DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action for US Application 18/952,470 for a Flippable Rail Clamp.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,529,273 to Benthin. Benthin discloses a flippable rail clamp (34… see figures 4 and 5). There is a hinge point (at 30, 40) wherein the flippable rail clamp attaches to a mount (20). There is a first flange (36) and a second flange (38) that can be connected to a rail, and the flippable clamp can rotate about the hinge point 90 degrees (see figures 4 and 5) to allow a driver unobstructed access to a hole (18) located below the flippable rail clamp.
Regarding claim 2, the flappable rail clamp is two pieces (36 is one piece and 38 is a second piece). Regarding claim 3, the flippable rail clamp is a singular piece (the clamp 34 in figures 3-5 is integral and therefore can be a singular piece). Regarding claim 4, the flippable rail clamp is attached to the mount with a fastener (30). Regarding claim 5, the flippable rail clamp snaps on the rail at the first and second flanges (see column 3, lines 6-16… the arms 36, 38 of the spring clip 34 are resilient and would “snap” into position onto rail held by the arms).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benthin. Benthin does not disclose the flappable rail clamp as two pieces. Regarding claims 6-8, Benthin does not disclose the clamp as a semi-circular shape, a square shape or an oblong shape. However, the specific shape of the clamp is a design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known to modify the shape of the clamp dependent on the shape of the desired object held by the clamp.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 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, 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.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights