DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 9-11, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Wagner (DE 10132963 C1).
Regarding claim 9, Wagner discloses an improved glass panel clamp assembly, comprising:
a clamp base (3a-3d in Fig. 10), a clamp plate (4a-4c in Fig. 10), a floating nut (A in annotated Figure 10 below) and a clamp screw (7 in Fig. 10);
wherein, the clamp base includes a vertical plate (see Fig. 10);
wherein, the vertical plate includes a slot (B in annotated Figure 10 below);
the slot having a groove (C in annotated Figure 10 below) formed within and extending around an interior face of the slot (see Figs. 9-10);
wherein, the floating nut is slidable within the groove of the slot (see Figs 9-10); and
wherein a hole (hole accepting 7 in Fig. 9) in the clamp plate is alignable with the floating nut (see Fig. 10) so that the clamp screw may engage with the floating nut when inserted through the hole in the clamp plate (see Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 10.
PNG
media_image2.png
239
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 10.
PNG
media_image3.png
385
509
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 10.
Regarding claim 10, Wagner discloses further including a trim panel (D in annotated Figure 10 below) attachable to a face of the vertical plate (3a-3d).
PNG
media_image4.png
575
481
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 10.
Regarding claim 11, Wagner discloses wherein, the vertical plate (3a-3d) includes a hole (9 in Fig. 11) disposed adjacent to the slot (B in annotated Figure 10 above).
Regarding claim 15, Wagner discloses wherein the trim panel (D in annotated Figure 10 above) is attached to the vertical plate by means of protrusions (see Fig. 10) formed on the vertical plate which engage with recesses formed on the trim panel (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 16, Wagner discloses further including an additional trim panel (E in annotated Figure 10 below) which is attachable to the clamp plate (4a-4c).
PNG
media_image5.png
507
506
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Annotated Figure 10.
Regarding claim 17, Wagner discloses wherein the additional trim panel (E in annotated Figure 10 above) is attached to the clamp plate (4a-4c) by means of protrusions formed on the clamp plate (see Fig. 10) which engage with recesses formed on the additional trim panel (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 18, Wagner discloses a nut access region (end portion of the slot and groove shown by F in annotated Figure 9 below) which functions to guide the floating nut into the groove (C in annotated Figure 10 above) around the slot (see Figs. 9-10).
PNG
media_image6.png
587
766
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Annotated Figure 9.
Regarding claim 20, Wagner discloses an improved glass panel clamp assembly, comprising:
a clamp base (3a-3d in Fig. 10), a clamp plate (4a-4c in Fig. 10), a nut (A in annotated Figure 10 above) and a clamp screw (7 in Fig. 10);
wherein, the clamp base includes a vertical plate (see Fig. 10) having a face (see Fig. 10);
wherein, the vertical plate includes a nut access region (F in annotated Figure 9 above) formed in the face (see Fig. 9) and adjacent to a slot (B in annotated Figure 10 above) having an undercut (C in annotated Figure 10 above) which extends around a perimeter of the slot (see Figs. 9-10);
wherein, the nut is insertable in the nut access region in a direction perpendicular to the face (see Figs. 9-10) and is slidable within the undercut of the slot (see Figs 9-10); and
wherein a hole (hole accepting 7 in Fig. 9) in the clamp plate is alignable with the nut (see Fig. 10) so that the clamp screw may engage with the nut when inserted through the hole in the clamp plate (see Fig. 10).
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(s) 1-6, 8, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (DE 10132963 C1) in view of Wiegand (DE 10210503 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses an improved glass panel clamp assembly, comprising:
a clamp base (3a-3d in Fig. 10), a clamp plate (4a-4c in Fig. 10), a floating nut (A in annotated Figure 10 above), a clamp screw (7 in Fig. 10), and a trim panel (D in annotated Figure 10 above);
wherein, the clamp base includes a vertical plate (see Fig. 10) and at least one mounting tab (3a in Fig. 10);
wherein, the vertical plate includes a keyhole shaped nut retention feature (G in annotated Figure 10 below) comprising a nut access region (F in annotated Figure 9 above) adjacent a slot (B in annotated Figure 10 above) having a groove (C in annotated Figure 10 above) which extends around the slot (see Figs. 9-10);
wherein, the floating nut is slidable within the groove of the slot (see Figs 9-10);
wherein, the vertical plate includes a hole (9 in Fig. 11) disposed adjacent to the slot (see Fig 10);
wherein, the trim panel is attachable to a face of the vertical plate (3a-3d, see Fig. 10); and
wherein a hole (hole that accepts 7 in Fig. 9) in the clamp plate is alignable with the floating nut so that the clamp screw may engage with the floating nut when inserted through the hole in the clamp plate (see Fig. 10).
Wagner fails to disclose as claimed that the trim panel includes a protrusion which protrudes through the hole in the vertical plate and abuts and secures the floating nut when the floating nut is disposed in the slot and the trim panel is secured to the vertical plate.
However, Wiegand teaches that a trim panel (24) includes a protrusion (26) which protrudes through a hole (27) in the vertical plate (2, see Fig. 1), the protrusion abutting and securing the floating nut (17) when the floating nut is disposed in the slot and the trim panel is secured to the vertical plate (see Fig. 1), in order to provide fastening means to keep the trim panel and vertical plate from sliding or moving in an undesired manner with respect to one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel clamp of Wagner, with Wiegland, such that it comprises the trim panel protrusions of Wiegland on the trim panel of Wagner, in order to provide fastening means to keep the trim panel and vertical plate from sliding or moving in an undesired manner with respect to one another.
PNG
media_image7.png
289
360
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7. Annotated Figure 10.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wagner and Wiegland teaches the protrusion (26 of Wiegland) on the trim panel (D in annotated Figure 10 above), but fails to teach as claimed that the protrusion is half-moon shaped.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed the prior art, changing the shape of a prior art device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wagner and Wiegland, such that it comprises a half-moon shaped protrusion, in order to provide a protrusion that uses less material than a full cylindrical protrusion and therefore is lighter and less expensive than a full cylindrical protrusion.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wagner and Wiegland teaches wherein the trim panel (D in annotated Figure 10 above) is attached to the vertical plate (3a-3d of Wagner) by means of protrusions formed on the vertical plate which engage with recesses formed on the trim panel (see Fig. 10 of Wagner).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wagner and Wiegland teaches further including an additional trim panel (E in annotated Figure 10 above) which is attachable to the clamp plate (4a-4c of Wagner).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wagner and Wiegland teaches wherein the additional trim panel (E in annotated Figure 10 above) is attached to the clamp plate (4a-4c of Wagner) by means of protrusions formed on the clamp plate which engage with recesses formed on the trim panel (see Fig. 10 of Wagner).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wagner and Wiegland teaches wherein the nut access region (F in annotated Figure 9 above) formed in the vertical plate (3a-3d of Wagner) adjacent to the slot (B in annotated Figure 10 above) functions to guide the floating nut into the groove extending around the slot (see Figs. 9-10 of Wagner).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wagner and Wiegland teaches wherein the hole (hole that accepts 7 in Fig. 9 of Wagner) in the clamp plate (4a-4c of Wagner) is chamfered (see Fig. 10 of Wagner) in order that a head of clamp screw is flush with an outboard surface of the clamp plate when the clamp screw is installed (see Fig. 10 of Wagner).
Regarding claim 12, Wagner discloses wherein, the trim panel (D in annotated Figure 10 above) is attachable to a face of the vertical plate (3a-3d), and further discloses the floating nut (A in annotated Figure 10 above) disposed in the slot (B in annotated Figure 10 above).
Wagner fails to disclose as claimed that the trim panel includes a protrusion which protrudes through the hole in the vertical plate, the protrusion abutting and securing the floating nut when the floating nut is disposed in the slot and the trim panel is secured to the vertical plate.
However, Wiegand teaches that a trim panel (24) includes a protrusion (26) which protrudes through a hole (27) in the vertical plate (2, see Fig. 1), the protrusion abutting and securing the floating nut (17) when the floating nut is disposed in the slot and the trim panel is secured to the vertical plate (see Fig. 1), in order to provide fastening means to keep the trim panel and vertical plate from sliding or moving in an undesired manner with respect to one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel clamp of Wagner, with Wiegland, such that it comprises the trim panel protrusions of Wiegland on the trim panel of Wagner, in order to provide fastening means to keep the trim panel and vertical plate from sliding or moving in an undesired manner with respect to one another.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wagner and Wiegland teaches the protrusion (26 of Wiegland) on the trim panel (D in annotated Figure 10 above), but fails to teach as claimed that the protrusion is half-moon shaped.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed the prior art, changing the shape of a prior art device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wagner and Wiegland, such that it comprises a half-moon shaped protrusion, in order to provide a protrusion that uses less material than a full cylindrical protrusion and therefore is lighter and less expensive than a full cylindrical protrusion.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (DE 10132963 C1) in view of Hotz (US 4,469,466 A).
Regarding claim 13, Wagner discloses the floating nut (A in annotated Figure 10 above) and the clamp screw (7).
Wagner fails to disclose as claimed wherein the floating nut includes a threaded bore that is engageable with threads of the clamp screw.
However, Hotz teaches a clamping device comprising a nut (23) including a threaded bore that is engagable with threads of the clamp screw (11, see Column 2 lines 1-21), in order to provide a secure means to attach the clamp screw and nut to one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamping device of Wagner, with Hotz, in order to provide a secure means to attach the clamp screw and nut to one another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026, page 2, recites: “…Applicant's construction is markedly different from that of Wagner which discloses a channel section in an extrusion. The channel section is essentially a C- channel with inwardly directed flanges at the open end which serve to constrain a nut slid within the section from an end of the extrusion. As the construction of the nut retaining channel of Wagner bears no resemblance to the keyhole shaped nut retaining feature of Applicant's amended claim 1, Wagner does not disclose this feature. As neither Wagner nor Weigand disclose Applicant's keyhole shaped nut retention, Applicant requests that the obviousness rejection be withdrawn…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art needs only to meet the claim limitations and is not required to “resemble” the Applicant’s drawings if the drawings are not clearly defined in the claims. The term keyhole is not defined by the specification and is therefore interpreted to mean having a narrower and wider adjacent portions of an opening. The prior art meets this interpretation of the claim language and therefore the rejection stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026, page 3, recites: “…Applicant's construction differs from that of Wagner which discloses a channel section in an extrusion. The channel section is essentially a C-channel with inwardly directed flanges at the open end which serve to constrain a nut slid within the section from an end of the extrusion. The Examiner argues that the opening of the channel section of Wagner is equivalent to the slot of Applicant's device and the channel itself, which is behind the opening, is equivalent to the groove of Applicant's device. Applicant's amended claim 9 distinguishes over Wagner by making clear that the groove of Applicant's device is "formed within and extending around an interior face of the slot." As Wagner does not disclose this construction, Wagner does not anticipate Applicant's claim 9, as amended. Therefore, Applicant requests that the anticipation rejection of claim 9 be withdrawn…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the rejection relies upon B in annotated Figure 10 above for the slot and C in annotated Figure 10 above for the groove. The prior art does read on the new claim amendment as the groove (C in annotated Figure 10 above) does extend around an interior face of the slot (B in annotated Figure 10 above). Therefore, the rejection of claim 9 stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026, page 4, recites: “…Applicant's construction differs from that of Wagner which discloses a channel section in an extrusion. The channel section of Wagner only allows for a nut to be inserted horizontally from the ends, whereas Applicant's claim 20 as amended requires that the nut be "insertable into the nut access region in a direction perpendicular to the face." As Wagner does not disclose this construction, Wagner does not anticipate Applicant's claim 20, as amended. Therefore, Applicant requests that the anticipation rejection of claim 20 be withdrawn…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s newly amended claim 20 only claims “a face” and does not define where the face needs to be located. Therefore, Examiners interpretation of the prior art having an end face in Fig. 10 is acceptable. Further, Examiner’s interpretation also meets the limitation of “the nut is insertable in the nut access region in a direction perpendicular to the face”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678