DETAILED ACTION
This is the second office action for US Application 18/587,423 for a Retaining Clip Device.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0231605 to Sharpe et al. Regarding claim 1, Sharpe et al. discloses a unitary retaining clip device for removably retaining one or more components to a framing structure. The device comprises a body (25, 30), a first attachment element (35 and 45) configured in a substantially circular orientation (at 35), and a second attachment element (15) configured in a substantially curved orientation. The body connects the first attachment element and the second attachment element. The substantially circular orientation of the first attachment element is selectively, removably, and adjustably retained to the framing structure, and the second attachment element is equipped to selectively and adjustably receive and retain the one or more components.
Regarding claim 6, the second attachment element is configured as a hook (85… see figure 6). Regarding claim 7, the second attachment element is configured to receive and retain a rope, wire, or netting. Regarding claim 8, the one or more components comprise a net, rope, string, or wire. Regarding claim 9, the first attachment element includes a tightening component (45, 55).
Regarding claim 10, Sharpe et al. discloses a unitary retaining clip device for removably retaining one or more components to a framing structure. The device comprises a body (25, 30), a first attachment element (25, 30 and portion between) arranged in a substantially rectangle orientation, and a second attachment element (15) configured in a substantially curved orientation. The body connects the first attachment element and the second attachment element. The substantially rectangular orientation of the first attachment element is equipped to be selectively, removably, and adjustably retained to the framing structure, and the second attachment element is in a substantially tubular configuration and is equipped to selective and adjustably retain thereto the one or more components.
Regarding claim 12, the second attachment element is configured as a hook (85… see figure 6). Regarding claim 13, the second attachment element is configured to receive and retain a rope, wire, or netting. Regarding claim 14, the one or more components comprise a net, rope, string, or wire. Regarding claim 15, the first attachment element includes a tightening component (45, 55).
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.
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) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharpe et al. Sharpe et al. does not specifically disclose the framing structure as made of wood, plastic, metal, or composite. However, the specific material used is a matter of design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention based on cost and material strength considerations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1 and 10. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “unitary retaining clip device” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the first attachment element attached with a frictional fit) are not recited in the claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, with respect to claim 10, the Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that a clamp is not attached to an object in the clamp by a “frictional fit”, because there is friction between the clamp and the object clamped in it.
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 STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 pm.
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 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.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632