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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species I in the Remarks filed 4/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is based on the grounds that the embodiments are directed to a unitary concept and based on various policy arguments. These arguments are unpersuasive. The arguments set forth by the applicant (i.e., a want of a serious burden on the examiner, species not being mutually exclusive) are arguments commonly set forth when traversing a restriction of the invention. (See MPEP 803). However, the examiner is requiring the applicant to elect between several disclosed species. A proper traversal of an election of species includes arguments that the species are not patentable over one another. What’s more, if patentably different species are disclosed in the application, "... it is not necessary to show a separate status in the art or separate classification." (See MPEP 808.01(a)). While there is a policy of compact prosecution, the plain language of the rules set forth that an examiner may require an election of species between patentably different species (see MPEP 808.01(a); 37 CFR 1.146). Since the applicant has not submitted persuasive arguments that the embodiments are not distinct from one another, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5, 8, 13, and 16-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species II-X, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/16/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the first and second locking mechanisms in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant discloses that the first and second locking mechanisms are a slotted opening and tongue member each with serrations/teeth.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohashi US 2018/0072248 (hereinafter Ohashi).
Re. Cl. 1, Ohashi discloses: An apparatus (1 and 101 Fig. 1) comprising: a clamp (20, Fig. 1) comprising: a connector (22, Fig. 4), the connector defines a first passageway configured to enclose at least a portion of an object (see Fig. 1-4, interior curvature of 22 which receives object 5); and a mounting member (10, Fig. 4) defined on the connector, the mounting member includes a first retainer (12, Fig. 4); and a bracket (see Fig. 5) comprising: a base (see 101, Fig. 5) that includes at least one second retainer (101H, Fig. 5) configured to connect to the first retainer to connect the clamp to the bracket (see Fig. 1); and a support structure connector (101N, Fig. 5) configured to attach the bracket to a support structure (see 105, Fig. 3).
Re. Cl. 2, Ohashi discloses: the connector is a first connector and wherein the clamp further comprises a second connector (21, Fig. 4) that defines a second passageway configured to enclose the at least a portion of the object (see Fig. 1-5).
Re. Cl. 3, Ohashi discloses: a hinge member (25, Fig. 4), wherein the second connector further comprises a first side opposite a second side (where 20 points to in Fig. 4 and where 24 points to in Fig. 4), and wherein the hinge member hingedly connects a second side of the first connector to the second side of the second connector (see Fig. 4).
Re. Cl. 4, Ohashi discloses: the first connector includes a first locking mechanism (24, 27, Fig. 6), the second connector includes a second locking mechanism (23, Fig. 4), and wherein the first and second locking mechanisms are configured to lock a position of respective second sides of the first and second connectors together around the object with the object received in the first and second passageways (see Fig. 3 and 8).
Re. Cl. 7, Ohashi discloses: the hinge member defines a hinge axis (see Fig. 4, extending from where reference character 25 is to where reference character 20 is), and wherein the first side and the second side are parallel to the hinge axis (see Fig. 4).
Re. Cl. 14, Ohashi discloses: the support structure connector comprises: an aperture defined through the base (see 101N, Fig. 5), the aperture configured to receive a threaded bolt configured to threadingly engage with a threaded orifice defined in the support structure to attach the base to the support structure (see Fig. 3, the aperture 101N is configured to receive a threaded bolt in a threaded orifice in the a support in the same manner it shows receiving 102B); or an aperture defined through the base, the aperture configured to receive a stud shaft extending from the support structure and at least one barbed arm extending from the base, the barbed arm configured to engage the stud shaft to attach the base to the support structure (due to the alternative language “or,” this limitation is not currently required in the Examiner’s position).
Claims 1, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miura US 2003/0136884 (hereinafter Miura).
Re. Cl. 1, Miura discloses: An apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a clamp (21, Fig. 1) comprising: a connector (28a, Fig. 1), the connector defines a first passageway configured to enclose at least a portion of an object (see interior of 28a configured to enclose a portion of object P as shown in Fig. 30); and a mounting member (22, Fig. 1) defined on the connector, the mounting member includes a first retainer (25a, b Fig. 1); and a bracket (1, Fig. 1) comprising: a base (see 1, Fig. 1) that includes at least one second retainer (opening portion shown on opposing sides of 1 which receive 25a, b, Fig. 1) configured to connect to the first retainer to connect the clamp to the bracket (see Fig. 27 for instance); and a support structure connector (6a, 7a-b, Fig. 1) configured to attach the bracket to a support structure (see Fig. 30).
Re. Cl. 9, Miura discloses: the first retainer includes a first retainer portion and a second retainer portion (25a, 25b, Fig. 1), and wherein the second retainer includes a third retainer portion configured to connect with the first retainer portion and a fourth retainer portion configured to connect with the second retainer portion (see Fig. 1, portions between 4 and 5 which receive 25 a and b respectively).
Re. Cl. 10, Miura discloses: the connector includes a first side opposite a second side (see Fig. 1, front and back sides), wherein the first retainer portion is defined on the first side, and wherein the second retainer portion is defined on the second side (see Fig. 1, 25a is on the first, front side while 25b is on the rear, second side).
Re. Cl. 11, Miura discloses: the first retainer portion comprises at least one first retention tab on the first side (see 25a, Fig. 1), the second retainer portion comprises at least one second retention tab on the second side (see 25b, Fig. 1), the third retainer portion comprises at least one first retention slot (see Fig. 1, between 4 and 5 on the front of 1), and the fourth retainer portion comprises at least one second retention slot (see Fig. 1 between 4 and 5 on the rear of 1), wherein the at least one first retention slot is configured to be received onto the at least one first retention tab, and wherein the at least one second retention slot is configured to be received onto the at least one second retention tab to connect the bracket to the clamp (see Fig. 27).
Re. Cl. 12, Miura discloses: the bracket further comprises: a first arm (side of 1 extending vertically which has the opening between 4 and 5 on it, as shown in Fig. 1); and a second arm (side opposite of the first arm discussed above, in Fig. 1), wherein the first and second arms extend orthogonally from the base (see Fig. 1, the sides extend orthogonally upward from the bottom 11a, b of the base), wherein the first retention slot is defined on the first arm, and wherein the second retention slot is defined on the second arm (see Fig. 1) .
Re. Cl. 14, Miura discloses: the support structure connector comprises: an aperture defined through the base, the aperture configured to receive a threaded bolt configured to threadingly engage with a threaded orifice defined in the support structure to attach the base to the support structure (due to the alternative language “or,” this limitation is not currently required in the Examiner’s position); or an aperture defined through the base (see 6a, Fig. 1), the aperture configured to receive a stud shaft extending from the support structure (see Fig. 30) and at least one barbed arm extending from the base (7a-b, Fig. 1), the barbed arm configured to engage the stud shaft to attach the base to the support structure (see Fig. 30).
Re. Cl. 15, Miura discloses: the connector defines a counterbore (see Fig. 1, interior of 22) therethrough and the support structure connector is accessible through the counterbore when the clamp is connected to the bracket (see Fig. 27, the support structure connector 6a, 7a, b are accessible through the opening in 22 as shown).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiki US 2017/0250528 (hereinafter Fujiki).
Re. Cl. 20, Fujiki discloses: An apparatus (Fig. 2) comprising: a metal bracket (24, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0026, Line 1) configured to attach to a support structure (see Fig. 2, via B); and a mounting clamp (20, Fig. 3) formed of a polymeric material (Paragraph 0022, Lines 1-3), the mounting clamp configured to snap onto the metal bracket (via 27 and 26, Fig. 2), the mounting clamp comprising: a first connector (21, Fig. 3) hingedly connected (23, Fig. 1-3) to a second connector (other 23, Fig. 3), the first and second connectors configured to surround an object (see Fig.1-3, clamps 10) , and the first and second connectors configured to connect with one another to form the object into a bundle (see Fig. 2).
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi in view of Toll US 2017/0227141 (hereinafter Toll).
Re. Cl. 6, Ohashi discloses the first locking mechanism comprises: a slotted opening (24, Fig. 4) defined by the first connector (see Fig. 1); wherein the second locking mechanism comprises: a tongue member (23, Fig. 1) that projects from the second connector (see Fig. 1), the tongue member further including a serration (see Fig. 6 where 26 engages) that extend along a length of the tongue member and across a width of the tongue member (see Fig. 6), the tongue member configured to be received in the slotted opening (see Fig. 6-8); and wherein the first locking mechanism further comprises: a pawl (27, Fig. 6) defined in the first connector (see Fig. 1 and 6), the pawl having a tooth (26, Fig. 6-8) disposed within the slotted opening (see Fig. 6-8), the tooth configured to interlock with the serration when the tongue member is inserted into the slotted opening (see Fig. 8). Ohashi does not however disclose a plurality of serrations and a plurality of teeth which engage with one another. Toll discloses an alternate clamp (Fig. 1) which includes a first connector (20B, Fig. 4) with a first locking mechanism (32, Fig. 4) and a second connector (20A, Fig. 4) with a second locking mechanism (32, Fig. 5) that mate together to clamp and object therebtween (see Fig. 9). Re. Cl. 6, Toll discloses the first locking mechanism comprises a slotted opening (36, Fig. 5) with a pawl (38, Fig. 5) having a plurality of teeth (44, Fig. 5) which mates with the second locking mechanism comprises a tongue (34, Fig. 4) having a plurality of serrations (42, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Ohashi device to include the plurality of teeth and plurality of serrations as disclosed by Toll with reasonable expectation of success to provide a more secure connection between the locking mechanisms. Having more interactions between the parts of the locking mechanisms (i.e. having multiple teeth/serrations compared to a single tooth/serration) would provide a more secure connection between the two parts which is less susceptible to failure by having multiple points of contact between the mating parts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beyer US 9970573, Hatano US 5390876, and Nakanishi US 2001/0019091 disclose other known clamps which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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 (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 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 GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights