DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 7/21/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/21/26.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Outer Diameter flexible plastic hole plug.
As to claims 1 and 6, reference discloses a cap body provided with a receiving hole having a base wall and a side wall. The side wall is formed with at least one convex rib as seen in the figure and description of being a ribbed plug. It should be noted that the term branch cap in the preamble is an intended use limitation and any cap can be used as a branch cap.
As to claim 2, it should be noted that the branch body is an intended item to be placed within the branch cap and therefore this claim will be met if the branch cap contains at least one convex rib.
As to claim 3, as seen in the figure the cap has a rib and therefore has at least one connected recess between the rib. Further it should be noted that the branch body is an intended item to be placed within the branch cap and therefore this claim will be met if the branch cap contains at least one convex rib.
As to claim 4, the rubber plug can stretch and therefore when stretched the first hole diameter will be greater than the unstretched area of the second hole portion. Further in an alternative view the area of the opening is greater than the area where the rib is located so the first hole inner diameter will be greater than at the second hole portion.
As to claim 5, it should be noted that the branch body is an intended item to be placed within the branch cap and therefore this claim will be met if the branch cap contains at least one convex rib.
As to claim 8, the plug is made of rubber.
As to claim 9, the rubber plug states that the hole plug can stretch and therefore when stretched the diameter at the receiving hole is greatest and will decrease towards the base.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ji et al (CN 218784831 which has been machine translated).
As to claims 1 and 6, Ji discloses in figure 4 a tube cap that comprises a cap body provided with a receiving hole having a base wall and a side wall. The side wall is formed with at least one convex rib as seen in figure 4. It should be noted that the term branch cap in the preamble is an intended use limitation and any cap can be used as a branch cap.
As to claim 2, it should be noted that the branch body is an intended item to be placed within the branch cap and therefore this claim will be met if the branch cap contains at least one convex rib.
As to claim 3, as seen in the figure the cap has ribs and therefore has at least one connecting recess between the ribs. Further it should be noted that the branch body is an intended item to be placed within the branch cap and therefore this claim will be met if the branch cap contains at least one convex rib.
As to claim 4, the opening is greater than the area where the rib is located so the first hole inner diameter will be greater than at the second hole portion.
As to claim 5, it should be noted that the branch body is an intended item to be placed within the branch cap and therefore this claim will be met if the branch cap contains at least one convex rib.
As to claim 7, the cap has ribs extending along the depth direction of the cap.
As to claim 9, as seen in figure 4 the diameter at the receiving hole is greatest and will decrease towards the base.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Syringe cap.
As to claims 1 and 6, Syringe cap discloses a cap that comprises a cap body provided with a receiving hole having a base wall and a side wall. The side wall is formed with at least one convex rib as seen in the figure. It should be noted that the term branch cap in the preamble is an intended use limitation and any cap can be used as a branch cap.
As to claim 2, it should be noted that the branch body is an intended item to be placed within the branch cap and therefore this claim will be met if the branch cap contains at least one convex rib.
As to claim 3, as seen in the figure the cap has ribs and therefore has at least one connecting recess between the ribs. Further it should be noted that the branch body is an intended item to be placed within the branch cap and therefore this claim will be met if the branch cap contains at least one convex rib.
As to claim 4, the opening is greater than the area at the front and a second hole portion is smaller towards the end.
As to claim 5, it should be noted that the branch body is an intended item to be placed within the branch cap and therefore this claim will be met if the branch cap contains at least one convex rib.
As to claim 7, the cap has ribs extending along the depth direction of the cap.
As to claim 8, the cap is made of plastic.
As to claim 9, as seen in figure the diameter at the receiving hole is greatest and will decrease towards the base.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al (CN 218784831 which has been machine translated).
Ji anticipates claim 1 for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the cap being formed of a rubber or plastic.
Ji discloses in the background that these caps are made of soft rubber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the cap of Ji with a soft rubber as its known to use this material as a cap. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US Patent 4590105) in view of Outer Diameter flexible plastic hole plug.
As to claims 10 and 11, Shaffer discloses an artificial tree that comprises an artificial branch wherein a plastic cap 44 is placed over the ends of the wires to protect against the sharp ends and to be more aesthetically pleasing. However, this reference is silent to the specifics of the cap.
Outer flexible plug hole discloses a cap body provided with a receiving hole having a base wall and a side wall. The side wall is formed with at least one convex rib as seen in the figure and description of being a ribbed plug.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shaffer and formed the cap to be like the cap of the disclosed in plastic hole plug because it would attach to the branch and form a protective end against wires and therefore this design would be a suitable alternative. As both of these caps are used for protection.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US Patent 4590105) in view of Ji et al (CN 218784831 which has been machine translated).
As to claims 10 and 11, Shaffer discloses an artificial tree that comprises an artificial branch wherein a plastic cap 44 is placed over the ends of the wires to protect against the sharp ends and to be more aesthetically pleasing. However, this reference is silent to the specifics of the cap.
Ji discloses in figure 4 a tube cap that comprises a cap body provided with a receiving hole having a base wall and a side wall. The side wall is formed with at least one convex rib as seen in figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shaffer and formed the cap to be like the cap of the Ji because it would attach to the branch and form a protective end against wires and therefore this design would be a suitable alternative as it locks into place.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US Patent 4590105) in view of Syringe cap.
As to claims 10 and 11, Shaffer discloses an artificial tree that comprises an artificial branch wherein a plastic cap 44 is placed over the ends of the wires to protect against the sharp ends and to be more aesthetically pleasing. However, this reference is silent to the specifics of the cap.
Syringe cap discloses a cap that comprises a cap body provided with a receiving hole having a base wall and a side wall. The side wall is formed with at least one convex rib as seen in the figure. It should be noted that the term branch cap in the preamble is an intended use limitation and any cap can be used as a branch cap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shaffer and formed the cap to be like the cap of the syringe because it would attach to the branch and form a protective end against wires and therefore this design would be a suitable alternative. As both of these caps are used for protection against sharp ends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights