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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,3-13,15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Juzak et al.(US11098825).
[claim 1] Juzak teaches a clip(120) for use with a conduit support assembly, comprising: a support(120) having a support surface(inner surfaces of 125) and a bottom(fig 13), the support having opposing sides(125) extending upward and forming the support surface in a U-shape(fig 13) configured and arranged to frictionally engage one of a cradle(1) or a conduit(200), wherein the support is configured and arranged to deflect as the one of the cradle or the conduit is positioned within the support on the support surface between the opposing sides(C9 L64-C10 L20); an extension(126) extending downward from the bottom; and a flange(123) extending outward from the extension.
[claim 3] wherein the flange extends outward longitudinally from opposing sides of the extension(Fig 12).
[claim 4] wherein the flange has a length and a width, the length being larger than the width(C9 L36-42).
[claim 5] wherein the width is configured and arranged to be inserted into a channel(114), the length being larger than the channel(C9 L36-42).
[claim 6] further comprising the cradle(1) configured and arranged to be frictionally engaged by the support, the cradle configured and arranged to support the conduit(200)(fig 11).
[claim 7] further comprising a base(110) including a channel(114), the flange configured and arranged to be positioned within the channel(, the extension configured and arranged to extend through the channel, and the support configured and arranged to be positioned above the channel(fig 11).
[claim 8] Juzak teaches a conduit support assembly, comprising: a base(110); a clip(120) configured and arranged to operatively connect to the base, the clip comprising a support(120) having opposing sides(125) extending upward(fig 13); and a cradle(1) configured and arranged to be operatively connected to the support(fig 11), wherein the opposing sides are configured and arranged to deflect as the cradle is positioned within the support between the opposing sides(C9 L64- C10 L20), the cradle configured and arranged to receive a conduit(200)(fig 14).
[claim 9] wherein the base includes a channel(114) configured and arranged to receive a flange(123) of the clip, the flange having a length and a width, the length being larger than the width and an opening of the channel, the width being smaller than the opening of the channel(C9 L36-42).
[claim 10] wherein the channel extends perpendicularly relative to the clip and the cradle when the clip is installed on the base(fig 11).
[claim 11] wherein the opposing sides form a support surface(inner surfaces of 125) in a U-shape(fig 13), the support surface configured and arranged to support the cradle.
[claim 12] wherein the clip frictionally engages the cradle(fig 11).
[claim 13] wherein the clip and the cradle are separate components(fig 11).
[claim 15] Juzak teaches a conduit support assembly, comprising: a base(110); a clip(120) configured and arranged to operatively connect to the base, the clip including a support(120) having opposing sides(125) extending upward; a cradle(1) configured and arranged to be supported by the support(fig 11), wherein the support is configured and arranged to deflect as the cradle is positioned within the support between the opposing sides(C9 L64- C10 L20); and a conduit(200) configured and arranged to be supported by the cradle(fig 14).
[claim 16] wherein the opposing sides form a support surface(inner surfaces of 125) in a U-shape(fig 13), the support surface configured and arranged to support the cradle(fig 11).
[claim 17] wherein the clip and the cradle are separate components(fig 11).
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.
Claim(s) 14,18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juzak et al. as applied to claims 8 and 15 above.
[claim 14,19] Juzak teaches a conduit support assembly as detailed above, and further teaches that the cradle can be made from metal(C5 L46-48). Juzak however does not provide a specific type of metal, or detail that the metal is non-corrosive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date, without undue experimentation, to make the cradle out of any known non-corrosive metal as a matter of simple design choice, as this could provide increased strength and corrosion resistance to the device.
[claim 18] Juzak teaches an assembly as detailed above, where the clip and cradle are separate components. Juzak may not teach that the clip and the cradle are formed as a single component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the clip and cradle of Juzak a single component as a matter of simple design choice, as this would merely be making plural parts unitary.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juzak et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Campbell et al.(US2024/0133599).
[claim 20] Juzak teaches an assembly as detailed above, however Juzak does not detail what the conduit is made from, or that it is specifically made of PVC coated with a UV protectant. Campbell teaches another conduit(110), and further teaches that the conduit can be made of PVC coated with a UV protectant to slow or prevent absorption of UV radiation that can impact the flexibility and mechanical strength of the conduit when used outdoors(para[0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the conduit of Juzak from PVC coated with UV protectant as this would allow the conduit to be used outdoors and resist degradation from UV radiation, as taught by Campbell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3-20 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.
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 BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights