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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1, 5-11, and 15-17 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 09/11/2025 has/have been taken into account.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 09/18/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 11 have been amended; No Claims 2-4 and 12-14 have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5-11, and 15-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clayton et al. (WO 03/074916).
In regards to Claim 1, Clayton discloses a conduit clip comprising: a top surface (Clayton: Annotated Fig. 6; S1) defining a first partially enclosed ring (Clayton: Fig. 6; 26) extending from a front face to a rear face; a bottom surface (Clayton: Annotated Fig. 6; S2) defining a second partially enclosed ring (Clayton: Fig. 6; 24) extending from the front face to the rear face of the body, a first side face (Clayton: Fig. 4, 6; 28, 30) connecting the front face and the rear face, the first side face defining a first slot (Clayton: Fig. 4; 50) configured to receive a first flexible fastener, the first slot extending completely between the bottom surface and the top surface; and a second side face (Clayton: Fig. 4, 6; 28, 30) connecting the front face and the rear face, the second side face defining a second slot (Clayton: Fig. 4; 50) configured to receive the first flexible fastener, the second slot extending completely between the bottom surface and the top surface, wherein the top surface has a first width that extends from the first side face to the second side face, and the bottom surface has a second width that extends from the first side face to the second side face, wherein the first side face and the second side face taper towards each other (Clayton: Fig. 6; shows tapering).
Regarding Claim 5, Clayton discloses the conduit clip claim of claim 1 wherein the first partially enclosed ring (Clayton: Fig. 6; 26) and the second partially enclosed ring (Clayton: Fig. 6; 24) extend in a parallel direction.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinez et al. (US 2007/0120023).
In regards to Claim 1, Martinez discloses a conduit clip comprising: a top surface (Martinez: Fig. 7; 251) defining a first partially enclosed ring (Martinez: Fig. 7; 274) extending from a front face to a rear face; a bottom surface (Martinez: Fig. 7; 253) defining a second partially enclosed ring (Martinez: Fig. 7; 274) extending from the front face to the rear face of the body, a first side face (Martinez: Fig. 7; 255) connecting the front face and the rear face, the first side face defining a first slot (Martinez: Fig. 8; 268) configured to receive a first flexible fastener, the first slot extending completely between the bottom surface and the top surface; and a second side face (Martinez: Fig. 7; 257) connecting the front face and the rear face, the second side face defining a second slot (Martinez: Fig. 8; 268) configured to receive the first flexible fastener, the second slot extending completely between the bottom surface and the top surface, wherein the top surface has a first width that extends from the first side face to the second side face, and the bottom surface has a second width that extends from the first side face to the second side face, wherein the first side face and the second side face taper towards each other (Martinez: Fig. 7; each side tapers toward the other as they approach the top and bottom surfaces).
Regarding Claim 5, Martinez discloses the conduit clip claim of claim 1 wherein the first partially enclosed ring (Martinez: Fig. 7; 274) and the second partially enclosed ring (Martinez: Fig. 7; 274) extend in a parallel direction.
Regarding Claim 7, Martinez discloses the conduit clip of claim 1 wherein at least one of the first slot and the second slot (Martinez: Fig. 8; 268) are rectangular (Martinez: [0053] – constant width).
Regarding Claim 8, Martinez discloses the conduit clip of claim 1 wherein the first partially enclosed ring is about 60% to about 80% enclosed (Martinez: [0056]).
Regarding Claim 9, Martinez discloses the conduit clip of claim 1 wherein the first partially enclosed ring is about 65% to about 70% enclosed (Martinez: [0056]).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clayton et al. (WO 03/074916) in view of Murphy (US 2023/0124484).
Regarding Claim 6, Clayton discloses the conduit clip claim of claim 1, but fails to disclose the first partially enclosed ring and the second partially enclosed ring extend in a non-parallel direction.
However, Murphy teaches a first partially enclosed space and the second partially enclosed space that extend in a non-parallel direction (Murphy: Fig. 10).
Clayton and Murphy are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. conduit supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clip in Clayton such that its rings can be configured in a non-parallel direction as taught by Murphy, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for the perpendicular or transverse tethering of elongated articles, thereby expanding the utility of the clip (Murphy: Col. 5, Ln. 5-13).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clayton et al. (WO 03/074916) in view of Verma et al. (US 2023/0124484).
Regarding Claim 10, Clayton discloses the conduit clip claim of claim 1 but fails to disclose a bottom surface comprises a plurality of gripping projections.
However, Verma teaches a surface comprising a plurality of gripping projections (Verma: Fig. 1B; 32).
Clayton and Verma are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. conduit supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the bottom surface in Clayton with the projections from Verma, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a textured surface in the rings (Verma: Fig. 1B; [0058]), thereby increasing the friction between the clip and conduit so as to prevent unwanted slippage.
Claims 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clayton et al. (WO 03/074916) in view of Krohn et al. (US 10,293,769) in view of Kim et al. (US 7,191,988).
In regards to Claim 11, Clayton discloses a conduit clip comprising: a top surface (Clayton: Annotated Fig. 6; S1) defining an enclosed ring (Clayton: Fig. 6; 26) extending from a front face to a rear face; a bottom surface (Clayton: Annotated Fig. 6; S2) defining a lower partially enclosed ring (Clayton: Fig. 6; 24) extending from the front face to the rear face of the body, a first side face (Clayton: Fig. 4, 6; 28, 30) defining a first slot (Clayton: Fig. 4; 50) configured to receive a first flexible fastener, the first slot extending completely between the bottom surface and the top surface; and a second side face (Clayton: Fig. 4, 6; 28, 30) defining a second slot (Clayton: Fig. 4; 50) configured to receive the first flexible fastener, the second slot extending completely between the bottom surface and the top surface; wherein the top surface has a first width that extends from the first side face to the second side face, and the bottom surface has a second width that extends from the first side face to the second side face, wherein the first side face and the second side face taper towards each other (Clayton: Fig. 6; shows tapering).
Clayton fails to disclose a pair of partially enclosed rings extending from a front face to a rear face. However, Krohn teaches a pair of partially enclosed rings (Krohn: Fig. 4; 53) extending from a front face to a rear face.
Clayton and Krohn are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. conduit supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the top surface in Clayton with the rings taught by Krohn, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a surface having multiple rings that are able to receive a plurality of routed components (Krohn: Col. 4, Ln. 48-59), thereby expanding the utility of the clip.
Furthermore, Clayton fails to disclose a fully enclosed opening extending from the first side face to the second side face, wherein the opening is positioned within the first slot and the second slot, thereby dividing the first slot into an upper portion and a lower portion, and dividing the second slot into an upper portion and a lower portion. a fully enclosed opening extending from the first side face to the second side face, wherein the opening is positioned within the first slot and the second slot, thereby dividing the first slot into an upper portion and a lower portion, and dividing the second slot into an upper portion and a lower portion. However, Kim teaches a fully enclosed opening (Kim: Annotated Fig. 3; O) extending from a first side face to a second side face, wherein the opening is positioned within a first slot and a second slot.
Clayton and Kim are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. conduit supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slots in Clayton with the opening from Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the clip with space that allows a tightening band to be used with a respective side, enabling the clip to be selectively secured individually to a conduit or structure on each side (Kim: Col. 3, Ln. 4-25), making the clip easier to secure and adjust. [Note: When modified by the opening of Kim, the slots in Clayton are divided.]
In regards to Claim 15, Clayton, as modified, teaches the conduit clip of claim 1 wherein a radius of one of the pair of partially enclosed rings (Krohn: Fig. 4; 53) is the same as a radius of the other partially enclosed ring.
In regards to Claim 16, Clayton, as modified, teaches the conduit clip of claim 11 wherein the pair of partially enclosed rings (Krohn: Fig. 4; 53) are each about 60% to about 80% enclosed (Krohn: Annotated Fig. 4).
In regards to Claim 17, Clayton, as modified, teaches the conduit clip of claim 11 wherein the pair of partially enclosed rings (Krohn: Fig. 4; 53) are each about 65% to about 70% enclosed (Krohn: Annotated Fig. 4).
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
490
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Clayton; Fig. 6
PNG
media_image2.png
585
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
II: Kim; Fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
408
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
III: Krohn; Fig. 4 (Detail)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached on (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights