DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/970,263.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claims 1-8 are examined.
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.
Claims 1-8 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 defines “a fixing clip as a whole having the same longitudinally extending transversely cross-sectional shape,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since such limitations appear to define that the cross-sectional shape along the whole, entire clip is the same; however, the figures depict the fixing portion #1 can comprise of apertures #11 and thus a non-material area in only certain portions of the length and thus multiple different cross-sectional shapes, thus confusing one as to what scope is covered by such limitations as presently defined. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such limitations are considered to define an overall, perimeter cross-sectional shape of the clip is the same along the length, where such cross-sectional shapes can include apertures within certain elements of the clip that do not affect the overall dimensions of the cross-section. Moreover, claims 2-8 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 1.
Claim 1 further defines “the side of the fixing portion,” which lacks antecedent basis and renders the claimed invention indefinite since one would not know what side of the fixing portion is being referred to. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, “the side of the fixing portion” is considered to refer to any directional side of the fixing portion. Moreover, claims 2-8 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 1.
Claim 3 defines “a side of the fixing portion” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since “the side of the fixing portion” has already been defined in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends from, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether a side separate from the side of claim 1 is being defined or whether such a side of claim 3 refers back to the same side of claim 1. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, the side of claim 3 is considered to refer back to the side of claim 1. Claim 5 includes similar limitations and is similarly rejected and interpreted. Moreover, claims 4 and 6 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 3 or 5.
Claim 5 defines first and second rise-up portions, which render the claimed invention indefinite since a rise up portion has already been defined for such a clip and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether three separate rise-up portions are required or whether the rise up portion of claim 1 is to comprise of first and second rise-up portions as defined in claim 5. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, the rise-up portion of claim 1 is considered to comprise of first and second rise-up portions as defined in claim 5. Moreover, claim 6 is rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 5. Claim 8 includes similar limitations and is similarly rejected and interpreted.
Claim 5 further defines “a sealing portion” in line 5, which renders the claimed invention indefinite since a sealing portion has already been defined in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends from, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether two separate sealing portions are required or whether the sealing portion of claim 5 refers back to the sealing portion of claim 1. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, the sealing portion of claim 5 is considered to refer back to the sealing portion of claim 1. Moreover, claim 6 is rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 5.
Claim 7 defines “a J-shaped fixing clip” as well as “an I-shaped fixing clip,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since a plurality of fixing clips according to claim 2 have already been defined and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether such J and I shaped clips are in addition to the clips of claim 2 or whether the J and I shaped fixing clips are each one of the plurality of the clips of claim 2 and if so whether such clips comprise the same structure as that defined in claim 2. Claim 7 further defines “the rise-up/holding portion” for the I-shaped clip which further confuses one since such a clip, as presently disclosed, does not comprise of such an air flow stoppage as defined in claim 2 and thus cannot be considered one of the plurality of clips of claim 2. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, the j-shaped fixing clip is considered to form the fixing clips of claim 2 while the I-shaped fixing clip is in addition to such clips of claim 2, where the antecedent bases should be fixed to properly introduce and define such elements of each respective clip. Moreover, claim 8 is rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 7.
Claim 8 defines “a holding portion” for the I-shaped clip which renders the claimed invention indefinite since a holding portion has already been defined for such a clip and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether an addition holding portion is required or whether such a holding portion refers back to the holding portion of claim 7. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such a holding portion of claim 8 is considered to refer back to the holding portion of claim 7.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takagi (U.S. Patent 8,646,237).
Regarding claim 1, Takagi discloses a fixing clip (#100) as a whole having the same longitudinally extending transversely cross-sectional shape (see figure 1, which depicts the constant cross sectional shape of the clip #100), the fixing clip being used for fixing an insulating panel to a wall-surfaced panel (see figure 2, where such panels are not positively defined), wherein the fixing clip comprises a fixing portion (#120) to be fixed onto the wall-surfaces panel (see figure 2); a rise-up portion (#114) to rise up from the fixing portion (see figure 1, where the clip #100 can be rotated counterclockwise 90 degrees so that the rise-up portion extends upwardly therefrom); a holding portion (#110) formed bent from a tip end of the rise-up portion (the right tip end of figure 1); and a sealing portion (#130) that is formed at a tip end (the top end of figure 1) of the holding portion and tilts to the side of the fixing portion (see figure 1).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friel (U.S. Publication 2017/0254091).
Regarding claim 1, Friel discloses a fixing clip (#10) as a whole having the same longitudinally extending transversely cross-sectional shape (see figure 1, which depicts the overall cross sectional shape of the clip #10 is constant along the length thereof), the fixing clip being used for fixing an insulating panel to a wall-surfaced panel (see figure 6, where such panels are not positively defined), wherein the fixing clip comprises a fixing portion (#12) to be fixed onto the wall-surfaces panel (see figure 6); a rise-up portion (#24) to rise up from the fixing portion (see figure 1, where the clip #10 can be rotated counterclockwise 90 degrees so that the rise-up portion extends upwardly therefrom); a holding portion (#30) formed bent from a tip end of the rise-up portion (the right tip end of figure 1); and a sealing portion (#34) that is formed at a tip end (the top end of figure 1) of the holding portion and tilts to the side of the fixing portion (see figures 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 2, Friel discloses an air flow stoppage (#40) formed slantingly outwards from the fixing portion is provided at a coupling portion between the fixing portion and the rise-up portion (the coupling portion can be considered formed by the distance S of back flange #12 which extends from the corner where the fixing portion #12 and rise-up #24 connect to one another and which the stoppage #40 extends outwardly from the back flange #12 and at an oblique angle therefrom).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Takagi or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takagi in view of Maziarz (U.S. Patent 11,180,922).
Regarding claim 3, Takagi discloses the holding portion extends from a tip end of the rise-up portion and tilts to a side of the fixing portion (see figure 1, where the holding portion #110 extends from the right, tip end of the rise-up portion #114 and tilts at 90 degrees to the right side of the fixing portion #120). However, for compact prosecution purposes, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the “tilts to a side” limitations of claim 3, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Maziarz, that a fixing clip #30 comprising of a fixing portion #32, rise-up portion #34, and holding portion #54 can extend such a holding portion so as to tilt towards the fixing portion front surface and thus allow compression against the panel inserted within the channel formed by the clip. See figure 3A and col. 7, ll. 20-26. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the holding portion of Takagi to tilt towards the front side of the fixing portion, as taught in Maziarz, in order to provide a bias and compress against the panel that is to be held therein during installation.
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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Maziarz.
Regarding claim 4, Takagi discloses, or in the alternative in view of Maziarz renders obvious, the claimed invention except specifically for the ratio between lengths a and b in Takagi is between 75% and 95%. Takagi does not specifically disclose such values for the lengths a and b. However, both Takagi and Maziarz disclose that such spacing values can vary depending upon each application, where Maziarz discloses that a gap #44 of 0.5 inches can be formed by the angle of the first wall portion #54 extending back 0.125 inches, and thus forming an 80% difference (0.5/.625) between the gap #44 and the largest distance between the fixing portion #32 and the holding portion #54. See col. 7, ll. 12-26. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the ratio for the lengths a and b in Takagi to between 75% and 95%, such as 80% as taught in Maziarz, in order to provide an appropriate gap and compression by the holding portion upon the panel to be inserted within such a channel formed by such elements of the clip.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Labonte et al. (U.S. Patent 9,091,053).
Regarding claim 5, Takagi discloses a female member (#270) including a fixing portion (#271) and a first rise-up portion (#292) composed of two ribs (the left and right ribs of the portion #292 of figure 4) rising up from the fixing portion (see figure 4); and a male member (#260) including a second rise-up portion (#294) inserted between the two ribs of the first rise-up portion (see figure 3B), a holding portion (the top substantially horizontal element of male member #260) formed extending from a tip end of the second rise-up portion (see figure 4) to opposite directions respectively (see figure 4) and a sealing portion (#280) formed at a tip end of the holding portion (see figure 4) and tilts to a side of the fixing portion (see figure 4, where the sealing portions #280 tilt at an angle A2 towards to the fixing portion #271 of the female member). However, Takagi does not disclose wherein tip ends of the two ribs of the first rise-up portion bend outwardly so as to form an opening. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Labonte et al., that such female fixing clip members #104 can comprise of a fixing plate #119 with two ribs #116 forming a rise-up portion therefrom, where outer free ends of the ribs #116 are constructed to extend outwardly from the ribs in order make insertion of a male member #102 easier within an opening formed therebetween. See figures 16b and 16c. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided tip ends for the two ribs of the first rise-up portion of Takagi to comprise of outwardly bent tip ends, as taught in Labonte et al., in order to allow for easier insertion of the male member therein during installation.
Regarding claim 6, Takagi in view of Labonte et al. render obvious an inserting part of the first rise-up portion with respect to the second rise-up portion is provided with plural wedges (Takagi; #293) in engagement with the second rise-up portion (see figure 3B of Takagi), and the wedge takes an isosceles triangle (Col. 6, ll. 18-21 of Takagi disclose the wedges #293 can take the form of triangular, saw-tooth forms, where figure 4 of Takagi depicts that such triangles can be isosceles in shape. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret figure 4 of Takagi as comprising of isosceles triangles for such wedges #293, col. 6, ll. 18-21 of Takagi discloses that triangular and other suitable shapes can be used for such wedges and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed such wedges to be isosceles in shape in order to provide an appropriate amount of connection strength and surface area with the male portion and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed wedges was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Lorentz (DE 20107556).
Regarding claim 2, Takagi discloses the claimed invention except for an air flow stoppage formed slantingly outwards from the fixing portion and is provided at a coupling portion between the fixing portion and the rise-up portion as defined. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Lorentz, that such fixing clips #1 used as trim for finishing material of an exterior wall and which are to form a channel for receipt of such exterior finishing material can comprise of a fixing portion #3 or #2 and an rise-up #5, where an air flow stoppage #6/7 is provided at the corner where the fixing portion and rise-up meet in order to form a compressible seal against a window or door frame #14. See figures 1 and 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the fixing clip of Takagi to comprise of an air flow stoppage positioned as defined, as taught in Lorentz, in order to properly seal and provide compression between the fixing clip and a window or door frame when positioned thereagainst to prevent water from penetrating therebetween.
Regarding claim 7, Takagi in view of Lorentz render obvious an insulating wall assembly comprising plural wall-surfaces panels (Though Takagi discloses a single wall panel #400, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plurality of such wall panels within Takagi in order to complete a wall of specific dimensions or design and also since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (1969).), plural insulating panels (Takagi; #300) disposed on the wall-surfaced panels in juxtaposition (see figure 5 of Takagi); and a plurality of the fixing clips as explained above in the rejection of claim 2, wherein a J-shaped fixing clip (the clip #100 of Takagi in view of Lorentz) takes a J-shaped transverse cross-sectional shape (see figure 1 of Takagi) by the rise-up portion being connected between one end of the fixing portion and one end of the holding portion with respect to transverse cross section (see figure 1 of Takagi); an I-shaped fixing clip (Takagi; #250) takes an I-shaped transverse cross-sectional shape (see figure 3B of Takagi) by the rise-up portion (Takagi; #292) being connected between a middle of the fixing portion (Takagi; #271) and a middle of the holding portion (Takagi; #260) with respect to transverse cross section; the I-shaped fixing clip is disposed between the adjoining insulating panels among the insulating panels disposed in juxtaposition (see figure 5 of Takagi); the J-shaped fixing clip is disposed at an end surface of the insulating panel terminally disposed and having no adjoining insulating panel among the insulating panels in juxtaposition (see figures 2 and 5 of Takagi); and end surface of the respective insulating panels is inserted into a groove composed of the fixing portion, the rise-up portion and the holding portion (see figures 2 and 5 of Takagi); the sealing portion contacts with the respective insulating panels (see figures 2 and 5 of Takagi); and the air flow stoppage contacts with the respective wall-surfaced panels (when Takagi is modified in view of Lorentz as explained above, the air flow stoppage would contact the wall surfaced panels at the window or door frame locations as taught in Lorentz).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Lorentz and Labonte et al.
Regarding claim 8, Takagi in view of Lorentz render obvious the I-shaped fixing clip comprises a female member (Takagi; #270) including the fixing portion (Takagi; #271) and a first rise-up portion (Takagi; #292) composed of two ribs (the left and right ribs of element #292 of Takagi) rising up from the fixing portion (see figure 3B of Takagi); and a male member (Takagi; #260) including a second rise-up portion (Takagi; #294) inserted between the two ribs of the first rise-up portion (see figure 3B of Takagi), a holding portion (the top substantially horizontal portion #260 of figure 4 of Takagi) formed bent from a tip end of the second rise-up portion (the top end of the second rise up of figure 4 of Takagi) and a sealing portion (Takagi; #280) that is formed at a tip end of the holding portion (see figure 4 of Takagi) and tilts to a side of the fixing portion (see figure 4 of Takagi, where the sealing portions #280 tilt at an oblique angle A2 toward the fixing portion #271). However, Takagi does not disclose wherein tip ends of the two ribs of the first rise-up portion bend outwardly so as to form an opening. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Labonte et al., that such female fixing clip members #104 can comprise of a fixing plate #119 with two ribs #116 forming a rise-up portion therefrom, where outer free ends of the ribs #116 are constructed to extend outwardly from the ribs in order make insertion of a male member #102 easier within an opening formed therebetween. See figures 16b and 16c. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided tip ends for the two ribs of the first rise-up portion of Takagi to comprise of outwardly bent tip ends, as taught in Labonte et al., in order to allow for easier insertion of the male member therein during installation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights