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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/19/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 11-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pearson (US 9453593B2, hereinafter referred to as “Pearson”).
Regarding claim 1, Pearson discloses a tube retainer for retaining tubes of various diameters (Figs 2 and 5, tube-retaining assembly 10, tubes 70 and 72 are of different diameters), the tube retainer (10) comprising: a body (Figs 2-3, tube-retaining section 14) configured to receive a tube (70, 72) via a tube pocket (Fig 3 channel 26, 28); a lid (Figs 2-3, latch cover 22) coupled to the body via a hinge (Fig 3, hinge 24); and a plurality of flexible fingers extending into the tube pocket (Figs 2-3, 50, 54, 42, 40, extending into channel 26, 28) and configured to flex to accommodate a diameter of the tube (Fig 2, flexing protuberances 42, flexible securing protuberances 50, col 4, lines 51-54), wherein the plurality of flexible fingers comprises a first set of flexible fingers resiliently coupled to the lid (Figs 2-3, 50, 54) and a second set of flexible fingers resiliently coupled to the body (Figs 2-3, 40, 42).
Regarding claim 2, Pearson discloses wherein each of the plurality of flexible fingers extends inward toward a central longitudinal axis (Figs 2 and 4, 40, 42, 50, 54 extend inward towards center 48 with axis).
Regarding claim 3, Pearson discloses wherein each of the first set of flexible fingers extends from the lid toward the base (Fig 2, 50, 54 from lid (22) towards base (14)) and each of the second set of flexible fingers extends from the base toward the lid (Fig 2, 40, 42 from base (14) towards lid (22)).
Regarding claim 4, Pearson discloses wherein the first set of flexible fingers are arranged to form an angle relative to one another that is between 70 and 110 degrees and the second set of flexible fingers are arranged to form an angle relative to one another that is between 70 and 110 degrees (see annotated figures A taken from Pearson below).
Annotated Figures taken from Pearson
PNG
media_image1.png
572
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
580
585
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Pearson discloses further comprises a snap (Fig 4, latch 60) at an end of the lid (Fig 3, at end of 22) opposite the hinge (24) that is configured to engage a corresponding feature formed in or on the body (Figs 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 7, Pearson discloses wherein the tube retainer is configured to secure the tube relative to a component via a fastener defining a central longitudinal axis (Fig 1, stud retainer 18, abstract lines 2-4, fastener securely fasten the assembly to the structure), wherein the fastener is configured to engage the component via an opening (col 5, lines 59-64).
Regarding claim 11, Pearson discloses wherein each of the first set of flexible fingers and the second set of flexible fingers are configured to flex towards and away from one another to accommodate the tube (flexing protuberances 42, flexible securing protuberances 50, col 4, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 12, Pearson discloses a tube retainer for securing tubes of various diameters relative to a component (Figs 2 and 5, tube-retaining assembly 10, tubes 70 and 72 are of different diameters; Fig 1, stud retainer 18, abstract lines 2-4, fastener securely fasten the assembly to the structure), the tube retainer (10) comprising: a body (Figs 2-3, tube-retaining section 14) configured to receive a tube (70, 72) via a tube pocket (70, 72); a lid (Figs 2-3, latch cover 22) coupled to the body via a hinge (Fig 3, hinge 24); a plurality of flexible fingers extending into the tube pocket (Figs 2-3, 50, 54, 42, 40, extending into channel 26, 28) and configured to flex to accommodate a diameter of the tube (flexing protuberances 42, flexible securing protuberances 50, col 4, lines 51-54), wherein the plurality of flexible fingers comprises a first set of flexible fingers resiliently coupled to the lid (Figs 2-3, 50, 54 coupled to the lid 22) and a second set of flexible fingers resiliently coupled to the body (Figs 2-3, 40, 42 coupled to the body 20); and a fastener coupled to the body and defining a central longitudinal axis (Fig 1, stud retainer 18, abstract lines 2-4, fastener securely fasten the assembly to the structure), wherein the tube retainer is configured to secure the tube relative to a component via the fastener and an opening formed in the component (abstract lines 2-4, fastener securely fasten the assembly to the structure), col 5, lines 59-64).
Regarding claim 13, Pearson discloses wherein each of the plurality of flexible fingers extends inward toward a central longitudinal axis (Figs 2 and 4, 40, 42, 50, 54 extend inward towards center 48 with axis).
Regarding claim 14, Pearson discloses wherein each of the first set of flexible fingers extends from the lid toward the base (Fig 2, 50, 54 from lid (22) towards base (14)) and each of the second set of flexible fingers extends from the base toward the lid (Fig 2, 40, 42 from base (14) towards lid (22)).
Regarding claim 15, Pearson discloses wherein the first set of flexible fingers are arranged to form an angle relative to one another that is between 70 and 110 degrees and the second set of flexible fingers are arranged to form an angle relative to one another that is between 70 and 110 degrees (see annotated figures A taken from Pearson above).
Regarding claim 17, Pearson discloses further comprises a snap (Fig 4, latch 60) at an end of the lid (Fig 3, at end of 22) opposite the hinge (24) that is configured to engage a corresponding feature formed in or on the body (Figs 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 20, Pearson discloses wherein each of the first set of flexible fingers and the second set of flexible fingers are configured to flex towards and away from one another to accommodate the tube (flexing protuberances 42, flexible securing protuberances 50, col 4, lines 51-54).
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 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) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (US 9453593B2, hereinafter referred to as “Pearson”) in view of Kanie (US 20180187798A1, hereinafter referred to “Kanie”).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Pearson fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of flexible fingers comprises a first engagement feature and a second engagement feature spaced apart from the first engagement feature.
However, Kanie teaches wherein each of the plurality of flexible fingers comprises a first engagement feature and a second engagement feature spaced apart from the first engagement feature (Fig 5, multiple barbs 332 on arms 320, Fig 6, [0051] lines 10-19).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pearson by Kanie based on rationales as follow: referring to Fig 8 and [0051] lines 10-19 of Kanie, the barbs 332 serve to dig into the outer surface of the tubular component 308, thereby axially and radially constraining the tubular component 308 therein. As a result, the tubular component 308 is constrained from any axially shifting and radially shifting therein by Kanie. On the other hand, Pearson in Figs 3 shows that the flexible fingers 40, 42 do not have any such barbs or engagement features. As a result, axially shifting and radially shifting of the tubular component would take place in Pearson. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adopt the barbs of Kanie to the flexible fingers of Pearson, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both Pearson and Kanie both belong to analogous art in the field of tube routing clip for holding multiple tubes of different diameters.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson (US 9453593B2, hereinafter referred to as “Pearson”) in view of Bradley Smith (EP 2218955A1, hereinafter referred to “Smith”).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Pearson fails to disclose wherein the lid comprises a snap configured to engage a corresponding feature formed in or on the body, and wherein the snap comprises a button configured to disengage the snap from the corresponding feature.
However, Smith teaches wherein the lid comprises a snap configured to engage a corresponding feature formed in or on the body (Figs 1-2, lid (12) comprises a snap (62) to engage feature (58) formed in body), and wherein the snap (62) comprises a button (Figs 1-2, depression member 64) configured to disengage the snap from the corresponding feature (Fig 2, button 64 can disengage snap (62) from feature (58)).
Regarding claim 9, Pearson fails to disclose wherein the body, the lid, and the hinge are fabricated as a unitary structure.
However, Smith teaches wherein the body, the lid, and the hinge are fabricated as a unitary structure (Fig 2, and [0028] lines 15-17, living hinge 57 homogenously connects first body portion 12 to second body portion 14. tube clamp 10 including body (14) and lid (12) and hinge (57, living hinge) being unitary structure).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Pearson fails to disclose wherein the body, the lid, the hinge, and the plurality of flexible fingers are fabricated as a unitary structure.
However, Smith and Pearson combined teach wherein the body, the lid, the hinge, and the plurality of flexible fingers are fabricated as a unitary structure (Smith: Fig 2, and [0028] lines 15-17, living hinge 57 homogenously connects first body portion 12 to second body portion 14. tube clamp 10 including body (14) and lid (12) and hinge (57, living hinge) being unitary structure; Pearson: Figs 2-3, 40, 42 are flexible fingers).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 10, 18 and 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pearson by Smith based on rationales as follow: referring to Figs 1-5 of Pearson, the rotation mechanism of the body and lid of the tube retainer requires a hinge 24 in combination with a complicated set of structure features shown in Figs 3 and 5 of the engaging and rotating elements with hollowed cylindrical chamber for pivoting open and close of the latching cover 22 as discussed in col 3, lines 30-31, see also col 4, lines 65-67, and col 5, lines 7-9. On the other hand, the living hinge 57 of Smith being of a homogenously component which connects first body portion 12 to second body portion 14 as discussed in [0028] lines 15-17 would greatly simply the structure for the hinge for the tubular retainer. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the hinge of Pearson to become the living hinge of Smith, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both Pearson and Smith both belong to analogous art in the field of tube routing clip for holding multiple tubes of different diameters.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bell (US 20250020243A1) discloses a flexible multi-tube retainer with a carrier portion and a fastener portion to secure to a component. Fukumoto (US 10655374B2) discloses a hinge pipe clamp device including a base member, a lid member connected to base member by a hinge structure. Meyers (US 20130240684A1) discloses a tube retention clip with resilient living hinge and a resilient material isolation portion. Nakanishi (US 20040113027A1) discloses a fastener device for pipe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT.
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 at telephone number 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632