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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are pending and have been examined in this application. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 07/10/2024 has/have been taken into account.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 11/07/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 4, and 7-8 have been amended; Claims 5-6 have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 7-11 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. More specifically, Chambosse is not being relied upon to teach the newly amended first guiding channel.
Additionally, the amendment has overcome the 112 rejections set forth in the previous action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “a second channel configured to guide said link”. – It is unclear if this channel is the same as the second means recited in claim 1. For purposes of examination, it has been interpreted as the same element.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chambosse (US 10,207,658) in view of Fiorentino (US 3,672,615).
Regarding Claim 1, Chambosse discloses a support for a fixing system configured to fix an element, said fixing system comprising a hose clamp having a flexible link and a cage secured to a proximal end of the link and having a tunnel, said support comprising: a base (Chambosse: Fig. 3; 24) globally rectilinear between a first end and a second end and comprising, at the first end and on a first face of said base, a location (Chambosse: Annotated Fig. 3; L) configured to receive said cage of said hose clamp, said base comprising an aperture (Chambosse: Fig. 3; O24) at the location, said aperture configured to be disposed facing said tunnel of said hose clamp and allow passage of a distal end of said link, and between the recess and the second end, said base further comprising, at the second end, a first means (Chambosse: Annotated Fig. 3; F) configured to guide said link, and a support upright (Chambosse: Fig. 3; 26) secured to the base between said first end and said second end of said base and to a second face of said base opposite said first face of said base and extending from the second end by moving away from the base and by approaching the first end such that a free end of said support upright is disposed at a distance from and globally facing the aperture, said support upright comprising, at the free end, a second means (Chambosse: Fig. 3; 26) configured to guide said link.
Chambosse fails to disclose a recess configured to house said cage of said hose clamp; and a first guiding channel configured to receive said link of said hose clamp therein; wherein said first guiding channel is configured to receive said distal end of said link therein, wherein said first guiding channel is located adjacent said recess and spaced from said first means configured to guide said link and said second means configured to guide said link, such that said first guiding channel is configured to contribute to prevention of a separation of the hose clamp from the support. However, Fiorentino teaches a recess (Fiorentino: Fig. 1-2; 52) configured to house said cage of said hose clamp, and a base (Fiorentino: Fig. 1-2; 30) comprising an aperture (Fiorentino: Fig. 1; 36) in the recess; and a first guiding channel (Fiorentino: Fig. 1; 42) configured to receive said link of said hose clamp therein; wherein said first guiding channel is configured to receive said distal end of said link therein, wherein said first guiding channel is located adjacent said recess, and is configured to contribute to prevention of a separation of the hose clamp from the support.
Chambosse and Fiorentino are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. flexible clamp holders. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base in Chambosse with the recess and guiding channel from Fiorentino, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of freely accepting and retaining the head of a flexible clamp, holding the head in position while the strap is guided around an object, thereby preventing unwanted slippage of the head so as to improve the efficiency of the installation process (Fiorentino: Col. 3, Ln. 48-70). [Note: When modified by the guiding channel of Fiorentino, it will be positioned between the first and second means to guide said link.]
Regarding Claim 2, Chambosse, as modified, teaches the support according to claim 1, wherein said support upright (Chambosse: Fig. 3; 26) is curved, and wherein a center of curvature of said support upright is situated opposite said base with respect to said support upright.
Regarding Claim 3, Chambosse, as modified, teaches the support according to claim 1, wherein said support upright (Chambosse: Fig. 3; 26) is elastic, and wherein said base comprises a portion extending between said first channel and said second end which is elastic (Chambosse: Col. 4, Ln. 53-67; Col. 5, Ln. 1-27; discloses elastic upright and base).
Regarding Claim 4, Chambosse, as modified, teaches the support according to claim 1, wherein said recess (Fiorentino: Fig. 1-2; 52) comprises at least one rod (Fiorentino: Fig. 1-2; 28) configured to hold said cage, each rod extending globally at a right angle to said base (Chambosse: Fig. 3; 24), a free end of each rod comprising a tooth (Fiorentino: Fig. 1-2; 38) protruding globally parallel to said first face towards the second end, wherein said recess, said at least one rod, and said tooth are configured to cooperatively hold the cage of the hose clamp in place.
Regarding Claim 7, Chambosse, as modified, teaches the support according to claim 1, wherein said first means comprises a fork (Chambosse: Annotated Fig. 3; F) with two teeth, and wherein the link is configured to be guided between the two teeth.
Regarding Claim 9, Chambosse, as modified, teaches the support according to claim 1, wherein said support upright (Chambosse: Fig. 3; 26) comprises, at the free end, a second channel (Chambosse: Fig. 3; O26) configured to guide said link.
Regarding Claim 10, Chambosse, as modified, teaches a fixing system configured to fix an element, said fixing system comprising: a hose clamp comprising a flexible link (Chambosse: Fig. 5; 40) and a cage (Chambosse: Fig. 5; 41) secured to a proximal end of the flexible link and having a tunnel for receiving a distal end of the flexible link, wherein the cage comprises a blocking system (Chambosse: Fig. 5; 44) configured to allow a displacement of the flexible link in the tunnel in a single direction; and the support (Chambosse: Fig. 3; 1) according to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chambosse (US 10,207,658) in view of Fiorentino (US 3,672,615) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of de Lima Castro Netto (US 4,466,160), hereafter referred to as Netto.
Regarding Claim 8, Chambosse, as modified, teaches the support according to claim 6, wherein said second means comprises a fork with two teeth, and wherein the two teeth are configured to allow the link to pass therebetween.
However, Netto teaches a second means comprises a fork with two teeth (Netto: Annotated Fig. 2; T), and wherein the two teeth are configured to allow a link to pass therebetween.
Chambosse and Netto are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area, e.g. flexible clamp holders. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upright in Chambosse with the slot from Netto, forming a fork, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a receiving means having a slot structure that allows the link to be easily pulled through, generating greater tension (Netto: Col. 3, Ln. 11-36), thereby allowing for a larger number of cables to be more securely received and to make passage of the link through the support easier.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chambosse (US 10,207,658) in view of Fiorentino (US 3,672,615) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Steinman (US 2015/0368015).
Regarding Claim 11, Chambosse, as modified, teaches a vehicle comprising: at least one element to be fixed (Chambosse: Fig. 2; W) and at least one fixing system (Chambosse: Fig. 2; H) according to claim 10.
Chambosse fails to disclose an aircraft. However, Steinman teaches an aircraft (Steinman: [0025]).
Chambosse and Steinman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area, e.g. flexible clamp holders. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system in Chambosse in an aircraft as taught by Steinman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide another well-known location where cable-ties/hose clamps are commonly used, thereby expanding the number of use cases for the system (Steinman: [0025]).
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
642
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Chambosse; Fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
474
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
II: Netto; Fig. 2
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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631