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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 14 depict a lead line without a reference character. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “the present invention” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5 “the same section” should be - - a same section - -.
Claim 2, line 2 “one side” should be - - the other side - -.
Claim 2, line 3 “the other side” should be - - the one side - -.
Claim 3, line 5 “the two adjacent convex teeth” should be - - two adjacent of the convex teeth - -.
Claim 4, line 5 “the two adjacent inner teeth” should be - - two adjacent of the inner teeth - -.
Claim 5, line 2 “the length” should be - - a length - -.
Claim 7, line 1 “the width” should be - - a width - -.
Claim 8, line 1 “wherein limiting plates” should be - - wherein two limiting plates - -.
Claim 8, line 4 “between the side walls” should be - - between side walls - -.
Claim 10, line 5 “the same section” should be - - a same section - -.
Claim 12, line 5 “the two adjacent convex teeth” should be - - two adjacent of the convex teeth - -.
Claim 13, line 5 “the two adjacent inner teeth” should be - - two adjacent of the inner teeth - -.
Claim 14, line 2 “the length” should be - - a length - -.
Claim 16, line 1 “the width” should be - - a width - -.
Claim 17, line 1 “wherein limiting plates” should be - - wherein two limiting plates - -.
Claim 17, line 4 “between the side walls” should be - - between side walls - -.
Claim 20, line 3 “from one end” should be - - from the one end - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 10-20 are 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 10 recites the limitation "an outer wall" in line 10. Is not clearly understood it is - - a groove is formed in the outer wall of the other side of the tie body - - or - - a groove is formed in an inner wall of the other side of the tie body - -.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "an outer wall" in line 8. Is not clearly understood it is - - a groove is formed in the outer wall of the other side of the tie body - - or - - a groove is formed in an inner wall of the other side of the tie body - -.
Claims 11-18 and 20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paradis (US Patent No. 4,473,524).
Regarding claim 19, Paradis discloses a cable tie, comprising a locking head and a tie body, wherein two ends of an inner cavity of the locking head respectively form an extend-in opening and a pull-out opening, one end of the tie body is fixedly connected to an outer wall of one end of the locking head close to the extend-in opening, tie teeth are fixedly arranged on outer walls of two sides of the tie body, locking teeth are fixed on inner walls of two sides of the locking head, and the locking teeth are matched with the tie teeth (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3); and
the tie teeth comprise convex teeth, a plurality of convex teeth are integrally formed on an outer wall of one side of the tie body close to the pull-out opening, a groove is formed in an outer wall of the other side of the tie body, a plurality of inner teeth are fixedly mounted on an inner wall of the groove, the convex teeth and the inner teeth are all matched with the locking teeth, and a bending groove is formed at one end of the groove close to the locking head (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 20, Paradis further discloses, comprising a bending portion, wherein two ends of the bending portion in a length direction are respectively connected to the locking head and the tie body, and the bending groove extends from one end of the tie body close to the bending portion to the bending portion and the locking head sequentially (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paradis (US Patent No. 4,473,524), in view of Sorensen et al. (US Patent No. 5,470,520).
Regarding claim 1, Paradis discloses a cable tie, comprising a locking head and a tie body, wherein two ends of an inner cavity of the locking head respectively form an extend-in opening and a pull-out opening, one end of the tie body is fixedly connected to an outer wall of one end of the locking head close to the extend-in opening, tie teeth are fixedly arranged on outer walls of two sides of the tie body, locking teeth are mounted on inner walls of two sides of the locking head, the locking teeth are matched with the tie teeth, and an extend-out head is integrally formed at one end of the tie body away from the locking head (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3); and
an outer wall of one side of the tie body is provided with a groove, and a bending groove is formed at one end of the groove close to the locking head (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Paradis does not disclose tooth surfaces of the tie teeth on the two sides of the tie body at the same section partially overlap in a thickness direction of the tie body.
However, Sorensen et al. teaches tooth surfaces of the tie teeth (22, 24) on the two sides of the tie body (12) at the same section partially overlap in a thickness direction of the tie body (12) (see Figs. 2 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tie teeth from Paradis with partially overlap tie teeth as taught by Sorensen et al. in order to have a stronger engagement with the locking teeth from the locking head.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein the tie teeth comprise convex teeth, a plurality of convex teeth are integrally formed on an outer wall of one side of the tie body close to the pull-out opening, the groove is located at the other side of the tie body away from the convex teeth, a plurality of inner teeth are fixedly mounted on an inner wall of the groove, the convex teeth and the inner teeth are all matched with the locking teeth (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), the convex teeth and the inner teeth are of asymmetric structures along the two sides of the tie body, and tooth surfaces of the convex teeth and the inner teeth at the same section partially overlap in the thickness direction of the tie body (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein one surface of each of the convex teeth away from the locking head forms an outer guide surface with an inclined structure, one surface of each of the convex teeth close to the locking head forms an outer stop surface, one side of each of the convex teeth away from the tie body is provided with an outer platform, and the outer wall of the tie body between the two adjacent convex teeth forms an outer flat groove (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein one surface of each of the inner teeth away from the locking head forms an inner guide surface with an inclined structure, one surface of each of the inner teeth close to the locking head forms an inner stop surface, one side of each of the inner teeth away from the tie body is provided with an inner platform, and the outer wall of the tie body between the two adjacent inner teeth forms an inner flat groove (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein the convex teeth and the inner teeth are uniformly distributed in a length direction of the tie body, the length of the outer platform is the same as that of the inner flat groove, the outer platform faces the inner flat groove (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), the outer guide surface overlaps with the inner stop surfaces on two sides of the inner platform and the tooth surface at the inner guide surface (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.), and the outer flat groove overlaps with the tooth surface of the inner guide surface close to one end of the inner flat groove (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein the locking teeth comprise fixed teeth and an elastic block, the fixed teeth are fixedly arranged on an inner wall of one side of the locking head away from the tie body (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), the fixed teeth are engaged and matched with the convex teeth (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), an inner wall of one side of the locking head close to the tie body is fixedly connected to one end of the elastic block (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), one side of the elastic block close to the fixed teeth is fixedly provided with a plurality of movable teeth (32, 34) (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.), and the movable teeth (32, 34) are engaged and matched with the inner teeth (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein one end of the elastic block close to the extend-in opening is fixedly connected to the inner wall of the locking head, and the fixed teeth are close to the inner wall of the locking head at the pull-out opening (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Paradis does not disclose the width of the elastic block is equal to that of the groove. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the width of the elastic block is equal to that of the groove, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is obvious that width of an elastic block has different size and shape according to its application.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein limiting plates are fixedly mounted on the inner walls of the locking head on two sides of the elastic block, a storage cavity is formed between sides of the two limiting plates close to each other, the elastic block is clamped in the storage cavity, and the extend-in opening and the pull-out opening are formed between the side walls of the limiting plates and the inner wall of the locking head at the fixed teeth (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Paradis further discloses, comprising a bending portion, wherein two ends of the bending portion in a length direction are respectively connected to the locking head and the tie body, and the bending groove extends from one end of the tie body close to the bending portion to the bending portion and the locking head sequentially (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, Paradis discloses a cable tie, comprising a locking head and a tie body, wherein two ends of an inner cavity of the locking head respectively form an extend-in opening and a pull-out opening, one end of the tie body is fixedly connected to an outer wall of one end of the locking head close to the extend-in opening, tie teeth are fixedly arranged on outer walls of two sides of the tie body, locking teeth are mounted on inner walls of two sides of the locking head, the locking teeth are matched with the tie teeth, and an extend-out head is integrally formed at one end of the tie body away from the locking head; and
the tie teeth comprise convex teeth, a plurality of convex teeth are integrally formed on an outer wall of one side of the tie body close to the pull-out opening, a groove is formed in an outer wall of the other side of the tie body, a plurality of inner teeth are fixedly mounted on an inner wall of the groove, the convex teeth and the inner teeth are all matched with the locking teeth,
Paradis does not disclose tooth surfaces of the tie teeth on the two sides of the tie body at the same section partially overlap in a thickness direction of the tie body, the convex teeth and the inner teeth are of asymmetric structures along the two sides of the tie body, and tooth surfaces of the convex teeth and the inner teeth at the same section partially overlap in the thickness direction of the tie body.
However, Sorensen et al. teaches tooth surfaces of the tie teeth (22, 24) on the two sides of the tie body (12) at the same section partially overlap in a thickness direction of the tie body (12), the convex teeth (24) and the inner teeth (22) are of asymmetric structures along the two sides of the tie body (12), and tooth surfaces of the convex teeth (24) and the inner teeth (22) at the same section partially overlap in the thickness direction of the tie body (12) (see Figs. 2 and 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tie teeth from Paradis with partially overlap tie teeth as taught by Sorensen et al. in order to have a stronger engagement with the locking teeth from the locking head.
Regarding claim 11, Paradis discloses, wherein a bending groove is formed at one end of the groove close to the locking head (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein one surface of each of the convex teeth away from the locking head forms an outer guide surface with an inclined structure, one surface of each of the convex teeth close to the locking head forms an outer stop surface, one side of each of the convex teeth away from the tie body is provided with an outer platform, and the outer wall of the tie body between the two adjacent convex teeth forms an outer flat groove (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein one surface of each of the inner teeth away from the locking head forms an inner guide surface with an inclined structure, one surface of each of the inner teeth close to the locking head forms an inner stop surface, one side of each of the inner teeth away from the tie body is provided with an inner platform, and the outer wall of the tie body between the two adjacent inner teeth forms an inner flat groove (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein the convex teeth and the inner teeth are uniformly distributed in a length direction of the tie body, the length of the outer platform is the same as that of the inner flat groove, the outer platform faces the inner flat groove (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), the outer guide surface overlaps with the inner stop surfaces on two sides of the inner platform and the tooth surface at the inner guide surface (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.), and the outer flat groove overlaps with the tooth surface of the inner guide surface close to one end of the inner flat groove (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein the locking teeth comprise fixed teeth and an elastic block, the fixed teeth are fixedly arranged on an inner wall of one side of the locking head away from the tie body (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), the fixed teeth are engaged and matched with the convex teeth (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), an inner wall of one side of the locking head close to the tie body is fixedly connected to one end of the elastic block (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), one side of the elastic block close to the fixed teeth is fixedly provided with a plurality of movable teeth (32, 34) (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.), and the movable teeth (32, 34) are engaged and matched with the inner teeth (see Figs. 2 and 4 from Sorensen et al.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein one end of the elastic block close to the extend-in opening is fixedly connected to the inner wall of the locking head, and the fixed teeth are close to the inner wall of the locking head at the pull-out opening (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Paradis does not disclose the width of the elastic block is equal to that of the groove. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the width of the elastic block is equal to that of the groove, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is obvious that width of an elastic block has different size and shape according to its application.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Paradis, in view of Sorensen et al. discloses, wherein limiting plates are fixedly mounted on the inner walls of the locking head on two sides of the elastic block, a storage cavity is formed between sides of the two limiting plates close to each other, the elastic block is clamped in the storage cavity, and the extend-in opening and the pull-out opening are formed between the side walls of the limiting plates and the inner wall of the locking head at the fixed teeth (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 18, Paradis further discloses, comprising a bending portion, wherein two ends of the bending portion in a length direction are respectively connected to the locking head and the tie body, and the bending groove extends from one end of the tie body close to the bending portion to the bending portion and the locking head sequentially (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,558. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each other because the claimed limitations required of claim 19 of the instant application are claimed in claim 1, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,558.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights