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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/2/26 has been entered.
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 6,10,11,13,14,21-26 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.
In claims 6,10,11,13,14 and 21-26 it is unclear how the clip(claims 6,21-23) and conduit support assembly(claims 10,11,13,14,24-26) are meant to be structured and arranged. Claims 6,11,21 and 24 all recite a cradle that is either frictionally engaged by the opposing sides of the support or arranged between the opposing sides of the support and the conduit. These claims also depend from claims 1 and 8 that require that the opposing sides be configured and arranged to frictionally engage the conduit. It is unclear how the apparatus would be structured such that the opposing sides could both frictionally engage the conduit as required by independent claims 1 and 8, and either frictionally engage the cradle, or have the cradle positioned between the opposing sides of the support and the conduit, as the opposing sides would then no longer be frictionally engaging the conduit. It appears that the claims are meant to recite that the opposing sides could frictionally engage either the cradle or the conduit, but not both at the same time, as this is what was meant to be claimed per the examiner’s best understanding of the claimed invention.
In claim 10 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the cradle”. It appears that “and the cradle” should be deleted from the claim.
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) 1,3-11,13,21,22,24,25 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 a conduit(200), wherein the opposing sides are configured and arranged to selectively releasably secure the conduit within the support(fig 14 shows the opposing sides selectively and releasably securing the conduit within the support) wherein the support is configured and arranged to deflect as 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 a cradle(1) configured and arranged to be frictionally engaged by the opposing sides of 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 for supporting a conduit(200), 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 wherein the opposing sides are configured and arranged to frictionally engage the conduit, wherein the opposing sides are configure and arranged to selectively releasably secure the conduit within the support(fig 14 shows the opposing sides selectively and releasably securing the conduit within the support) and wherein the opposing sides are configured and arranged to deflect as the conduit is positioned within the support between the opposing sides(C9 L64-C10 L20).
[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 frictionally engage a cradle(1) configured and arranged to support the conduit(fig 14).
[claim 13] wherein the clip and the cradle are separate components(fig 11).
[claim 21] further comprising a cradle(1) configured and arranged to be positioned between the opposing sides of the support and the conduit(fig 14).
[claim 22,25] wherein the opposing sides are configured and arranged to selectively releasably secure the cradle and the conduit within the support(fig 14).
[claim 24] further comprising a cradle(1) configured and arranged to be operatively connected to the support, 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 the conduit(fig 14).
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juzak et al. as applied to claim 11 above.
[claim 14] 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(s) 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juzak et al. as applied to claims 1,6,8 and 11 above, and further in view of Haggerty(US2006/0289104).
[claim 23,26] Juzak teaches a clip and a conduit support assembly as detailed above with a cradle(1). Juzak however may not teach the use of weep holes in a bottom of the cradle configured and arranged to allow drainage. Haggerty teaches a similar conduit support assembly, which uses weep holes(connected to drain spout 12 in fig 9) configured and arranged to allow for drainage of any spilled liquids within the cradle(para[0041-0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to add weep holes to the cradle of Juzak, as this would allow for the drainage of any liquid spilled within the cradle, as taught by Haggerty.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Juzak does not teach opposing sides configured and arranged to frictionally engage the conduit and selectively releasably secure the conduit within the support. The examiner disagrees. As seen in figure 14 of Juzak, the opposing sides(125) of the clip(120) have portions(129,133) that extend past the cradle(1) to frictionally engage with conduit, with figure 14 showing the opposing sides, along with the cradle and clamp member(40) selectively releasably securing the conduit on the support.
Conclusion
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