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 § 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 8 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 8, line 1, “a second fixing hole” is considered indefinite since a first fixing hole has not been cited in claim 5 or 7.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagahashi (JP 2012-165542).
Re-claim 1, Nagahashi discloses a grommet comprising: a hollow body part (1) configured to be penetrated by a wire (2); a first mounting part (4) formed at a first end of the body part; a second mounting part (5) formed at a second end of the body part; a deformable part (3) configured to connect the first mounting part and the second mounting part, and configured to allow deformation of the body part; and at least one length adjustment part (10) formed on the body part and configured to allow a change in length of the body part.
Nagahashi also discloses that the deformable part is formed in a bellows shape (re-claim 2); the length adjustment part comprises: a variable part configured to be adjusted in length by an external force; and a fixing unit configured to fix the variable part with the adjusted length (re-claim 3); the variable part is formed in a bellows shape (re-claim 4); the fixing unit comprises: a first fixing protrusion (11) formed at one side of the variable part; and a strap (15) configured to be coupled to the first fixing protrusion to fix a length of the variable part (re-claim 5); a plurality of first fixing holes (C1, C3) are formed in the strap and separably coupled to the first fixing protrusion (re-claim 6); the fixing unit further comprises: a second fixing protrusion (12) formed at an other side of the variable part and separably coupled to the strap (re-claim 7); a second fixing hole (C4) is formed in the strap and separably coupled to the second fixing protrusion (12) (re-claim 8); the strap (15) extends from an end of the deformable part (3) (re-claim 9).
Re-claim 11, Nagahashi discloses a vehicle comprising: a first mounting part (4) configured to be fixed to any one of a vehicle body and a door; a second mounting part (5) configured to be fixed to another of the vehicle body and the door; a hollow body part (1) configured to connect the first mounting part and the second mounting part, and be penetrated by a wire (2); a deformable part (3) configured to allow deformation of the body part; and a length adjustment part (10) configured to allow a change in length of the body part.
Nagahashi also discloses that the deformable part is formed in a bellows shape (re-claim 12); the length adjustment part comprises: a variable part (10) configured to be adjusted in length by an external force; a first fixing protrusion (11) formed at one side of the variable part; a second fixing protrusion (12) formed at an other side of the variable part; and a strap (15) having a plurality of first fixing holes (C1, C3) separably coupled to the first fixing protrusion (11), and a second fixing hole (C4) separably coupled to the second fixing protrusion (12) (re-claim 13).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahashi in view of Kim et al.
Nagahashi discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the at least one length adjustment part comprising at least two length adjustment parts each formed at an opposite side of the deformable part. Kim et al. discloses a grommet comprising different body parts (40 and 50) which are alternately arranged. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the grommet of Nagahashi to comprise at least two length adjustment parts each formed at an opposite side of the deformable, i.e. two different body parts alternately arranged as taught by Kim et al., to meet the specific use of the resulting grommet. It has been held that merely duplicating the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am to 5:30pm.
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, Imani N Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/CHAU N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights