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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08 July 2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 19 December 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 1 recites: “…friction…”. This should be corrected to read - - friction fit - -.
Claim 20 line 1 recites: “…removable…”. This should be corrected to read - - removably - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Cuddy (US 2018/0106282 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cuddy discloses a clip for a wall system (see Fig. 13), comprising:
a base member (1700) that is configured to be inserted into a hole defined by a frame (see Figs. 4-6 for example); and
an inner clip (see Figs. 14-15) threaded into the base member (see Fig. 13) and configured to engage a stud (1202) projecting from a panel to secure the panel to the frame (see Figs. 3-5),
wherein the clip is configured to adjust a distance between the panel and the frame by adjusting a position of the inner clip relative to the base member (see NOTE below).
NOTE: The clip is capable of adjusting the distance between the panel and the frame by adjusting a position of the inner clip relative to the base member.
Regarding claim 2, Cuddy discloses wherein the clip (see Fig. 13) is configured to mount the panel (302) to the frame (306) such that a surface of the panel abuts a surface of the frame and the surface of the panel is substantially flush with the surface of the frame (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Cuddy discloses wherein the base member (1700) includes a flange (A in annotated Figure 17 below) that is configured to abut the surface of the frame (306) when the base member is inserted into the hole of the frame (see NOTE below).
NOTE: The flange A in annotated Figure 17 below is capable of abutting the surface of the frame when being inserted into the hole of the frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 17.
Regarding claim 4, Cuddy discloses wherein the inner clip (see Figs. 14-15) is configured to create a friction with the stud (1202) to prevent removal of the stud from the inner clip below a desired force threshold (see Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 8, Cuddy discloses wherein the inner clip (see Figs. 14-15) further defines one or more eyeholes (1406, 1408) located along an outer surface of the clip (see Figs. 14-15), and wherein the one or more eyeholes facilitate adjustment of the position of the inner clip relative to the base member (see Figs. 13-15).
NOTE: The one or more eyeholes are capable of facilitating adjustment of the position of the inner clip relative to the base member.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Rickson (US 4,981,735 A).
Regarding claim 16, Rickson discloses a clip of a wall system (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a base member (18) that includes:
a cylindrical body (18) defining a hollowed portion therein (see Fig. 1),
outer threading disposed along an outer surface of the cylindrical body (see Fig. 1),
inner threading (see Fig. 1) disposed within the hollowed portion, and
a flange (26) that extends away from the cylindrical body and at least partially forms an upper surface of the base member (see Fig. 1); and
an inner clip (12) that includes:
a receiving portion (interior of 12) that is configured to receive a portion of a stud therein (see Fig. 1), and
outer threading disposed along an outer surface of the inner clip (see Fig. 1), wherein the inner clip is at least partially located within the hollowed portion of the base member such that the outer threading of the inner clip engages the inner threading of the base member (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Rickson discloses wherein the clip (see Fig. 1) is configured to removable secure a panel (16) of the wall system to a frame (34) of the wall system, and wherein the clip is configured to be coupled to the panel or the frame (see 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) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuddy (US 2018/0106282 A1) in view of Rexnord (FR 2,612,578 A3).
Regarding claim 5, Cuddy discloses the base member (1700) having an internal threading (1702) and configured to engage the frame (306) to secure the base member within the hole of the frame (see Figs. 4-6), but fails to disclose as claimed wherein the base member includes outer threading disposed along an outer surface of the base member, and wherein the outer threading of the base member is configured to engage the frame to secure the base member within the hole of the frame.
Rexnord teaches a base member (see Fig. 3) having an inner thread (22) and outer (20) thread disposed along an outer surface of the base member (see Fig. 3), and wherein the outer threading of the base member is configured to engage a frame to secure the base member within a hole of the frame (see Fig. 7), in order to provide a fastening means for situations in which fasteners such as adhesive are not available.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base member of Cuddy, with Rexnord, such that it comprises the outer threading of Rexnord, in order to provide a fastening means for situations in which fasteners such as adhesive are not available.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cuddy and Rexnord teaches wherein the base member (1700 of Cuddy) defines a channel that includes inner threading (1702 of Cuddy), and wherein the inner clip (see Figs. 14-15 of Cuddy) includes outer threading (1402 of Cuddy) that engages the inner threading of the base member to couple the inner clip to the base member (see Fig. 13 of Cuddy).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cuddy and Rexnord teaches wherein coupling of the inner clip (see Figs. 14-15 of Cuddy) to the base member (1700 of Cuddy) is maintained while adjusting the position of the inner clip relative to the base member such that at least a portion of the inner clip remains located within the channel of the base member (see Fig. 13 of Cuddy).
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of adjusting the inner clip relative to the base member such that the inner clip remains located within the base member are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 7 is that the inner clip and base member are capable of being adjusted such that the inner clip remains located within the base member.
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickson (US 4,981,735 A) in view of Schwarzbich (US 9,074,614 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Rickson discloses the inner clip (12) and the base member (18), but fails to disclose as claimed wherein the inner clip defines one or more eyeholes that are located along an upper surface of the inner clip, and wherein a tool is configured to be inserted into at least a portion of the one or more eyeholes to rotate the inner clip relative to the base member to adjust a position of the inner clip relative to the base member.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of a tool is configured to be inserted into at least a portion of the one or more eyeholes to rotate the inner clip relative to the base member to adjust a position of the inner clip relative to the base member are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 17 is that a tool is capable of being inserted into one or more eyeholes to adjust the position of the inner clip relative to the base member.
Schwarzbich teaches wherein the inner clip (20 in Fig. 3) defines one or more eyeholes (44) that are located along an upper surface of the inner clip (see Fig. 3), and wherein a tool is configured to be inserted into at least a portion of the one or more eyeholes (see Column 4 lines 31-37), in order to provide a means for the inner clip to be held by a tool during assembly with surrounding members.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner clip of Rickson, with Schwarzbich, such that it comprises the one or more eyeholes of Schwarzbich, in order to provide a means for the inner clip to be held by a tool during assembly with surrounding members.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Rickson and Schwarzbich teaches wherein the inner clip (12 of Rickson) is movable relative to the base member (18 of Rickson) such that the upper surface of the inner clip protrudes from the upper surface of the base member (see NOTE below).
NOTE: The upper surface of the inner clip of Rickson is capable of protruding from the upper surface of the base member of Rickson.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Rickson and Schwarzbich teaches wherein the inner clip (12 of Rickson) is movable relative to the base member (18 of Rickson) such that the upper surface of the inner clip is recessed from the upper surface of the base member (see NOTE below).
NOTE: The upper surface of the inner clip of Rickson is capable of being recessed from the upper surface of the base member of Rickson.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights