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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2, Figures 2 and 3, in the reply filed on February 5, 2026, is acknowledged. Claim 8 is withdrawn and Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the linear ratchet from Claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites “wherein the spacing device is arranged to be adjusted at least between a length of 15 mm and 25 mm, e.g. at least between a length of 10 mm and 30 mm, e.g. at least between a length of 5 mm and 35 mm.” The use of “e.g.” which means “for example” does not clearly recite what the invention is but rather an example within the claimed range. If Applicant wants to specifically claim narrower ranges, it must be done emphatically and not through example. Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of examination, only the specifically claimed range of 15mm to about 25mm is being considered.
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.
(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) 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102015106273 (DE 273).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: DE 273 discloses a spacing device for separating an electrical cable from an aircraft galley surface, comprising: an upper portion (See Annotated Fig. A); and a lower portion (See Annotated Fig. A); wherein the upper portion comprises: a distal end (See Annotated Fig. A) for attaching to the electrical cable; and a proximal end (See Annotated Fig. A) for connecting to the lower portion; wherein the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises: a distal end (See Annotated Fig. A) for attaching to the aircraft galley surface; and a proximal end (See Annotated Fig. A) for connecting to the proximal end of the upper portion; wherein the upper portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. A) are slidably connected to each other so to allow the length of the spacing device to be adjusted between a plurality of discrete lengths; wherein the upper portion and the lower portion comprise complementary engaging features (See Annotated Fig. A) arranged to at least temporarily hold the spacing device at a selected one of the plurality of discrete lengths; and wherein the complementary engaging features extend along only one side (the outer side) of the upper portion and (the Inner side of) the lower portion.
Regarding Claim 2: DE 273 discloses a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the upper portion (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises a cylindrical body and the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises a cylindrical body.
Regarding Claim 3: DE 273 discloses a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the upper portion (See Annotated Fig. A) is arranged to slide within the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 4: DE 273 discloses a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the distal end (See Annotated Fig. A) of the upper portion (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises a clip (See Annotated Fig. A) for receiving the electrical cable.
Regarding Claim 5: DE 273 discloses a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the distal end (See Annotated Fig. A) of the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises a flange (See Annotated Fig. A) having a base (See Annotated Fig. A) for attaching to the aircraft galley surface; and wherein a surface area of the base (See Annotated Fig. A) of the flange is greater than a cross-sectional area of the proximal end (See Annotated Fig. A) of the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 6: DE 273 discloses a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. A) comprises an attachment bore (See Annotated Fig. A) for inserting an attaching fastener to attach the distal end of the lower portion to the aircraft galley surface.
Regarding Claim 7: DE 273 discloses a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the complementary engaging features comprise a plurality of complementary engaging features (See Annotated Fig. A) on one of the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and the upper portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and only a single complementary engaging feature (See Annotated Fig. A) on the other of the upper portion and the lower portion.
Regarding Claim 9: DE 273 discloses a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the complementary engaging features comprise: one or more protrusions (See Annotated Fig. A) on . . . the upper portion; and one or more complementary recesses (See Annotated Fig. A) on . . . the lower portion; wherein the one or more protrusions are arranged to engage with the one or more complementary recesses.
Regarding Claim 10: DE 273 discloses a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the complementary engaging features comprise a latch (See Annotated Fig. A) having a plurality of engaging positions (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 11: DE 273 discloses a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the complementary engaging features comprise: a linear ratchet (See Annotated Fig. A) on . . . the lower portion . . . and a pawl (See Annotated Fig. A) on the . . . upper portion--.
Regarding Claim 12: DE 273 discloses a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the upper portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. A) are arranged to be rotatable relative to each other so as to secure the spacing device at a selected one of the plurality of discrete lengths.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,138,973 to Woodward (Woodward).
PNG
media_image2.png
810
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Woodward discloses a spacing device for separating an electrical cable from an aircraft galley surface, comprising: an upper portion (See Annotated Fig. B); and a lower portion (See Annotated Fig. B); wherein the upper portion comprises: a distal end (See Annotated Fig. B) for attaching to the electrical cable; and a proximal end (See Annotated Fig. B) for connecting to the lower portion; wherein the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. B) comprises: a distal end (See Annotated Fig. B) for attaching to the aircraft galley surface; and a proximal end (See Annotated Fig. B) for connecting to the proximal end of the upper portion; wherein the upper portion (See Annotated Fig. B) and the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. B) are slidably connected to each other so to allow the length of the spacing device to be adjusted between a plurality of discrete lengths; wherein the upper portion and the lower portion comprise complementary engaging features (See Annotated Fig. B) arranged to at least temporarily hold the spacing device at a selected one of the plurality of discrete lengths; and wherein the complementary engaging features extend along only one side (the outer side) of the upper portion and (the Inner side of) the lower portion.
Regarding Claim 13: Woodward discloses a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the complementary engaging features comprise: one or more protrusions (See Annotated Fig. B) on . . . the lower portion . . . and a longitudinal groove (See Annotated Fig. B) on the . . . upper portion . . . wherein the longitudinal groove (See Annotated Fig. B) extends in a direction parallel to a direction in which the length of the spacing device is adjusted; wherein the complementary engaging features further comprise: a plurality of lateral grooves (See Annotated Fig. B) extending perpendicularly from the longitudinal groove; wherein the upper portion (See Annotated Fig. B) and the lower portion (See Annotated Fig. B) are arranged to be rotatable relative to each other so as to move the one or more protrusions into one or more of the plurality of lateral grooves so as to secure the spacing device at a selected one of the plurality of discrete lengths.
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(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 273.
Regarding Claim 14: DE 273 does not explicitly disclose the spacing device is arranged to be adjusted at least between 15 mm and 25 mm. Nonetheless, the specifically claimed spacing is not patentably distinct over the prior art and is an obvious matter of design choice. Here’s why.
First, Courts have held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”1 Here, DE 273 discloses a device that has some undefined range of spacing. Applicant has not disclosed that having a range of spacing of 15 to 25mm would perform differently than other ranges.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of DE 273 by using a spacing of between a length of 15 mm to 25 mm to accommodate differently sized interior regions of an aircraft. Moreover, doing so would enable a user to use one style of device for many different sizing needs which would help reduce costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches a spacing device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the spacing device comprises a spring arranged to bias the upper portion and the lower portion away from each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 20240116464, 5335754.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Prosecution Insights