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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18, 20-29, and 31 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 § 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 18, 20-29, and 31 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "said substrate" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent on a rejected claim are rejected.
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.
Claims 18, 22-25, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korcz et al. US 8674219.
Regarding claim 18, Korcz et al. discloses a securing clip (16) comprising:
an enclosure body including a first end (52), a second end (50), and two or more sidewalls (58 and 60), each sidewall extending linearly and in the same direction (Col 5 lines 26-28, “substantially parallel to each other”) from the first end to the second end and said second end and that is designed to at least partially surround at least a portion of a fragment module (46) when said fragment module is disposed within a cavity (56) defined between one or more of said sidewalls;
one or more fragment module securing tangs (84) extending from one or more of said sidewalls into said cavity such that when at least a portion of said fragment module is placed within said cavity, at least a portion of said fragment module securing tang is designed to engage with said fragment module and prevent and/or impede removal of at least a portion of said fragment module from said cavity;
one or more substrate securing tangs (72) extending from said enclosure body and away from said cavity and each of said substrate securing tangs being designed to prevent and/or impede removal of said enclosure body positioned inside a substrate aperture (104) defined within said substrate(14); and
wherein when the securing clip is placed into the substrate aperture, one or more of the substrate securing tangs (72), generating a spring force (resilient) away from the enclosure body, engages with the substrate to prevent and/or impede removal of the securing clip from the substrate aperture, and wherein the spring force is generated without one or more of the fragment module securing tangs (84) engaging with the fragment module (46) (Fig 5-8 and 14).
Regarding claim 22, Korcz et al discloses wherein one or more of said sidewalls is pliable (resilient metal) such that a force applied to one or more of said sidewalls bends one or more of said sidewalls from an open position to a closed position, to form said cavity and one or more of said fragment module securing tangs is designed to engage said fragment module (Col 5 lines 22-23, “A blank of the spring steel is stamped and bent to the desired shape.”)
Regarding claim 23, Korcz et al. discloses wherein said cavity (56) extends through said first end and said second end such that, when said fragment module (46) is placed into said cavity, at least a portion of said fragment module extends beyond said first end and/or said second end (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 24, Korcz et al. discloses wherein said securing clip (16) is produced from a single piece of material (Col 5 lines 20-23, “The clip member 16 is preferably a one piece integrally formed member made of a spring steel such as pre-tempered stainless steel.”).
Regarding claim 25, Korcz et al. discloses wherein said securing clip is made from a material (stainless steel) that corrodes when said material is exposed to saltwater (stainless steel with corrode over time when exposed to saltwater) and is selected from at least one material selected from a group comprising biodegradable plastic, steel, aluminum, plants, plastic, and fungi.
Regarding claim 29, Korcz et al. discloses wherein one or more of said substrate securing tangs (72) extends from one or more of said sidewalls (58 and 60) (Fig 5-8).
Regarding claim 31, Korcz et al. discloses wherein each of said sidewalls having at least one intersecting side (62) that intersects with said intersecting side of an adjacent sidewall (Fig 5-8).
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.
Claims 20-21, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korcz et al. US 8674219.
Regarding claim 20, Korcz et al. discloses the invention expect wherein said enclosure body includes six sidewalls and said cavity defined by said sidewalls is hexagonal.
Korcz et al. lacks specifically disclosing the enclosure body having six sidewalls shaped as a hexagon, however changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the shape enclosure body. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the enclosure body of Korcz et al. from having two walls to having six walls shaped as a hexagon to allow the invention to operate with different shaped apertures.
Again, the Examiner notes it has been held that a change of shape is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B))
Regarding claim 21, Korcz et al. discloses the invention expect wherein said enclosure body includes a circular sidewall.
Korcz et al. lacks specifically disclosing the enclosure body being circular, however changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the shape enclosure body. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the enclosure body of Korcz et al. from having two walls to being circular to allow the invention to operate with different shaped apertures as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Regarding claim 28, Korcz et al. discloses the invention expect wherein one or more of said substrate securing tangs extends from a base portion of said enclosure body and at least a portion of said substrate securing tangs extends below said base portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a portion of the substrate securing tangs extending below the base portion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C)
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korcz et al. US 8674219 in view of Kosidlo et al US 7496993.
Regarding claim 26, Korcz et al. discloses further comprising one or more tabs (64) extending from said first end and away from said cavity.
Korcz et al. Does not disclose wherein each of said tabs including a raised portion that is elevated from a portion of each of said tabs.
Kosidlo et al. discloses each of said tabs (Kosidlo et al., 24) including a raised portion (Kosidlo et al. 26) that is elevated from a portion of each of said tabs.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tabs of XXXX to include a raised portion as taught by Kosidlo et al to allow material to be securely pinched between the substrate and the tabs (Kosidlo et al., Col 4 lines 28-35).
Regarding claim 27, Korcz et al. in view of Kosidlo et al. discloses wherein one or more of said tabs extends perpendicular to one or more of said sidewalls (Korcz et al., Fig 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA SALEM RASHID whose telephone number is (703)756-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 - 6:00.
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.
/ANNA S RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677