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 .
Amendment filed 3/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-6 and 11 remain pending in the present application.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lovitz US 3589338 (hereinafter Lovitz) in view of Willaims US 3220680 (hereinafter Williams) in view of Petri US 2005/0082456 (hereinafter Petri).
Re. Cl. 1, Lovitz discloses: A torch holder (Fig. 1) for use with a portable gas torch (see Fig. 1 and 2-3, the device is capable of being used with a gas torch in the same manner as 29-30; the Examiner recognizes that this limitation is intended use since the claim is directed towards the torch holder), the torch holder comprising: a receiver (20, Fig. 1); a stabilizing arm (26, 27, Fig. 1); a retaining hook (11, 12, 13, 14, Fig. 1); a first end of the stabilizing arm being terminally connected to the receiver (see Fig. 1); a second end of the stabilizing arm being terminally connected to the retaining hook (see Fig. 1); the retaining hook extending outward, facing opposite of the receiver (see Fig. 3); the receiver configured to detachably connect to the neck of a gas torch (see Fig. 2-3, in the same manner as attaching to 30); the retaining hook configured to slidably engage with and detachably connect to a structure (see Fig. 3, 15-16); the stabilizing arm positioning the gas torch away from the structure by a predefined distance (see Fig. 3); and the torch holder capable of securing the gas torch to the structure in an upright position (see Fig. 3, 29, 30 is shown in an upright position); the torch holder being constructed from bent wire (see Fig. 1); the receiver being in the form of an open loop (see 20, Fig. 1, open due to 26-27 crossing one another); the stabilizing arm being in the form of a pair of skewed struts (see 26, 27, Fig. 1); the retaining hook being in the form of a pair of parallel struts (see 11, 12, 13, 14); and the open loop perimetrically surrounding the neck of the gas torch (see Fig. 2-3, the loop 20 is capable of performing the claimed intended use in the same manner as perimetrically surrounding 32a); the pair of skewed struts comprising an interference section (where 26, 27 connect to 20, Fig. 1) and a widening section (diverging portion of 26, 27 Fig. 1); the interference section being terminally connected to a pair of open-end segments of the open loop (see Fig. 1); the widening section extending outward and integrating with the pair of parallel struts (see Fig. 1); the pair of parallel struts comprising an inboard section (11, 12, Fig. 1), a mounting section (where 13, 14 points to, Fig. 1), and an outboard section (vertical section opposite 11, 12, Fig. 1); the inboard section being terminally connected to the widening section (see Fig. 1); the inboard section extending upward into the mounting section (see Fig. 1); and the mounting section connecting the inboard section to the outboard section (see Fig. 1).
Re. Cl. 5, Lovitz discloses: the outboard section extending downward, oriented substantially parallel with the inboard section (see Fig. 3); the pair of parallel struts having a profile shape in the form of a cavity (see Fig. 1-3); and the cavity being configured to slidably engage with the structure (see Fig. 3).
Re. Cl. 11, Lovitz discloses: A torch holder (Fig. 1) for use with a portable gas torch (see Fig. 1 and 2-3, the device is capable of being used with a gas torch in the same manner as 29-30; the Examiner recognizes that this limitation is intended use since the claim is directed towards the torch holder), the torch holder comprising: a receiver (20, Fig. 1); a stabilizing arm (26,27, Fig. 1); a retaining hook (11, 12, 13, 14, Fig. 1); a first end of the stabilizing arm being terminally connected to the receiver (see Fig. 1); a second end of the stabilizing arm being terminally connected to the retaining hook (see Fig. 1); the retaining hook extending outward, facing opposite of the receiver (see Fig. 3); the receiver configured to detachably connect to the neck of a gas torch (see Fig. 1, by being open and in the same manner as shown engaging 32a in Fig. 2-3); the retaining hook configured to slidably engage with and detachably connect to a tool belt (see Fig. 3, in the same manner as shown with 15-16); the stabilizing arm positioning the gas torch away from the tool belt by a predefined distance (see Fig. 3); the torch holder capable of securing the gas torch to the tool belt in an upright position (see Fig. 3, in the same manner as 29-30 is upright); the torch holder being constructed from bent wire (see Fig. 1); the receiver being in the form of an open loop (see Fig. 1, open by having 26, 27 cross one another); the stabilizing arm being in the form of a pair of skewed struts (see 26-27, Fig. 1); the retaining hook being in the form of a pair of parallel struts (see Fig. 1, 11-14); the open loop perimetrically surrounding the neck of the gas torch (see Fig. 3, in the same manner as surrounding 32a); the pair of skewed struts comprising an interference section (where 26-27 connect to 20) and a widening section (where 26 and 27 diverge from one another); the interference section being terminally connected to a pair of open-end segments of the open loop (see Fig. 1-2); and the widening section extending outward and integrating with the pair of parallel struts (see Fig. 1); the pair of parallel struts comprising an inboard section (11, 12, Fig. 1), a mounting section (where 13, 14 points to, Fig. 1), and an outboard section (vertical section opposite 11, 12, Fig. 1); the inboard section being terminally connected to the widening section (see Fig. 1); the inboard section extending upward into the mounting section (see Fig. 1); and the mounting section connecting the inboard section to the outboard section (see Fig. 1); the outboard section extending downward, oriented substantially parallel with the inboard section (see Fig. 3); the pair of parallel struts having a profile shape in the form of a cavity (see Fig. 1-3); and the cavity being configured to slidably engage with the tool belt (see Fig. 3)..
Re. Cl. 1, 6 and 11, Lovitz does not explicitly disclose that the wire is metal or the gap between the pair of parallel struts being larger than the gap between the pair of skewed struts along the interference section (Cl. 1), the pair of parallel struts further comprising a lateral segment; and the lateral segment connecting open ends of each of the pair of parallel struts forming an enclosed wire structure (Cl. 6); or that the wire is metal or the gap between the pair of parallel struts being larger than the gap between the pair of skewed struts along the interference section; a lateral segment; the lateral segment connecting open ends of each of the pair of parallel struts, forming an enclosed wire structure (Cl. 11). Re. Cls. 1, 6 and 11, Williams discloses a wire support (Fig. 1) which is in the form of bent metal wire (steel wire, Col. 2, Line 69-71); the wire holder (Fig. 1) which includes a retaining hook in the form of pair of parallel struts (13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 Fig. 1-3) which includes a lateral segment (23, Fig. 1-3) and the lateral segment connecting the open ends of each of the pair of parallel struts, forming an enclosed wire structure (see Fig. 1-3).
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 Lovitz device to be made out of metal wire as disclosed by Williams with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Further, 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 Lovitz device to include the lateral segment of Williams with reasonable expectation of success to eliminate any sharp points or edges which could damage or otherwise harm a surface during installation or use.
Re. Cls. 1 and 11, the combination of Lovitz in view of Williams does not disclose the gap between the pair of parallel struts being larger than the gap between the pair of skewed struts along the interference section. Petri discloses a wire holder (Fig. 5) which includes a receiver (58, Fig. 5) connected to a stabilizing arm (74, Fig. 5) in the form of a pair of skewed struts (see 74, Fig. 5). Re. Cl. 1, Petri discloses the pair of skewed struts comprising an interference section (see 70, Fig. 5) and a widening sections (see 74s, Fig. 5); the interference section being terminally connected to a pair of open-end segments of the open loop (see Fig. 5, connected at 70); the widening section extending outward (see Fig. 5); and the gap between the pair of parallel struts being larger than the gap between the pair of skewed struts along the interference section (see Fig. 5, by having 74s diverge from one another, the gap between the struts would be larger than the gap D2).
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 interference section of Lovitz to be structured as disclosed by Petri (i.e. spaced apart laterally rather than crossed) with reasonable expectation of success to provide an open back end portion which the user may use to slide a device within or on the receiver.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument Lovitz does not disclose “open ended segments,” the Examiner disagrees. It appears Applicant has a particular configuration as to what constitutes an “open loop” and is of the position that their illustrated open loop is the only configuration of an “open loop.” However, Lovitz’s loop is open in a difference sense, since members (26) and (27) are not fixed to one another but cross vertically over top of one another as can be seen in Fig. 1. In other words, Lovitz’s loop is open since it does not form a continuous circle as can be seen in Fig. 1. Applicant provides a definition of the term “closed loop,” being an annular ring with no open sides which does not appear to fit Lovitz’s loop in the Examiner’s position. As discussed above, the loop of Lovitz has an open side since portions (26) and (27) cross over one another in a vertical manner, thus leaving an opening between (26) and (27) which breaks up the annular nature of the ring. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the torch is press-fit into engagement with the holder) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re. Applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to modify the closed loop into an open loop since Lovitz is specifically designed for axial insertion of the feed pipe, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that since Lovitz discloses a particular manner of insertion/removal that the proposed modification would not be obvious. However, the proposed modification does not render the Lovitz device inoperable for its intended use but merely adds an alternative manner of using the device which would provide an added advantage in the Examiner’s position. For instance, by modifying Lovitz as discussed above to have an open rear portion, one would still be able to use the device as cited in Col. 3, Lines 22-26 and cited on Page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks. By modifying the rear of the loop (20), so that it is structured as shown in Fig. 5 of Petri would have no affect on how the holder and feeder are engaged with one another. The feeder would still be able to be slipped laterally out of engagement with the upper loop 19, as illustrated in Fig. 7, and then lifted upwardly until the feeder pipe is out of engagement with the lower loop 20. Further, as set forth above, one of ordinary skill would recognize that such a modification would provide the added advantage of enabling a user to use to slide a device within or on the receiver. This modification would not only keep Lovitz’s intended manner of assembly/disassembly intact but would also enable for alternate manners of using the device, thus increasing the workability of the device. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant merely points out that Petri discloses an open structure whereas their invention is a fully enclosed structure. The Examiner wishes to point out that the rejection is based on a combination of references and that the combination of references renders obvious the fully enclosed structure as required by the claim limitations as discussed above. Applicant’s arguments are considered but are not persuasive since they refer solely to Petri rather than the combination of references relied upon for rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gendala US 6131779, Fee US 5009380, Emmart US 2603441, Edwards US 2092912, and Franklin US 1667032 disclose other known holders which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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