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 Objections
Applicant appears to have inadvertently deleted the periods at the ends of claims 8 and 20. All claims should end in periods.
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.
Claim 15 is 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. Applicant amended claim 7, from which claim 15 depends, to require that then main shaft have a mount and the clip have a protrusion that is received in an aperture of the mount. The is no description in the original application of the clip being integral with the shaft in combination with the protrusion and aperture embodiment.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guidry (US 2012/0163117) in view of Kraft (US 3,163,404).
Regarding claim 7, Guidry discloses a tube holder (100) configured to receive a tube (such as 24), the tube holder comprising a main shaft (16) defining a shaft width and including a side having a mount (26); a first end (the left instance of "18" in Fig. 3) defining a first width, the first width greater than the shaft width; a second end (the right instance of "18" in Fig. 3) opposite the first end and defining a second width, the second width greater than the shaft width; and at least one clip (28) disposed on the side, wherein the at least one clip is configured to receive the tube (such as 24). However, the mount including an aperture and the clip including a protrusion is not disclosed. Kraft teaches a clip (41) having a protrusion (42) which is coupled to an aperture of a mount. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have mounted the clip of Guidry via a protrusion and aperture coupling as taught by Kraft to facilitate assembly, repair, replacement or cleaning (see col. 3, lines 66-72).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, clips are disclosed on four sides of the shaft (see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further duplicated parts to hold more tubes. See also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) concerning the obviousness of duplicating parts.
Regarding claim 10, the first width and the second width are equal (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 14, Kraft further teaches the clip being removable (see col. 3, lines 66-72).
Regarding claim 15, the at least one clip is integrally formed with the side (see Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 16-21 are allowed.
Claims 12 and 13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues regarding claim 1 as currently amended “the protrusion would not be integrally formed with the clip. Rather, the clamp 28 would be mounted with the separate screw 42 of Kraft”. However, as held in Ex Parte Hotte 475 F.2d 644 (CCPA 1973) “As indicated by the board, ‘integral’ is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening”.
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 L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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 L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774