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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the section end portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the first upper flat section” and “the second upper flat section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this claim should depend from claim 2.
Claims 2-5 and 7-20 depend from the above claim(s) and are rejected for the above reason as they do not cure the deficiency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9-11 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 1,829,232 to Morehouse.
Regarding claim 1, Morehouse discloses a plate-shaped holder comprising: an integrally formed resilient plate-shaped body (Fig. 5), extending from a first end portion (left end in Fig. 5) through a first folded section (left folded section in Fig. 3) and a second folded section (right folded section in Fig. 3) and terminated at the second end portion (right end in Fig. 5), thus constituting a movable space (Fig. 2), wherein the first and the second end portions are arranged to be superimposed in an upward-downward direction (Fig. 1); wherein at least one first holding groove (32) is formed between the first end portion and the first folded portion, with an enlarged first insertion port (31) extending from one end of the first holding groove; and wherein the second end portion is arranged to locate at one side of and partially hinder the first insertion port (Fig. 3), so that the first insertion port can be triggered to become accessible by applying an external force to separate the first end portion and the second end portion from each other (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Morehouse discloses wherein the plate-shaped body starts from the first end portion and extends integrally along a first upper flat plate section to the first folded section and continues to extend from the first folded section along a lower flat section to the second folded section and further extends from the second folded section to a second upper flat section and is terminated at the second end portion, and wherein the first and the second upper flat sections are positioned above the lower flat section (Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Morehouse discloses wherein the first upper flat section has a shorter length compared to the second upper flat section (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Morehouse discloses wherein the first end portion and the second end portion are spaced, in part, from each other in the upward-downward direction to create a gap for receiving insertion of an object (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Morehouse discloses wherein the object to be inserted is a loop (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5, 16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morehouse in view of US Patent 3,929,266 to Kim.
Regarding claim 3, Morehouse discloses at least one second holding groove (34) formed between the second end portion and the second folded section. Morehouse fails to disclose a second insertion port. However, Kim discloses a holder that includes a groove (19) and an insertion port (18) extending from one end of the groove. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have made the second groove with an insertion port because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent groove element (insertion port) for another (groove extends to end) to obtain predictable results. In the combination, the first end portion is arranged to locate above and partially hinder the second insertion port (Morehouse – the first end portion would hinder removal from the second insertion port like it already does in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, the combination from claim 3 discloses wherein the first insertion port is located proximal to the first end portion, while the first holding groove is formed on the first upper flat section and extends from the first insertion port towards the first folded section, and wherein the second insertion port is located proximal to the second end portion, while the second holding groove is formed on the second upper flat section and extends from the second insertion port towards the second folded section (Morehouse Figs. 1, 5, as modified by Kim).
Regarding claim 5, the combination from claim 3 discloses wherein the first holding groove extends from the first upper flat section to the first folded section, and the second holding groove extends from the second upper flat section to the second folded section (Morehouse Figs. 1, 5, as modified by Kim).
Regarding claim 16, the combination from claim 3 discloses wherein the first upper flat section has a shorter length compared to the second upper flat section (Morehouse Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination from claim 3 discloses wherein the first end portion and the second end portion are spaced, in part, from each other in the upward-downward direction to create a gap for receiving insertion of an object (Morehouse Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, the combination from claim 3 discloses wherein the object to be inserted is a loop (Morehouse Fig. 1).
REJECTION BASED ON DE ‘375
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 9108375 (“DE ‘375”) in view of Morehouse.
Regarding claim 1, DE ‘375 discloses a plate-shaped holder comprising: a plate-shaped body (1), extending from a first end portion through a first folded section and a second folded section and terminated at the second end portion (Figs. 1-2), a holding groove (groove in 1 accepting 2) with an enlarged insertion port (enlarged port in groove). DE ‘375 fails to disclose an integral body or the superimposed ends. However, Morehouse discloses a clip holder including an integrally formed resilient body having first and second ends (left/right in Fig. 5) arranged to be superimposed in an upward-downward direction (Fig. 1); wherein at least one first holding groove (32) is formed between a first end portion and a first folded portion, with an enlarged first insertion port (31) extending from one end of the first holding groove; and wherein the second end portion is arranged to locate at one side of and partially hinder the first insertion port (Figs. 1, 3), so that the first insertion port can be triggered to become accessible by applying an external force to separate the first end portion and the second end portion from each other (Fig. 2), thus constituting a movable space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Morehouse’s integral flex design in DE ‘375 because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent clip flex design for another to obtain predictable results. Further, the modification would remove the extra attached flex plate (3) from DE ‘375.
Regarding claim 2, the combination from claim 1 discloses wherein the plate-shaped body starts from the first end portion and extends integrally along a first upper flat plate section to the first folded section and continues to extend from the first folded section along a lower flat section to the second folded section and further extends from the second folded section to a second upper flat section and is terminated at the second end portion, and wherein the first and the second upper flat sections are positioned above the lower flat section (Morehouse Figs. 1, 3).
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘375 and Morehouse, further in view of US Patent 9,920,814 to Huang.
Regarding claims 8 and 13, the combination from claim 1 fails to disclose corners. However, Huang discloses a holding clip including a folded section composed of two corners (Fig. 3) and a side section (21) connecting the two corners (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used folded sections that have corners in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent folded element for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 12 and 17-18 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, and if any applicable Section 112 rejections are addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose configurations similar to that disclosed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights