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 .
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 3887965 to Schuplin (Schuplin).
with regard to claim 1, Schuplin discloses a multi-stage locking tie (Schuplin, title, abstract) comprising:
a band (10, fig. 1);
a locking pin positioned at a first end of the band (the distal end of the tie), the locking pin including a first groove and a second groove (first and second locking teeth 16 in fig. 2); and
a locking receptacle (14, fig. 1) positioned at a second end of the band (shown in fig. 1), the locking receptacle including a locking cavity (30, fig. 3) configured to hold the locking pin (as shown in figs. 4 and 5).
With regard to claim 2, Schuplin discloses the multi-stage locking tie of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein a circumference of a base of the second groove is larger than a circumference of a base of the first groove (the distal tip of the tie tapers toward the end).
With regard to claim 3, Schuplin discloses the multi-stage locking tie of claim 1 as set forth above, and further disclose the locking receptacle further including a locking ridge formed along a circumference of the locking cavity (34, fig. 3, the pawl is formed at a portion of the circumference of the locking cavity and engages the first and second grooves successively as the tie is engaged).
With regard to claim 4, Schuplin discloses the multi-stage locking tie of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the first groove is configured to provide a first locking stage (the first groove engages the locking head initially in a first locking stage and progressively tightens as the tie is moved to a second locking stage).
With regard to claim 5, Schuplin discloses the multi-stage locking tie of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the second groove is configured to provide a second locking stage (the first groove engages the locking head initially in a first locking stage and progressively tightens as the tie is moved to a second locking stage).
With regard to claim 6, Schuplin discloses the multi-stage locking tie of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses the locking pin further comprising a first-stage engagement member (the rounded distal tip of the tie labeled 12a in fig. 1 is a first stage engagement member), the first-stage engagement member including angled walls and positioned above the first groove (shown in fig. 1).
With regard to claim 7, Schuplin discloses the multi-stage locking tie of claim 1 as set forth above, and the locking pin further comprising a second-stage engagement member, the second-stage engagement member including angled walls and positioned above the second groove (shown in the figures).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 2758043 to Cryor (Cryor) in view of United States Patent No. 3887965 to Schuplin (Schuplin).
With regard to claim 8, Cryor discloses a protective sleeve system (Cryor, title) comprising:
a top half sleeve including a top channel;
a bottom half sleeve including a bottom channel and configured to mate with the top half sleeve, wherein when the top half sleeve and the bottom half sleeve are mated the top channel and the bottom channel are combined to form a tie channel (column 4, lines 20-23); and
a multi-stage locking tie configured to be installed within the tie channel, the multi-stage locking tie comprising: a band; a locking pin positioned at a first end of the band, the locking pin including a first groove and a second groove; and a locking receptacle positioned at a second end of the band, the locking receptacle including a locking cavity configured to hold the locking pin (the sleeve of Cryor is held in place by strips 13 secured through a locking device 14).
The locking tie of Cryor fails to disclose the specific tie configuration claimed.
Schuplin discloses the multi-stage locking tie configuration as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the sleeve system of Cryor with a closure as taught by Schuplin in order to simplify installation with the more easily applied and tightened tie of Schuplin.
With regard to claim 9, Cryor in view of Schuplin discloses the protective sleeve system of claim 8 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein a circumference of a base of the second groove is larger than a circumference of a base of the first groove (the distal tip of the tie tapers toward the end).
With regard to claim 10, Cryor in view of Schuplin discloses the protective sleeve system of claim 8 as set forth above, and Schuplin further discloses the locking receptacle further including a locking ridge formed along a circumference of the locking cavity (34, fig. 3, the pawl is formed at a portion of the circumference of the locking cavity and engages the first and second grooves successively as the tie is engaged).
With regard to claim 11, Cryor in view of Schuplin discloses the protective sleeve system of claim 8, wherein the first groove is configured to provide a first locking stage (the first groove engages the locking head initially in a first locking stage and progressively tightens as the tie is moved to a second locking stage).
With regard to claim 12, Cryor in view of Schuplin discloses the protective sleeve system of claim 8 as set forth above, and Schuplin further discloses wherein the second groove is configured to provide a second locking stage (the first groove engages the locking head initially in a first locking stage and progressively tightens as the tie is moved to a second locking stage).
With regard to claim 13, Cryor in view of Schuplin discloses the protective sleeve system of claim 8 as set forth above, and further discloses the locking pin further comprising a first-stage engagement member, the first-stage engagement member including angled walls and positioned above the first groove (the rounded distal tip of the tie of Schuplin labeled 12a in fig. 1 is a first stage engagement member).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regard to claim 14, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a protective sleeve system having the specific multi-stage locking tie including the specific locking pin having first and second grooves, wherein the circumference of the second groove is larger than a circumference of the first groove, a locking ridge formed along a circumference of the locking cavity, first-stage and second-stage engagement members, the locking tie being configured to provide engagement around two half sleeves in first and second engagement positions (initially engaged and fully engaged), together in combination with the other elements of the protective sleeve system. With regard to claims 15, 16 and 17, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a protective sleeve system configured to move through an installation tool, the installation tool including a compression stage section and a locking stage section, wherein the locking pin is configured to be compressed up to at least the first groove prior to entering the compression stage section of the installation tool, together in combination with the other elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references disclose various locking tie and protective sleeve configurations: USPNs 4991265, 2758043, 7591286, 5112661, 4135749, 7762283, 0507145, 0589903 and 2006/0231151.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DEAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8-4 pm CST.
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 supervisors can be reached at: Craig M Schneider (571) 272-3607 and Ken Rinehart (571) 272-4881. 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.
/DAVID R DEAL/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
