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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This application is a 371 of PCT/IB2022/061806 filed on December 6, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 7, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 should depend from claim 9 since claim 8 is canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 should depend from claim 9 since claim 11 is canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 should depend from claim 9 since claim 16 is canceled. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peart (WO 2010/012989).
In regards to claim 1, Peart teaches an overhead line clamp (1; figure 1) securable to an overhead line (cable or wire; page 1, lines 1-5), the overhead line clamp (1) comprising: pincer members (12); a hinge (9, 16) to enable the pincer members (12) to actuate between an open position and a closed position (see open and closed positions in figure 13 (open) and 14 (closed)), wherein at the closed position (figure 14) the pincer members (12) are configured to secure the overhead line (6); and a hand-operable latch (18) configured to actuate the pincer members (12) between the open position and the closed position (figures 13, 14).
In regards to claim 2, Peart teaches the overhead line clamp of claim 1, wherein the hand-operable latch (18) comprises a hand-operable lever (20).
In regards to claim 3, Peart teaches the overhead line clamp of claim 1, wherein the hand-operable latch (18) is a bistable latch mechanism (manual operation vs. spring operation).
In regards to claim 5, Peart teaches the overhead line clamp of any preceding claim1,wherein the hand-operable latch (18) further comprises a catch (33) that is engageable when the pincer members (12) are actuated at the closed position (see figure 14) to inhibit movement of the pincer members (12) away from the closed position (figure 14).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peart (WO 2010/012989) in view of Chandler (US 1,461,752).
In regards to claim 6, Peart teaches the overhead line clamp of any preceding claim1.
Peart does not explicitly teach electrically conductive material to form an electrical connection between a socket of the overhead line clamp and the pincer members.
Chandler teaches electrically conductive material to form an electrical connection between a socket of the overhead line clamp and the pincer members (elec- trio conductors and particularly that class of supports used for suspending a trolley wire or conductor from an overhead hanger, page 1, lines 9-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have included in the teaching of Peart the electrically conductive material to form an electrical connection between a socket of the overhead line clamp and the pincer members as taught by Chandler to support for elec- trio conductors and particularly that class of supports used for suspending a trolley wire or conductor from an overhead hanger and to produce a device which will, be simple, efficient, easy of installation and operation (page 1, lines 5-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9-10, 12-14, 17 and 19-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attachment of the USPTO-892 form.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTAL ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9258. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5 M-F.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached on (571)-272-2229. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KRYSTAL ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848