wherein the at least one biasing member comprises a leaf-spring flexure (flexure portion of 120) having a first end integral to the second channel wall and a second end integral to the second channel wall (see Figs. 11-13).
11. The in-line object bunding system of claim 10, wherein the leaf- spring flexure is configured to apply a biasing force against the strap such that the strap is urged against the first channel wall (see Figs. 11-13 and Col. 3 lines 22-64).
12. The in-line object bunding system of claim 10, wherein the leaf- spring flexure is configured to apply a biasing force against the strap such that the strap is urged against the first channel wall upon the strap being advanced in a direction opposite the insertion direction and in the insertion direction (see Figs. 9-10 and Col. 3 lines 36-55).
13. The in-line object bundling system of claim 10, wherein the at least one biasing member comprises a single leaf-spring flexure (flexure of 120) having a first end integral to the second channel wall and a second end integral to the channel wall (see Figs. 11-13).
15. The in-line object bundling system of claim 1, wherein the second surface of the body and the first channel wall define a thickness, wherein the strap extends from the thickness (see Figs. 11-13).
16. The in-line object bundling system of claim 1, wherein the second surface of the body and the second channel wall define a thickness, wherein the strap extends from the thickness(see Figs. 11-13).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krisel (U.S. 7,730,592).
The difference between the claim and prior art of is the claim recites: two barbed flexures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to duplicate the leaf spring flexure, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In the case above, it was found that while the addition of multiple plies to the concept of the Poppe bad undoubtedly made it stronger, it is not the type of innovation for which a patent monopoly is to be granted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Krisel fails to disclose “wherein when the strap is inserted in the insertion channel, he at least one biasing member contacts against the first strap surface and the at least one biasing member urges the strap engagement members into engagement with the at least one engagement member on the first channel wall,” Examiner respectfully disagrees and discloses the claimed limitation in rejection provided herein. Applicant’s argument that the contacting against the strap without engagement is required of claim 1, appears to be further limiting than the disclosed claim language in Claim 1. Examiner disagrees that Krisel fails to contact against the strap, when Krisel discloses engaging of the engagement members which is contacting against each other.
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 DAVID M UPCHURCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7957. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/DAVID M UPCHURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677