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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 11-20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 11-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 2, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Torsten Klein (WO 2020/102063 A1) (hereinafter Klein).
Regarding claim 1, Klein anticipates a fastening apparatus (10) for fastening a first strand-like component having an approximately circular cross-section to a second component, in particular for fastening a cable or a cable harness to a carrier component of a motor vehicle, comprising a fastening body (20) having a fastening means (22) for connecting the fastening
apparatus (10) to a second component, in particular a carrier component of a motor vehicle, and a receiving body (12), wherein the receiving body (12) forms a receiving portion (14) having a receiving surface facing in a direction of a first component for receiving a first component, and wherein an adhesive tape (¶0024) is or can be arranged on the receiving surface of the receiving portion (14) in order to connect a first strand-like component (17), in particular a cable or a cable harness, to the receiving body (3) by means of adhesion of the adhesive tape (Fig. 1-6; ¶0024-¶0026), wherein the receiving portion is tolerance compensation with simultaneously secure fastening to the carrier component (¶ 0003-¶0004, ¶0008 -note tolerance compensation can thereby be guaranteed by the relative displaceability). Furthermore, the guiding means in form of groove/tongue connection enables displaceability (corresponding to flexibility) of the receiving body (12) (¶0009) in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Klein anticipates wherein the receiving portion (14) extends in a longitudinal direction (L) corresponding to an axial direction of a first component to be received and is formed in an approximately trench-shaped (or C-shaped) manner in cross-section (Fig. 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, Klein anticipates the fastening body (20) and the receiving body (12) are integrally connected to one another, or that the fastening body (20) and the receiving body (12) are releasably, in particular re-releasably, connected to one another by means of a connecting means and thus have a modular structure (Fig. 1-4, ¶0026).
Regarding claim 6, Klein anticipates wherein the receiving portion (14) is configured so as to be flexible in the longitudinal direction (L), wherein the receiving portion (14) has recesses on its lateral edge regions extending orthogonally to the longitudinal direction (L) so that the receiving portion (14) is segmented or flexibly configured in the longitudinal direction (L) in such a way that it can be adapted to a curvature in the axial direction of a first receiving component (Fig. 1-2; ¶0024).
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torsten Klein
(WO 2020/102063 A1) (hereinafter Klein).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Klein. Klein discloses a line
may be retained on the line support, for example via straps enclosing the line about its
circumference, for example cable ties (retaining bands) or adhesive tapes (¶0024). Thus, the
use of straps and adhesive tape are well known within the art. A person of ordinary skill can
readily use combination of straps and adhesive tape to assure the strand-like component is
properly secured to receiving surface of the receiving body. The benefit of doing so would have
been to assure the cable or line is properly secured to receiving surface.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein as
applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Komaro et al. (US Pat. No.: 9,310,013 B2)
(hereinafter Komaro).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Klein. Klein is silent about the
adhesive means comprising double sided tape.
Kamaro also discloses a fastening apparatus for fastening a strand-like component. The
apparatus discloses the use of double-sided adhesive tape fasten the device on to the fastening
surface (Col 2, Ln 35-37). The benefit of doing so would have been to create a tacky surface to
allow for secure fastening.
Give the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art to utilize double sided tape as taught by Komaro within the fastening apparatus as
taught by Klein. The benefit of doing so would have been to create a tacky surface to allow for
secure fastening.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Klein does not provide any explanation as to how these portions allegedly disclose the claimed longitudinal flexibility. Klein contains no teaching, disclosure, or suggestion that the receiving portion is flexible in the longitudinal direction.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Klein acknowledge the industry faces issue with the use of bolt holder which does not guarantee tolerance compensation. The bolt holder has the disadvantage that the fastening element sits on the bolt less securely. In particular, the fastening device can usually only withstand small pulling forces (¶0002). Therefore, Klein invention a new fastening apparatus to provide a device for fastening a line on a carrier component which is easily manufactured and facilitates a reliable tolerance compensation with simultaneously secure fastening to the carrier component (¶0004-¶0007). Klein further discloses the retaining element and the fastening element can be connected to one another via the guide means and the tolerance compensation can thereby be guaranteed by the relative displaceability. Thus, Kelin discloses the need receiving portion to be more tolerance compensation and guarantee relative displaceability (corresponding to flexible in the longitudinal direction). Furthermore, the guide means with groove and tongue enables displaceability of the retaining element on the fastening element along the longitudinal axis (¶0009).
The benefit of doing so would have been to the receiving portion to withstand greater pulling forces.
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 VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights