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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaeffer et al. (4,384,605).
Claim 11:
Schaeffer discloses an attachment clip (27) (figs. 2-3) comprising:
a hook portion with an upper hook portion (36) and a lower hook portion (33) in an S arrangement, and a brake portion (31), wherein a cavity is formed between said brake portion (31) and the hook portion (36, 37) (figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 17-23, 28-32, and lines 38-41); and,
said attachment clip (27) is configured to be clipped onto a guiding portion (21) of an attachment structure (11) by moving said cavity, transverse to a longitudinal direction, to the guiding portion (21), wherein upon contacting said guiding portion (21) the upper hook portion and the brake portion are spread apart under elastic deformation of the attachment clip (27), and
snapping said guiding portion (21) into said cavity upon passing said upper hook portion (36) under partial reversal of said elastic deformation, causing said upper hook portion (36) to be pushed against a surface of the attachment structure (11) and said brake portion (31) to be pulled towards said hook portion (36, 33), thus applying a brake force to an outer surface of the attachment structure (11), while said upper hook portion (36) is pushed against an inner surface and supported by the guiding portion (21) (figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 17-23, 28-32, and lines 38-41); wherein said brake portion (31) comprises a nose (47) formed at an end of the attachment clip (11) with a surface that extends an entire width of said attachment clip (figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 53-60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaeffer et al. (4,384,605).
Claim 1:
Schaeffer discloses a system, configured for fastening an object to an attachment structure (11) by an attachment clip (27), the system comprising:
an attachment clip (27) (figs 1-6, col. 2, lines 33-37); and
an attachment structure (11) (figs 1-6, col. 2, lines 17-23);
wherein the attachment structure (11) comprises an attachment channel (formed by walls 12, 13, 15) extending in a longitudinal direction, said attachment channel (formed by walls 12, 13, 15) comprising an inner channel surface (formed by bend 21) and a guiding portion that forms a guiding notch (formed by edge 22), said guiding notch being (formed by edge 22) open towards the inner channel surface and configured to guide an object along said longitudinal direction, when said object is engaged with said guiding notch (formed by edge 22) (figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 17-23 and 28-32); and,
wherein the attachment clip (27) comprises a hook portion with an upper hook portion (36) and a lower hook portion (33) in an S arrangement, and further comprises a brake portion (31), wherein a cavity is formed between said brake portion (31) and hook portion (figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 17-23, 28-32, and lines 38-41); and,
said attachment clip (27) is configured to be clipped onto said guiding portion by moving said cavity, transverse the longitudinal direction, to the guiding portion, wherein upon contacting said guiding portion the upper hook portion and the brake portion are spread apart under elastic deformation of the attachment clip (27), and
snapping said guiding portion into said cavity upon passing said upper hook portion under partial reversal of said elastic deformation, causing said upper hook portion to be pushed against the inner channel surface and said brake portion to be pulled towards said hook portion, thus applying a brake force to an outer surface of the attachment structure (11), while said upper hook portion is pushed against the inner channel surface and supported by the guiding portion (figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 17-23, 28-32, and lines 38-41); wherein said brake portion comprises a nose (47) formed at an end of the attachment clip with a surface that extends an entire width of said attachment clip (figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 53-60).
Shaeffer fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the lower hook portion is below the brake portion. Instead, Shaeffer discloses an arrangement wherein the lower hook portion is arranged above the brake portion. MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of an arrangement of the claimed device and a device having an alternative arrangement would not have modified the operation of the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Shaeffer to arrange the lower hook portion below the brake portion, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Schaeffer renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 1.
Claim 8:
Schaeffer renders obvious the system according to claim 1, wherein the attachment clip (27) is a single part (figs 1-6, col. 2, lines 33-37).
Claim 14:
Schaeffer renders obvious an aircraft comprising the system according to claim 1 (figs. 1-6, col. 2, lines 17-23, 28-32, and lines 38-41).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaeffer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malec (US 2021/0055140 A1).
Claim 9:
Schaeffer renders obvious the system according to claim 1, and Shaeffer fails to disclose or fairly suggest said brake portion is surface treated or coated.
Malec discloses a clip (120) comprising a brake portion (112b) including in a section configured to apply brake force to the outer surface of the attachment structure that is surface treated or coated to enhance friction on said outer surface, or said outer surface is at least sectionally surface treated or coated to enhance friction on the brake portion (112b), or both (1A-1D, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the system of Schaeffer by applying a coating to the brake portion as taught by Malec in order to increase the purchase of the brake portion on the outer wall (Malec, [0047]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 09 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant argues the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaeffer is improper because the Shaeffer system is not for an aircraft. Examiner disagrees. Applicant arguments are not commensurate with the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 8 do not recite an aircraft. Claim 14 does not positively recite any structural features of an aircraft beyond incorporation of the system of claim 1. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “aircraft” merely serves as a label for any apparatus that include the recited system. Thus, claim 14 encompasses any structure meeting the limitations of claim 1, regardless of whether it would conventionally be understood as an aircraft, unless the specification provides a clear lexicographic definition limiting the term.
On page 8 applicant argues Schaeffer fails to disclose a nose at the end of the attachment clip. Examiner disagrees. As recite above, Schaeffer discloses a nose formed at the end of the attachment clip as required of applicant’s claimed invention
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is allowed.
Claims 2-7, 10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 and 15:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the system according to claim 1, comprising at least one object with an insertion portion configured to engage with the guiding notch of the guiding portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kump et al. (US 5,720,398) discloses a power wing clip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights