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 filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Boles is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Boles solves a similar problem as the invention. Boles is used to show that magnets can be used to provide convenient and organized storage for a group of hangers. Hangers are a similar product to a clip wherein that they serve a purpose but when not used, the group can become a mess to organize. Boles solves this issue by utilizing magnets to stack the hangers together to keep them inline and attached to one another and “preventing a pile of unorganized hangers” (Boles para 63). Applicant also argues Boles only relates to organizing hangers in a closet. However, Boles specifically discloses “Multiple hangers 10 can stack up on the side of a metal surface, such as a washer or dryer” (Boles para 63). This directly addresses the similar problem and solution as applicant of how to organize a group of devices when not in use. Examiner holds rejection over the prior art.
In response to applicant’s argument stating the proposed combination of Ginocchio’s device with the magnets of Boles would not result in the applicant’s claimed invention, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 8 only requires the main body to include one or more magnets to be “stacked along their flat edges for organized storage” not that the clips must maintain the same profile to result in “stacking efficiently.” Examiner also notes that “organized storage” is a subjective and broad limitation. Ginocchio’s device, while allowing for different profiles, is capable of locking into matching profiles with other devices. Then, when stacked together via magnets, would result in a neat stack of clips. Alternatively, were Ginnocchio’s device stacked with different profiles, the combination would still result in organized storage and read over the claims as presented. Examiner holds rejection over the prior art.
In response to applicant’s argument that the combinations would change the principle of operation of Ginocchio’s device, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ginocchio does not need to be converted to a static gap system since the gap between the first end and second end of the main body is static shown in annotated Figures 2A-2C. Examiner holds rejection over the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
327
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ginocchio US 8635750.
Regarding Claim 1, Ginocchio discloses a clip for sealing a bag, comprising:
a flat main body (16) with a C-shaped profile forming a gap (annotated Fig 2A-2C) between a first end and a second end, wherein the gap remains static during operation of the clip (Fig 2A-2C), a first edge at least partially spanning the gap on the main body;
a moveable element (14) coupled to the first end of the main body via a joint (hinge ends 18, 20), the moveable element having a second edge designed to engage with the first edge when positioned within the gap;
a locking element (58) located at the second end of the main body, comprising a set of ratchet teeth (56) oriented to engage with a corresponding set of ratchet teeth (56) on the moveable element for locking the moveable element in place within the gap; and
a release mechanism (38) operatively connected to or integrated with the locking element to disengage the ratchet teeth, thereby allowing movement of the moveable element (Figure 9A, reference numerals shown in Figure 2B).
PNG
media_image1.png
327
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
443
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
396
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Ginocchio discloses wherein the moveable element comprises an opening (296) in its center, facilitating the attachment of the clip to an external anchor (peg) (Figure 9A, Column 7, lines 46-49).
Regarding Claim 3, Ginocchio discloses wherein the moveable element and the main body together form an oval profile, allowing a user to apply pressure using the full strength of their hand for closing the clip using a natural C-shaped grip (Figure 9A).
Regarding Claim 4, Ginocchio discloses wherein the clip is composed of a material suitable for use in fridge and freezer environments (ABS and polycarbonate).
Regarding Claim 5, Ginocchio discloses wherein the clip is made from a material selected from the group consisting of plastic, silicone, stainless steel, borosilicate glass, PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene), PEEK (Polyether Ether Ketone), PPS (Polyphenylene Sulfide), and vitreous enamel coated steel, to enable its use in both oven and freezer environments (ABS and polycarbonate).
Regarding Claim 12, Ginocchio discloses wherein the gap between the first end and the second end of the main body is adjustable, allowing the clip to accommodate bags of various thicknesses (Fig 2A-2C).
Regarding Claim 15, Ginocchio discloses wherein the joint is a hinged joint (18, 20).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginocchio US 8635750 in view of Boles US 20170065113 .
Regarding Claim 8, Ginocchio discloses the invention except wherein the main body comprises one or more magnets, enabling multiple clips to be magnetically attracted to each other and stacked along their flat edges for organized storage.
Boles discloses a hanger with magnets (28) embedded in the body.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the clip of Ginocchio to include the magnets as taught by Boles to the hangers 10 to stack up neatly, one on top of the other, preventing a pile of unorganized hangers 10 (para 58).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginocchio US 8635750.
Regarding Claim 9, Ginocchio discloses the invention except wherein the clip is available in various sizes and dimension ratios to accommodate different bag sizes and types.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the clip of Ginocchio to be various sizes and dimension ratios as disclosed in order to accommodate different sizes of objects, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding Claim 13, Ginocchio discloses the invention except wherein the main body and the moveable element include textured surfaces to enhance grip and ease of operation, particularly in wet conditions or with slippery hands (Column 7, lines 39-40, “Frame 294 could be roughened or knurled to assist in gripping”).
However, Ginocchio teaches wherein the frame 294 could be roughened or knurled to assist in gripping (Column 7, lines 39-40). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the main body and the moveable element to also be roughened or knurled to assist in gripping.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginocchio US 8635750 in view of Wightman US 588848.
Regarding Claim 14, Ginocchio discloses the invention except wherein the first edge and the second edge are toothed.
Wightman discloses a bag clip wherein the first and second edges are toothed (4)(Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the clip of Ginocchio to include the teeth on the first and second edges as taught by Weightman to “engage into the material of a bad and thus prevent the fastener from slipping thereon” (lines 37-40).
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 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