DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of claims
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 8, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-4, 8, 10 appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain language within the claims that is uncommon in standard U.S. practice. For example, claim 1 recites “a latching portion being configured between the step and the free end of in each case one limb” in lines 4-5. In common practice, the word “configured” is generally used to describe the capability or function of a limitation, whereas in the instant application, it is being used to describe the physical placement of a limitation (latching portion) between two other elements (step and free end). Further, it is uncommon to recite the language “in each case one limb” when both limbs are being referred to within the claim. Commonly, the standard language would simply be “for each limb” or the like. Claims 1-4, 8, 10 each contain language that is not common within standard U.S. practice and while not necessarily warranting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness, Examiner proposes that each of claims 1-4, 8, 10 be amended in the following manner in order to improve the clarity of the language within the claims:
Claim 1: --A spring clip for receiving a polygonal threaded nut such that the polygonal threaded nut cannot rotate, the spring clip being of substantially U-shaped configuration and having a bottom and two limbs, each limb having at least one step and a free end, a latching portion being formed between the step and the free end for each limb, and the free ends of the limbs being bent away from one anothertheir respective latching portion—
Claim 2: --The spring clip as claimed in claim 1, wherein the latching portions of the limbs are extends perpendicularly with respect to the bottom--
Claim 3: --The spring clip as claimed in claim 2, wherein the latching portions taper towards a direction of the bottom, and wherein a passage is formed between the latching portions
Claim 4: --The spring clip as claimed in claim 1, wherein the limbs each comprise a first kink, a second kink and a third kink, the first kink and the second kink forming the step formed at a transition from the latching portion to the free end of in each
Claim 8: --The spring clip as claimed in claim 7, wherein the retaining brackets are each arranged on one side of the bottom and extend perpendicularly from the bottom in such a way that they form an at least partially closed receptacle for the threaded nut with the limbs--
Claim 10: --The spring clip as claimed in claim 1, wherein each limb comprises, their respective latching portion, a latching groove which is configured to interact with an opening of a clamping element--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 9, 11-13 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.
Claim 6 recites that “the free ends are bent away… by an exterior angle of more than 80° relative to the latching portion”. Claim 1, of which claim 6 depends from, already recites that “the bent free ends are at an exterior angle of more than 100° relative to the latching portion”. It is unclear what Applicant is intending to claim from this limitation in claim 6, as claim 1 already requires that the free ends are at an angle of more than 80°, due to them being at an angle of more than 100°. It would appear that said limitation in claim 6 fails to further limit the limitation already defined in claim 1.
Further, claim 6 recites the limitation “the region of the third kink”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the region” in the claims.
Further, it is unclear if claim 6 is requiring that the free ends are to be bent towards the third kink of only one of the limbs, or of their respective limbs based upon the language “they are bent in the region of the third kink”. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the free ends are to be bent towards the third kink of their respective limbs and as such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 6 as reading:
“The spring clip as claimed in claim 4, wherein the free ends are bent away from one another in a direction of the third kinks of their respective limbs, the bent free ends being at an exterior angle of more than 80° relative to their respective latching portions”.
Further regarding claim 6, the limitation “the bent free ends being at an exterior angle of more than 80° relative to their respective latching portions” should be deleted from the claims, as such is already required due to claim 1 require that they be at angles of more than 100°. Thus, in Applicant’s future amendments, Examiner proposes claim 6 as reading as: --wherein the free ends are bent away from one another in a direction of the third kinks of their respective limbs--.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the spring clip comprising bottom, limbs, and retaining brackets is configured in one piece”. It is unclear if the bottom and limbs required in claim 9 are referring to the bottom and limbs defined in claim 1 or not. Further, it is unclear if the retaining brackets of claim 9 are referring to the retaining brackets of claim 7 or not. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the bottom and limbs of claim 9 are those of claim 1 and that the retaining brackets are those of claim 7, thus, Examiner will interpret claim 9 as depending from claim 7 and reading as:
“The spring clip as claimed in claim 7, wherein the spring clip comprising the bottom, the limbs and the retaining brackets is formed in one piece”.
Claim 11 defines of interior angles defined by each of the first, second, and third kinks, however, it is unclear from the language of claim 11 whether the kinks of only one limb are being referred to, or if the kinks of both limbs are being referred to. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that both limbs are being referred to and will interpret claim 11 as reading as:
“The spring clip as claimed in claim 4, wherein for each limb, the first kink defines a first interior angle (β, β’), s (β, β’), the second interior angles (γ, γ’) and the third interior angles (δ, δ’) each being smaller than 90°”.
Claim 12 recites “it being possible for the threaded nut to be arranged in the spring clip such that it cannot rotate in the case of use as intended”. It is unclear if Applicant is claiming whether the threaded nut is to be arranged in the spring clip or not. Further, it is unclear what “the case of use as intended” is intending to claim. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 12 as reading as:
“A threaded nut arrangement for bracing a tensioning clamp, comprising the spring clip as claimed in claim 1 and a threaded nut which is configured to interact with a tensioning screw, being arranged in the spring clip such that it cannot rotate within the spring clip when interacting with the tensioning screw”.
Claim 13 recites of a “polygonal threaded nut” and requires the “threaded nut arrangement of claim 11”. There is no threaded nut arrangement of claim 11 within the claims, however, Examiner notes that claim 12 is directed to a threaded nut arrangement, thus for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that claim 13 requires the threaded nut arrangement of claim 12. Further, it is unclear if the “polygonal threaded nut” is in addition to the threaded nut of claim 12, or if the threaded nut of claim 12 is being further defined as being polygonal. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the threaded nut of claim 12 is being further defined as polygonal and will interpret claim 13 as reading as:
“A tensioning clamp the threaded nut arrangement as claimed in claim 12, wherein the threaded nut is polygonal, and wherein a tensioning screw interacts with the polygonal threaded nut”
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, 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISI Automotive Rapid (EP-2177775; hereinafter LISI).
Regarding claim 1, LISI discloses a spring clip (5) for receiving a polygonal threaded nut (6) such that the polygonal threaded nut cannot rotate (see Fig. 1-4C), the spring clip being of substantially U-shaped configuration (see Fig. 2) and having a bottom (12) and two limbs (13), each limb having at least one step (see Annotated Fig. 1 below) and a free end (see Annotated Fig. 1), a latching portion (see Annotated Fig. 1) being configured between the step and the free end of in each case on limb (see Annotated Fig. 1), and the free ends of the limbs being bent away from one another in each case (see Fig. 2-3 showing the free ends being bent away from each other).
PNG
media_image1.png
977
1381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
While LISI discloses that the free ends are bent at an exterior angle relative to the latching portion (see Annotated Fig. 1), they do not explicitly disclose wherein the bent free ends are bent at an exterior angle of more than 100° relative to the latching portion. However, Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. an exterior angle between the free ends and their respective latching portions) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LISI to have the free ends be bent at an exterior angle relative of more than 100° to their respective latching portions as such involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, LISI discloses wherein the limbs each comprise a first kink, a second kink and a third kink (see Annotated Fig. 2 below), the first kink and the second kink configuring the step of in each case of the limbs (see Annotated Fig. 2 showing the first and second kinks forming the step of each limb), and the third kink being configured at the transition from the latching portion to the free end of in each case of the limbs (see Annotated Fig. 2 showing the third kink at a transition between the latching portion and free end of each limb).
PNG
media_image2.png
916
1345
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 5, LISI discloses wherein a spacing between the second kinks of the limbs is smaller than a spacing between the third kinks of the limbs (see Annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
922
1042
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claim 6, LISI discloses wherein the free ends (see Annotated Fig. 1) are bent away from one another in a direction of the third kinks of their respective limbs (see in Annotated Fig. 2 that the free ends are bent away from each other at their respective third kinks).
While LISI discloses that the free ends are bent at an exterior angle relative to the latching portion (see Annotated Fig. 1), they do not explicitly disclose wherein the bent free ends are bent at an exterior angle of more than 80° relative to the latching portion. However, Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. an exterior angle between the free ends and their respective latching portions) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LISI to have the free ends be bent at an exterior angle relative of more than 80° to their respective latching portions as such involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, LISI discloses wherein the spring clip comprises at least two retaining brackets (14) for securing the threaded nut against rotation (see Fig. 1-4C).
Regarding claim 8, LISI discloses wherein the retaining brackets (14) are each arranged on one side of the bottom (see [0013] of the attached translated description) and extend perpendicularly from the bottom (see Fig. 1-3) in such a way that they configure an at least partially closed receptacle for the threaded nut with the limbs (see in Fig. 2 the nut 6 retained in a closed receptacle formed by the retaining brackets 14, bottom 12, and limbs 13).
Regarding claim 9, LISI discloses wherein the spring clip (5) comprising the bottom (12), the limbs (13) and the retaining brackets (14) is formed in one piece (see Fig. 1-4C).
Regarding claim 10, LISI discloses wherein the limbs comprise, in each case in the region of the latching portion, a latching groove (see Annotated Fig. 4 below) which is configured to interact with an opening of a clamping element (see Fig. 3-4C showing the latching grooves interacting with an opening of a clamping element 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
933
793
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding claim 11, LISI discloses wherein for each limb, the first kink defines a first interior angle, the second kink defines a second interior angle, and the third kink defines a third interior angle (see Annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
1026
1471
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
While LISI discloses that each of the first, second, and third kinks define of first, second, and third interior angles, respectively, they do not explicitly disclose that each interior angle is smaller than 90°. However, Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. interior angles at each kink) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LISI to have the first, second, and third interior angles each be smaller than 90° as such involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, LISI discloses a threaded nut arrangement for bracing a tensioning clamp, comprising the spring clip (5) as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above) and a threaded nut (6) which is configured to interact with a tensioning screw (4), the threaded nut being arranged in the spring clip (see Fig. 1-4C) such that in cannot rotate within the spring clip when interacting with the tensioning screw (see Fig. 1-4C).
Regarding claim 13, LISI discloses of a tensioning clamp (1) comprising the threaded nut arrangement as claimed in claim 12 (see claim 12 above), wherein the threaded nut is polygonal (see in Fig. 1-4C that nut 6 is polygonal), and wherein a tensioning screw (4) interacts with the polygonal threaded nut (see Fig. 1-4C).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISI in view of Jaworski (US 3,035,624).
Regarding claim 2, LISI does not explicitly disclose wherein the latching portions of the limbs are of inclined configuration in each case with respect to a center axis which runs perpendicularly with respect to the bottom.
Jaworski teaches of a similar spring clip configured to receive a nut (12), wherein the spring clip is of substantially U-shaped configuration (see Fig. 2) and has a bottom (11) and two limbs (16) extending upwards from the bottom (see Fig. 2), wherein each limb comprises an inclined latching portion (17), each latching portion being inclined towards one another with respect to a center axis that extends perpendicularly with respect to the bottom (see Fig. 2), wherein a passage is formed between the latching portions (see the space between the latching portions in Fig. 1-6), such that the latching portions taper in a direction of the bottom (see Fig. 1-6).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LISI with the teachings of Jaworski, to have the latching portions of each spring clip be inclined towards each other with respect to a center axis that extends perpendicular to the bottom, wherein a passage is formed between the latching portions, such that the latching portions taper in a direction of the bottom of the spring clip, as such would enable for different flexion of the spring clip based upon the size of the hole the limbs of the spring clip are to be received within.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of LISI and Jaworski further teach wherein the latching portions are of inclined configuration with respect to the center axis (as taught in claim 2) in such a way that a passage which is configured between the latching portions tapers in a direction of the bottom (as taught in claim 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)270-1852. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Amber Anderson can be reached on 571-270-5281. 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.
/KEVIN J BAYNES/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights