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 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolf (DE1600601A1, hereinafter referred to as “Rolf”) in view of GrippleTV USA “Stock Fence Repair” youtube video dated 09/16/2016, (hereinafter referred to as “GrippleTV”).
Regarding claim 1, Rolf discloses a securing assembly (Fig 1, pipe 10 and metal sheet 20 and heating pipe 16 are all secured by tension straps secured by tightening belt at 18 ) comprising: an elongate member (Fig 1, strap at 18) arrangeable around a first article (Fig 1, pipe 10), wherein the elongate member comprises one of a wire, a wire rope, or a cable (Fig 1, strap fixed at 18); a connecting device to connecting opposite end regions of the elongate member to each other (Figs 1 and 2, element 18 connects opposite end regions of tension straps to each other), wherein the connecting device comprises one or more clamping mechanisms to connect the end regions of the elongate member to each other; an attaching arrangement to attach the elongate member to a second article (Fig 1, strap is attached around heating pipe 16 via fixing at 18), thereby securing the second article to the first article (Figs 1, 2 and 4, heating pipe 16 is secured to pipe 10).
However, Rolf fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the connecting device comprises clamping mechanisms to connect the end regions of the elongate member to each other; ……. and a tightening arrangement for tightening the elongated member against the first article, wherein the tightening arrangement comprises a spacing member for spacing connecting arrangements of the connecting device from each other, each connecting arrangement comprising a corresponding one of the clamping mechanism, and wherein each clamping mechanism comprises a clamping member to clamp a respective one of the end regions of the elongate member.
However, GrippleTV and Rolf combined teach wherein the connecting device (GrippleTV video at 0:15 min shows a Gripple Plus wire joiner (connecting device)) comprises clamping mechanisms to connect the end regions of the elongate member to each other (video at 0:45 min ~ 1:23 min shows a pair of Gripple Plus wire joiners combined using a Gripple tightening tool (together serving as clamping mechanisms) to connect ends of elongated wires to each other); ……. and a tightening arrangement for tightening the elongated member against the first article (video of GrippleTV at 0:57 min ~1:10 min shows that the usage of Gripple tightening tool alongside two Gripple Plus wire joiner connecting devices enables tightening of the elongated wires; Rolf: first article can be the pipe), wherein the tightening arrangement comprises a spacing member for spacing connecting arrangements of the connecting device from each other (video at 1:34 min ~ 1:47 min shows that vertical metal wire segments serve as “spacing member” for spacing connecting arrangements of multiple Gripple plus wire joiners), each connecting arrangement comprising a corresponding one of the clamping mechanism (video at 1:40 min ~ 1:54min), and wherein each clamping mechanism comprises a clamping member to clamp a respective one of the end regions of the elongate member (Gripple plus wire joiner has clamping members that locks).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GrippleTV and Rolf based on the following rationales: rationale (a) referring to Rolf, as shown by Fig, 1, the securing device (18) of Rolf is vaguely defined without teaching any mechanism for tightening the strap upon installation. On the other hand, referring to GrippleTV video in its entirety, in which the Gripple Plus wire joiner connecting devices when used in combination with a Gripple tightening tool can enable secure tightening with the elongated article of wires. Thus, Gripple Plus wire joiner connecting device enable easy tighter clamping and securement of elongated members inserted in both directions from opposite sides.
Rationale (b): referring to straps 10 at 18 in Figs 1 and 2 of Rolf, the straps 10 do not have structural means to be positionably-fixed directly onto the heating pipe 16, thus distance between adjacent straps 10 may drift over time. On the other hand, the horizontal and vertical wire patterns of GrippleTV allow better securement and fixing of the distances of adjacent wire segments. As a result, above discussed advantages of GrippleTV over that of Rolf serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Rolf and GrippleTV there would have been reasonable expectation of success because the Gripple Plus wire joiner connecting device of GrippleTV can be easily adapted for use on the elongate article of wire of Rolf.
Regarding claim 2, Rolf discloses wherein the connection of the opposite end regions of the elongate member to each other mount the securing assembly on the first article (Fig 1, tension straps/belt secured by tightening strap/ belt at 18 are mounted on the pipe 10).
Regarding claim 3, Rolf discloses wherein the first article is a pipe (Fig 1, pipe 10).
Regarding claim 5, Rolf discloses wherein the second article is an elongate article (Fig 1, heating device 16 is elongated along extending direction thereof).
Regarding claim 6, Rolf discloses wherein the elongate article is an elongate heating article (Fig 1, heating device 16 is elongated along extending direction thereof).
Regarding claim 8, Rolf alone fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the connecting device comprises the tightening arrangement.
However, GrippleTV teaches wherein the connecting device comprises the tightening arrangement (video at 0:15 min shows a Gripple Plus wire joiner serving as “connecting device”; video at 0:45 min ~ 1:23 min shows a pair of Gripple Plus wire joiners combined with a Gripple tightening tool, providing the tightening arrangement).
Regarding claim 10, Rolf fails to disclose wherein the connecting device comprises two of the clamping mechanisms, wherein each clamping mechanism is arranged to clamp a respective one of the end regions of the elongate member.
However, GrippleTV teaches wherein the connecting device comprises two of the clamping mechanisms, wherein each clamping mechanism is arranged to clamp a respective one of the end regions of the elongate member (video at 0:48 min ~ 1:03 min, each Gripple Plus wire joiners has two clamping mechanisms for wires entering in opposite directions to as to clamp one end of wire).
Regarding claim 17, Rolf fails to disclose or teach wherein the attaching arrangement comprises one or more holding members to hold the elongate member, and wherein the attaching arrangement comprises one or more gripping members to retaining the second article.
However, Rolf and GrippleTV combined teach the following: wherein the attaching arrangement comprises one or more holding members to hold the elongate member (GrippleTV video at 0:45 min ~ 1:23 min shows a Gripple tightening tool for holding the elongate wire), and wherein the attaching arrangement comprises one or more gripping members to retaining the second article (Rolf: Fig 4, gripping member (15) to retain second article (16)).
Regarding claim 22, Rolf and GrippleTV combined teach a heating arrangement comprising the first article, the second article, and the securing assembly, as claimed in claim 1 (Rolf: Fig 1 shows the heating arrangement, a strap is attached around heating pipe 16 via fixing at 18, Figs 1, 2 and 4, heating pipe 16 is secured to pipe 10, see discussions above for claim 1 as taught by Rolf and GrippleTV combined).
Regarding claims 8, 10, 17 and 22, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GrippleTV and Rolf based on the same rationale as previously discussed for claim 1, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 11, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolf (DE1600601A1, hereinafter referred to as “Rolf”) in view of GrippleTV USA “Stock Fence Repair” youtube video dated 09/16/2016, (hereinafter referred to as “GrippleTV”), and further in view of Bacon (US20140123439A1, hereinafter referred to as “Bacon”).
Regarding claim 11, Rolf and GrippleTV fail to sufficiently disclose or teach wherein the connecting device comprises a pair of bodies, wherein each body houses a respective one of the clamping mechanisms.
However, Bacon teaches wherein the connecting device (Fig 8, gripping arrangement 110) comprising: a pair of bodies (Figs 8-12, body 112 has two distinct sections), wherein each body houses a respective one of the clamping mechanisms.
(Figs 8-12, body 112 of device 110 has two distinct sections; [0064]-[0065] gripping arrangements 114A, 114B; Fig 10, each gripping arrangement 114A, 114B housed in one section of body 112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bacon and Rolf based on the following rationale: referring to Rolf, as shown by Fig, 1, the securing device (18) is vaguely defined without any mechanism for clamping and tightening the strap upon installation. On the other hand, referring to Bacon, Figs 8, 9, 11, locking member 130 extending between two sections of body 112, [0087] increasing of clamping force thereon acting by the locking member 130 in the locked position when engaging the elongate article 111, thereby provides tightening and clamping engagement with the elongated article. As a result, above discussed advantage of securing device of locking member 130 of Bacon over that of Rolf serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Rolf and Bacon there would have been reasonable expectation of success because the gripping device of Bacon can be easily adapted for use on the elongate article of Rolf.
Regarding claim 13, Rolf and GrippleTV fails to disclose or teach wherein while the end regions of the elongate member are clamped in the bodies, the bodies are movable towards each other to loosen the elongate member.
However, Bacon teaches wherein while the end regions of the elongate member are clamped in the bodies, the bodies are movable towards each other to loosen the elongate member (Figs 6 and 7, when elongate article 22 is clamped in the bodies (16), the bodies (16) are rotatable/movable towards each other to loosen or release the elongate article 22 in the non-gripping position of Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bacon and GrippleTV and Rolf based on the same rationale as previously discussed for claim 11, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Regarding claim 14, Rolf and GrippleTV, singularly or in combination, fail to sufficiently disclose or teach comprising a tightening arrangement to tighten the elongate member against the first article wherein the tightening arrangement extends between the two bodies, and wherein the tightening arrangement is to urge the bodies away from each other to tighten the elongate member.
However, Bacon teaches comprising a tightening arrangement to tighten the elongate member against the first article wherein the tightening arrangement extends between the two bodies, and wherein the tightening arrangement is to urge the bodies away from each other to tighten the elongate member (Figs 8, 9, 11, locking member 130 extending between two sections of body 112; [0087] increasing of clamping force thereon acting by the locking member 130 in the locked position when engaging the elongate article 111, thereby provides the tightening; Fig 7, urging the bodies (16) rotatably in direction C away from each other, iso as to be in gripping position).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bacon and GrippleTV and Rolf based on the same rationale as previously discussed for claim 11, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Regarding claim 15, Rolf and GrippleTV, singularly or in combination, fail to disclose or teach wherein the tightening arrangement comprises a spring to space the bodies from each other, and wherein the spring is compressible to loosen the elongate member.
However, Bacon teaches wherein the tightening arrangement comprises a spring to space the bodies from each other (Fig 8, spring 122 to space two sections of body 112 from each other), and wherein the spring is compressible to loosen the elongate member (Fig 10, spring 122 is compressed, and [0094] discuss locking member 130 is in non-locking position, so to loosen elongate article 111).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bacon and GrippleTV and Rolf based on the same rationale as previously discussed for claim 11, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Regarding claim 16, Rolf and GrippleTV, singularly or in combination, fail to sufficiently disclose or teach wherein each clamping mechanism comprises an urging member to urge the clamping member into clamping engagement with the respective end region of the elongate member, and wherein each body comprises: a clamping formation against which the clamping member clamps the respective end region of the elongate member when in use; and a reaction formation against which the clamping member is clamped when in use.
However, Bacon teaches wherein each clamping mechanism comprises an urging member to urge the clamping member into clamping engagement with the respective end region of the elongate member (Fig 10, spring 122 also serve as function of urging member, to urge gripping member 116 into clamping engagement of elongate article 111), and wherein each body comprises: a clamping formation against which the clamping member clamps the respective end region of the elongate member when in use (Fig 10, gripping member 116, [0067], [0073]); and a reaction formation against which the clamping member is clamped when in use (Fig 10, reaction member 124, [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bacon and GrippleTV and Rolf based on the same rationale as previously discussed for claim 11, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolf (DE1600601A1, hereinafter referred to as “Rolf”) in view of GrippleTV USA “Stock Fence Repair” youtube video dated 09/16/2016, (hereinafter referred to as “GrippleTV”), and further in view of Bacon (US20140123439A1, hereinafter referred to as “Bacon”), and further in view of GrippleTV USA youtube video “Stock Fence Repair – Gripple Plus range” dated July 17, 2012, (hereinafter referred to as “GrippleTV2”).
Regarding claim 12, Rolf and GrippleTV, singularly or in combination, fail to sufficiently disclose or teach wherein each body defines an entrance opening for the elongate member, and an exit opening for the elongate member,
However, Bacon teaches wherein each body defines an entrance opening for the elongate member (Bacon: Fig 8, insertion opening 132 at top section of body 112), and an exit opening for the elongate member (Bacon: Fig 10, exit opening 134),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bacon and GrippleTV and Rolf based on the same rationale as previously discussed for claim 11, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
However, Rolf, GrippleTV and Bacon fails to teach and wherein the entrance openings of each body face each other.
However, GrippleTV2 teaches the following: and wherein the entrance openings of each body face each other (video at 1: 17min, entrance openings at each body of the adjacent pair of gripple plus wire joiner face each other).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GrippleTV2 and Rolf based on the following rationales: rationale (a) referring to Rolf, as shown by Fig, 1, the securing device (18) of Rolf is vaguely defined without teaching any mechanism for tightening the strap upon installation. On the other hand, referring to GrippleTV2 video in its entirety, in which the Gripple Plus wire joiner connecting devices when used in combination with a Gripple tightening tool can enable secure tightening with the elongated article of wires. Thus, Gripple Plus wire joiner connecting device enable easy tighter clamping and securement of elongated members inserted in both directions from opposite sides.
Rationale (b): referring to straps 10 at 18 in Figs 1 and 2 of Rolf, the straps 10 do not have structural means to be positionable fixed directly onto the heating pipe 16, thus distance between adjacent straps 10 may drift over time. On the other hand, the horizontal and vertical wire patterns of GrippleTV2 allow better securement and fixing of the distances of adjacent wire segments. As a result, above discussed advantages of GrippleTV2 over that of Rolf serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Rolf and GrippleTV2 there would have been reasonable expectation of success because the Gripple Plus wire joiner connecting device of GrippleTV2 can be easily adapted for use on the elongate article of wire of Rolf. Furthermore, GrippleTV2 and GrippleTV are merely different usage scenarios videos made in similar timeframe of the same products Gripple Plus wire joiner from the same company Gripple, Inc.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolf (DE1600601A1, hereinafter referred to as “Rolf”) in view of GrippleTV USA “Stock Fence Repair” youtube video dated 09/16/2016, (hereinafter referred to as “GrippleTV”), and further in view of Scholl (US20210131148A1, hereinafter referred to as “Scholl”).
Regarding claim 18, Rolf and GrippleTV, singularly or in combination, fail to sufficiently disclose or teach wherein the attaching arrangement comprises two of the holding members, wherein the holding members are arranged on opposite sides of the one or more gripping members, and wherein the one or more gripping members are deformable to grip the second article.
However, Rolf and Schroll combined teach wherein the attaching arrangement comprises two of the holding members, wherein the holding members are arranged on opposite sides of the one or more gripping members (Schroll: Fig 3, two holding members (swages 48) can be disposed at opposite sides of gripping member (15) of Rolf), and wherein the one or more gripping members are deformable to grip the second article (Rolf: gripping member (15) in Fig 4, and Fig 2, Figs 3b, 3c and 4, gripping member (15) is deformable to grip second article (16)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rolf and Scholl based on the following rationale: referring to Rolf, as shown by Figs 1 and 2, the securing device (18) is vaguely defined without any mechanism for secure locking of the securing device (18) upon installation. Meanwhile, connecting device of GrippleTV also lacks mechanism for secure key locking. On the other hand, referring to Scholl as shown by Figs 1-4, the keyway 44 and barrel 86, and [0038] which explains that the cable lock assembly can be locked and unlocked by a key. As a result, above discussed advantage of added security of locking capability for cable securing device of Scholl over that of GrippleTV and Rolf, respectively serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Rolf by Scholl there would have been reasonable expectation of success because the connecting device of GrippleTV can be easily replaced by the cable lock of Scholl.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolf (DE1600601A1, hereinafter referred to as “Rolf”) in view of GrippleTV USA “Stock Fence Repair” youtube video dated 09/16/2016, (hereinafter referred to as “GrippleTV”),
and further in view of Scholl (US20210131148A1, hereinafter referred to as “Scholl”), and further in view of HSTECH aluminum crimping loop sleeve for wire and cable sold on amazon.com first available date of 08/12/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “HSTECH”).
Regarding claim 20, Rolf and GrippleTV, singularly or in combination, fail to disclose or teach wherein the one or more holding members are deformable to hold the elongate article.
However, HSTECH in view of Scholl teaches wherein the one or more holding members are deformable to hold the elongate article (HSTECH: holding member/crimping loop sleeve are crimped/deformable to hold the cable shown in roll-over photo # 4 in page 1; Schroll: Fig 3, two holding members (swages 48)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify by HSTECH in view of Scholl, GrippleTV and Rolf based on the following rationale: referring to Fig 3 and [0033] of Schroll, cable 20 end has a loop 46 that is locked by a splice or swage 48. On the other hands, HSTECH teaches aluminum crimping loop sleeve for wire and cable in roll-over photo #4 in page 1. Thus, replacement of splice/swage of Scholl by crimping loop sleeve of HSTECH is merely simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, discussed as being one of exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness in MPEP 2143 I(B).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolf (DE1600601A1, hereinafter referred to as “Rolf”) in view of Bacon (US20140123439A1, hereinafter referred to as “Bacon”), and further in view of GrippleTV USA “Stock Fence Repair” youtube video dated 09/16/2016, (hereinafter referred to as “GrippleTV”)
Regarding claim 23, Rolf discloses a method of attaching first and second articles to each other (Fig 1, pipe 10 and heating pipe 16), the method comprising: providing an elongate member (Fig 1, strap at 18), wherein the elongate member comprises one of a wire, a wire rope, or a cable (Fig 1, strap fixed at 18), and arranging the elongate member around the first article (Fig 1); providing a connecting device, and using said connecting device to connect opposite end regions of the elongate member to each other to mount the securing assembly on the first article (Figs 1 and 2, element 18 connects opposite end regions of tension straps to each other to mount the pipe 10 and metal sheet 20 and heating pipe 16 combined all secured by tension straps secured by tightening belt at 18), ……, and using said attaching arrangement to attach the elongate member to the second article (Figs 1, 2 and 4, strap is wound around and securing heating pipe 16 via fixing at 18).
However, Rolf alone fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the connecting device comprises clamping mechanisms to connect the end regions of the elongate member to each other.
However, Bacon and Rolf combined teach wherein the connecting device comprises clamping mechanisms to connect the end regions of the elongate member to each other (Bacon: ([0064]-[0065] gripping arrangements 114A, 114B, [0052], [0055], [0063], first and second passes of the same elongate article 22, 111 [0064]-[0065] each 114A, 114B to connect elongate article 111 at first and second passes of the same elongate article; end regions of strap of Rolf can be connected to each other in same manner as elongate article 111 of Bacon by the securing device (18) of Rolf);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Bacon and Rolf based on the following rationale: referring to Rolf, as shown by Fig, 1, the securing device (18) is vaguely defined without any mechanism for clamping and tightening the strap upon installation. On the other hand, referring to Bacon, Figs 8, 9, 11, locking member 130 extending between two sections of body 112, [0087] increasing of clamping force thereon acting by the locking member 130 in the locked position when engaging the elongate article 111, thereby provides tightening and clamping engagement with the elongated article. As a result, above discussed advantage of securing device of Bacon over that of Rolf serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Rolf and Bacon there would have been reasonable expectation of success because the gripping device of Bacon can be easily adapted for use on the elongate article of Rolf.
However, Rolf and Bacon fails to disclose or teach providing a tightening arrangement for tightening the elongated member against the first article, wherein the tightening arrangement comprises a spacing member for spacing connecting arrangements of the connecting device from each other, each connecting arrangement comprising a corresponding one of the clamping mechanism, and wherein each clamping mechanism comprises a clamping member to clamp a respective one of the end regions of the elongate member.
However, GrippleTV and Rolf combined teach providing a tightening arrangement for tightening the elongated member against the first article (video of GrippleTV at 0:57 min ~1:10 min shows that the usage of Gripple tightening tool alongside the two Gripple Plus connecting devices enables tightening of the elongated wires around Rolf: pipe being first article), wherein the tightening arrangement comprises a spacing member for spacing connecting arrangements of the connecting device from each other (video at 1:34 min ~ 1:47 min shows that vertical metal wire segments serve as “spacing member” for spacing connecting arrangements of multiple Gripple plus wire joiners), each connecting arrangement comprising a corresponding one of the clamping mechanism (video at 1:40 min ~1:54min), and wherein each clamping mechanism comprises a clamping member to clamp a respective one of the end regions of the elongate member (Gripple plus wire joiner has clamping members that locks).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GrippleTV and Rolf based on the same rationale as previously discussed for claim 1, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon (US20140123439A1, hereinafter referred to as “Bacon”) in view of GrippleTV USA “Stock Fence Repair” youtube video dated 09/16/2016, (hereinafter referred to as “GrippleTV”)
Regarding claim 24, Bacon discloses a connecting device (Fig 8, gripping arrangement 110) comprising: a pair of bodies (Figs 8-12, body 112 has two distinct sections) to connect opposite end regions of an elongate member to each other ( [0052], [0055], [0063], first and second passes of the same elongate article 22, 111), wherein the elongate member comprises one of a wire, a wire rope or a cable ( [0002], [0046] line 3, elongate article such as wires or wire ropes), wherein the connecting device (110) comprises clamping mechanisms ([0064]-[0065] gripping arrangements 114A, 114B ) each housed in a respective one of the bodies to connect the end regions of the elongate member to each other ( Fig 10, each 114A, 114B housed in one section of body 112, to connect elongate article 111 at first and second passes of the same elongate article ); and the connecting device (110) further comprising a tightening arrangement extending between the two bodies ( Figs 8, 9, 11, locking member 130 extending between two sections of body 112 ), to tighten the elongate member around an article ([0087] increasing of clamping force thereon acting by the locking member 130 in the locked position when engaging the elongate article 111, thereby provides the tightening).
However, Bacon alone fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the tightening arrangement comprises a spacing member for spacing connecting arrangements of the connecting device from each other, each connecting arrangement comprising a corresponding one of the clamping mechanism, and wherein each clamping mechanism comprises a clamping member to clamp a respective one of the end regions of the elongate member.
However, GrippleTV and Bacon combined teach wherein the tightening arrangement comprises a spacing member for spacing connecting arrangements of the connecting device from each other (GrippleTV video at 0:15 min shows a Gripple Plus wire joiner serving as “connecting device”; video at 0:45 min ~ 1:23 min shows a pair of Gripple Plus wire joiners combined with a Gripple tightening tool (together serving as clamping mechanisms) to connect ends of elongated wires to each other; video at 1:34 min ~ 1:47 min shows that vertical wire segments serve as “spacing member” for spacing connecting arrangements of multiple Gripple plus wire joiners, Bacon: elongate article 111), each connecting arrangement comprising a corresponding one of the clamping mechanism (video at 1:40 min ~ 1:54min), and wherein each clamping mechanism comprises a clamping member to clamp a respective one of the end regions of the elongate member (Gripple plus wire joiner has clamping members that locks).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine GrippleTV and Bacon based on the following rationale: referring to Bacon, there is no specific mechanism for tightening the elongated article upon installation. On the other hand, referring to GrippleTV video in its entirety, in which the Gripple Plus wire joiner connecting device when used in combination with a Gripple tightening tool can enable sufficient elongated article tightening. Thus, Gripple Plus wire joiner connecting device and the Gripple tightening tool enable easy tighter clamping and securement of elongated members inserted in both directions from opposite sides. As a result, above discussed advantage of GrippleTV over that of Bacon serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Bacon by GrippleTV there would have been reasonable expectation of success because the Gripple Plus wire joiner connecting device of GrippleTV can be easily adapted for use on the elongate article of Bacon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-18, 20, 22-24 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tweed (US 4312121) discloses a connection system for heat strips for pipe. E Horseman & Son online blog article titled “Raychem Commercial Heat-Trace Solutions” discusses commercial heat tracing kits for different usage applications available to use to prevent pipe freezing. Moss (US 10935103B2) discloses a gripping device for cable. Jolly (US 20110041292A1) discloses a cable gripping device. Reynolds (US 20220128121A1) discloses a securing device for tensioning cables. Montierth (WO8805988A1) discloses a heat tracing system for protecting pipe. Strupinsky (US 20220275898A1) discloses a pipeline electric heating tracing system.
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 DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 am MT--5:00 pm MT.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632