DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/787,802, filed 7/29/2024, which is a continuation of 17/127,222, filed 12/18/2020.
Claims 21-40 are pending, and are considered herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent 10,443,895 B1: This reference teaches a solar panel clamping structure with clamp fasteners 205 (Fig. 1).
U.S. Patent 3,146,982: This reference teaches a clamping structure with clamping structures on both sides of a pivoting fastener 24 (Figs. 1-4).
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 22-24 and 28 are 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.
Claims 22-24 and 28 all include recitations of the term “the rest portion.” This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 21 recites that each clamp comprises a rest portion. Therefore, it is unclear to which “rest portion” is referred in Claims 22-24 and 28. For the purposes of examination, these recitations of “the rest portion” will be interpreted to include “a rest portion.”
Claims 24 and 28 include recitations of the term “the clasp portion.” This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 21 recites that each clamp comprises a clasp portion. Therefore, it is unclear to which “clasp portion” is referred in Claims 22 and 28. For the purposes of examination, these recitations of “the clasp portion” will be interpreted to include “a clasp portion.”
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kager, et al. (U.S. Patent 6,601,813 B1).
In reference to Claim 21, Kager teaches a clamping system (Figs. 7-9, column 7, lines 19-54).
The system of Kager comprises a bar 176 that is elongated (Fig. 9, column 7, lines 38-54).
The system of Kager comprises a first clamp 174 disposed on a first end of the bar 176 and a second clamp 172 disposed on a second end of the bar 176 opposite the first end (Figs. 7-8, column 7, lines 19-38).
Kager teaches that each of the first clamp and the second clamp includes a rest portion 178/180 that is pivotable about an axis extending in a direction of elongation of the bar (i.e. rotating around the long axis of item 176, column 2, lines 60-65, and/or pivoting on the ball joints 140/240, Fig. 10, column 7, lines 9-18).
Kager teaches that each of the first clamp and the second clamp includes a clasp portion 192 rotatably attached to a surface of the rest portion 178/180 (via threaded nuts 186) so as to be rotatable adjacent the surface of the rest portion 178/180 (column 7, lines 20-37).
Claims 21-31 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dailey (U.S. Patent 4,214,739).
In reference to Claim 21, Dailey teaches a clamping system (Fig. 1).
The clamping system of Dailey comprises a bar 14 that is elongated (Fig. 1, column 3, lines 33-38).
The clamping system of Dailey comprises a first clamp 12 disposed on a first end of the bar 14 (Fig. 1, column 2, lines 38-58).
The clamping system of Dailey comprises a second clamp 103 disposed on a second end of the bar 14 opposite the first end (Fig. 1, column 4, lines 10-30).
Dailey teaches that the first clamp 12 includes a rest portion 26 that is pivotable about an axis extending in a direction of elongation of the bar (via ball and socket joint 60/62, column 3, lines 48-57).
Dailey teaches that the first clamp 12 includes a clasp portion 34 rotatably attached to a surface of the rest portion 26 so as to be rotatable adjacent the surface of the rest portion (column 2, lines 6-21).
Dailey teaches that the second clamp 103 includes a rest portion 102 that is pivotable about an axis extending in a direction of elongation of the bar (via ball and socket joint 90/92, column 4, lines 1-10).
Dailey teaches that the second clamp 103 includes a clasp portion 108 rotatably attached to a surface of the rest portion 102 so as to be rotatable adjacent the surface of the rest portion 102 (column 4, lines 10-30).
In reference to Claim 22, it is noted that Claim 22 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Dailey teaches that the rest portion 26 of the first clamp includes a main surface extending in a direction transverse to the direction of elongation of the bar (i.e. the top surface of item 26, Fig. 1).
Dailey further teaches that the rest portion 26 of the first clamp includes a flange 36 extending away from an end of the main surface of the rest portion 26, in a direction transverse to (i.e. crossing) the direction of elongation of the bar (Fig. 1, column 2, lines 22-33).
Dailey teaches that the rest portion 102 of the second clamp includes a main surface extending in a direction transverse to the direction of elongation of the bar (i.e. an outer surface, Fig. 1).
Dailey further teaches that the rest portion 102 of the second clamp includes a flange (i.e. protrusion) 94 extending away from an end of the main surface of the rest portion 102, in a direction transverse to (i.e. crossing) the direction of elongation of the bar (Fig. 1, column 4, lines 1-6).
In reference to Claim 23, it is noted that Claim 23 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Dailey teaches that the ball and socket joints of his invention allow for the shaft 14 to be moved into any desired position (column 3, lines 48-57).
Therefore, this disclosure teaches that the rest portion 26 of the first clamp (which is connected to one end of the bar 14 via a ball and socket joint 60/62) is pivotable between: a first position in which the main surface of the rest portion extends in a direction transverse to a planar surface of the bar, and a second position in which the main surface of the rest portion extends in a direction parallel to the planar surface of the bar.
Similarly, this disclosure teaches that the rest portion 102 of the second clamp (which is connected to one end of the bar 14 via a ball and socket joint 90/92) is pivotable between: a first position in which the main surface of the rest portion extends in a direction transverse to a planar surface of the bar, and a second position in which the main surface of the rest portion extends in a direction parallel to the planar surface of the bar.
In reference to Claim 24, it is noted that Claim 24 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Dailey teaches that the system further comprises a fastener 30 attached to an end of the rest portion 26 of the first clamp, positioned to secure the clasp portion 34 of the first clamp in a fixed orientation with respect to the rest portion 26 (column 2, lines 6-21).
Dailey further teaches that the system comprises a fastener (corresponding to the structure connecting items 108 and 102 in Fig. 1) attached to an end of the rest portion 102 of the second clamp, positioned to secure the clasp portion 108 of the second clamp in a fixed orientation with respect to the rest portion 102 (i.e. parallel to the long axis of the rest portion 102).
In reference to Claim 27, Dailey teaches that the clamping system further comprises a first pair of attachment arms 54/58 extending away from the bar 14 to which the first clamp is attached, and a second pair of attachment arms 86/88 extending away from the bar 14 to which the second clamp is attached.
It is noted that Claim 27 does not require that the clamps are attached to the attachment arms.
In reference to Claim 28, it is noted that Claim 28 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Dailey teaches that the rest portion of the first clamp includes a rest main body 36 having a length dimension and a rest flange 26 that extends away from the rest main body 26 (Fig. 1).
Dailey teaches that the clasp portion 34 of the first clamp includes a clasp main body 34 having a length dimension, a clasp flange 32 extending away from the clasp main body, and a fastener 30 extending through the rest flange 26 such that, when the length dimension of the clasp portion 34 is aligned with the length dimension of the rest portion 26/36, the fastener 30 is extendable to prevent rotation of the clasp portion 34 (i.e. the fastener can be turned to anchor the clasp portion 34 to item 18, Fig. 1, column 2, lines 6-21).
In reference to Claims 21 and 25-26, an alternate interpretation of Dailey is applied.
In reference to Claim 21, Dailey teaches a clamping system (Fig. 1) comprising a bar 36 that is elongated.
The system of Dailey comprises a first clamp 44 disposed on a first end of the bar 36 (column 2, lines 38-58); and a second clamp 42/46 disposed on a second end of the bar 36 opposite the first end (column 2, lines 34-58).
Dailey teaches that the first clamp 44 includes a rest portion 48 (column 2, lines 59-68) that is pivotable about an axis extending in a direction of elongation of the bar (column 2, lines 38-58).
Dailey teaches that the first clamp 44 includes a clasp (i.e. the portion of item 44 attached to the post 46) portion rotatably attached to a surface of the rest portion 48 so as to be rotatable adjacent the surface of the rest portion (column 2, lines 38-58).
Dailey teaches that the second clamp 42/46 includes a rest portion 46 that is pivotable about an axis extending in a direction of elongation of the bar (column 2, lines 34-58).
Dailey teaches that the second clamp 42/46 includes a clasp portion 42 rotatably attached to a surface of the rest portion 46 so as to be rotatable adjacent the surface of the rest portion (column 2, lines 53-58).
In reference to Claim 25, Dailey teaches that the bar 36 includes a first side to which the first clamp 44 and the second clamp 42/46 are attached (i.e. the left side in Fig. 1), and a second side including a pair of bracket members 24 and 26 that extend away from the bar 36 and are spaced apart such that a gap exists therebetween, the gap being sized to accommodate a rail therein (i.e. structurally capable of accommodating a rail therein).
In reference to Claim 26, Dailey teaches that an aperture 40 extends through the bar 36 and is aligned with the gap between the pair of bracket members 24 and 26, the aperture being sized to accommodate a fastener 42 therein (Fig. 1).
In reference to Claim 29, Dailey teaches a clamping system (Fig. 1).
The clamping system of Dailey comprises a clamp 103 including a rest portion 102 that is pivotable about a first axis (via ball and socket joint 90/92, column 4, lines 1-35).
The clamp 103 comprises a clasp portion 98 rotatably attached to a surface of the rest portion 102 so as to be rotatable about a second axis on the surface of the rest portion (i.e. along the axis of item 94/96, because item 98 is taught to be threadably mounted to item 16, column 4, lines 7-9).
The system of Dailey comprises a bar 14 that is elongated.
Fig. 1 teaches that the bar 14 has a first side to which the clamp 103 attaches, and a second side including a bracket (i.e. clamp 12) having a gap sized to accommodate a rail therein (i.e. structurally capable of accommodating a rail therein).
In reference to Claim 30, Dailey teaches that the clamp 103 is a first clamp and is disposed on a first end of the bar 14, and wherein the clamping system further comprises a second clamp 44 disposed on a second end of the bar opposite the first end of the bar 14 (column 2, lines 38-59).
In reference to Claim 31, Dailey teaches that the rest portion 102 includes an elongated aperture (i.e. the hollow interior of item 102), and wherein the second axis extends through the elongated aperture (i.e. crosses the elongated aperture, Fig. 1), and the clasp portion 98 is slidable along the elongated aperture (i.e. along the axis of the elongated aperture corresponding to the hollow center of item 102 when the clamp ring is loosened, column 4, lines 7-9).
In reference to Claim 35, Dailey teaches a clamping system (Fig. 1).
The system of Dailey comprises an elongated bar 14 (column 3, lines 33-38).
The system of Dailey comprises a rest portion 12 attached to the elongated bar 14 (column 2, lines 6-21) via a ball and socket joint (column 3, lines 48-57).
Dailey teaches that the ball and socket joints of his invention allow for the shaft 14 to be moved into any desired position (column 3, lines 48-57).
Therefore, Dailey teaches the limitations of Claim 35, “such that the rest portion is movable between: a first position in which the rest portion extends longitudinally in a vertical direction with respect to a surface of the elongated bar, and a second position in which the rest portion extends longitudinally in a horizontal direction with respect to the surface of the elongated bar.”
The system of Dailey comprises a clasp portion 34 rotatably attached to the rest portion 12 such that the clasp portion 34 rotates in a plane about an axis that extends transverse to (i.e. perpendicular to) a surface of the rest portion (e.g. a surface of item 26, column 4, lines 10-30).
In reference to Claim 36, Dailey teaches that the rest portion 12 includes a first flange 24 extending from a first end of the rest portion and a second flange 26 extending from a second end rest portion (Fig. 1, column 2, lines 6-25).
In reference to Claim 37, Dailey teaches that the second flange 26 includes an aperture sized to accommodate a fastener 30 therethrough, via which the clasp portion 34 is lockable with respect to the rest portion 12 (column 2, lines 6-21).
In reference to Claim 38, Dailey teaches that the rest portion 12 is a first rest portion attached to a first end of the elongated bar 14, that the clasp portion 34 is a first clasp portion attached to the first rest portion 12 (Fig. 1).
Dailey further teaches that the clamping system further comprises a second rest portion 102 attached to a second end of the elongated bar 14; and a second clasp portion 108 attached to the second rest portion 102 (column 4, lines 10-30).
In reference to Claim 39, Dailey teaches that the clamping system further comprises a first pair of attachment arms 54/58 extending away from the bar 14 to which the first rest portion 12 is attached, and a second pair of attachment arms 86/88 extending away from the bar 14 to which the second rest portion 102 is attached.
It is noted that Claim 39 does not require that the rest portions are attached to the attachment arms.
In reference to Claim 40, Dailey teaches that the ball and socket joints of his invention allow for the shaft 14 to be moved into any desired position (column 3, lines 48-57).
Therefore, this disclosure teaches that the clasp portion 34 is rotatable between: a latched position in which the clasp portion extends elongatedly with a direction of elongation of the elongated bar, and an unlatched position in which the clasp portion extends elongatedly transverse to the direction of the elongation of the elongated bar.
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.
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.
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dailey (U.S. Patent 4,214,739), in view of Albin (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0292535 A1).
In reference to Claim 32, Fig. 1 of Dailey teaches that the rest portion 102 has a bottom surface.
He further teaches that the device comprises a sleeve 100 that is connected to the clasp portion 98 (column 4, lines 7-14) and extends in a direction of a width dimension of the rest portion 102 (i.e. circumferentially around the rest portion 102), which is transverse to a direction of a length dimension of the rest portion, the sleeve 100 being aligned with (i.e. connected to) the first axis of the clamp.
Dailey does not teach that the rest portion 102 includes webbing extending therefrom.
To solve the same problem of providing a circular clamp structure having the form of a strap, Albin teaches that a suitable material for a such a strap includes nylon webbing (paragraph [0016]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the clasp structure 98 (which is a circular strap clamp structure) to be made from a nylon webbing, based on the disclosure of Albin.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 32, wherein the rest portion 102 has a bottom surface including webbing extending therefrom (i.e. the webbing portion of item 98 on the bottom surface of the rest portion), and wherein a sleeve 100 is connected to the webbing and extends in a direction of a width dimension of the rest portion, which is transverse to a direction of a length dimension of the rest portion, the sleeve being aligned with the first axis of the clamp.
In reference to Claim 33, Dailey teaches that the clamping system further comprises a pair of attachment arms 86/88 extending away from the bar (column 3, lines 58-67), and the clamp 103 is attached to the pair of attachment arms via a fastener 96 that extends through the sleeve 100 of the clamp (Fig. 1). Item 96 is taught to be a threaded projection that is attached to item 100 (column 4, lines 1-6) and forms part of the structural connection between items 103 and arms 86/88 (Fig. 1). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that item 96 is a fastener that extends through the sleeve 100 of the clamp.
In reference to Claim 34, Dailey teaches that the rest portion 102 further includes a main surface extending in a first plane, corresponding to the longitudinal outer surface of item 102.
Dailey teaches that the ball and socket joints of his invention allow for the shaft 14 to be moved into any desired position (column 3, lines 48-57).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 34, “such that when the clamp 103 is pivoted about the first axis, the first plane extends: in a first pivot position, parallel with the first side of the bar, and in a second pivot position, transverse to the first side of the bar.”
Dailey teaches that the rest portion 102 further comprises a flat surface protruding from the webbing (i.e. the flat end face surface of item 102, which “protrudes from the webbing,” because it extends beyond the bounds of items 98/100).
This “flat surface” extends in a second plane that extends transverse to (i.e. perpendicular to) the first plane of the main surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721