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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the adapter part fastening component(claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “hasa” should be “has a “. Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-23 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.
In claim 20 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the extension part”.
In claim 21 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the stop part”. It appears that claim 19 should depend from claim 15.
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) 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bettermann(DE8605279U1).
[claim 14] Bettermann teaches a connector(fig 1) for attaching a cable or pipe to a support structure, the connector comprising: an installation part(lower part of 1) for fastening to the support structure in a fastening direction; and a clamp part(upper part of 1) for supporting the cable or pipe, the installation part having a base(lowermost portion of 1 in fig 1) perpendicular to the fastening direction, a sidewall extending from a side edge of the base in the fastening direction, and an adapter part(3) for receiving a fastener(5) or directly fastenable to the support structure, the base being provided with an opening(2); when the adapter part is fastened to the support structure by the fastener or directly, the adapter part is at least partially installed in the opening(fig 1), and the base is movable relative to the adapter part along an installation face of the support structure.
[claim 15] wherein the adapter part has an extension part(6) extending in the fastening direction and has a cross section perpendicular to the fastening direction that is smaller than the opening(as seen in fig 3), and a stop part(4) adjoining the extension part and having a cross section perpendicular to the fastening direction that is at least partially larger than the opening(as seen in fig 2).
[claim 16] wherein the adapter part has at least one through-hole(receiving 5 in fig 1) for the fastener to pass through, the fastener being driven into the support structure through the through-hole by a fastening tool, and the adapter part further includes a receiving part(opening in 4) for receiving a nose part of the fastening tool.
[claim 17] wherein that the adapter part has a fastening component(7) at an end of the extension part facing towards the support structure, and the adapter part is directly fastenable to the support structure by the fastening component.
[claim 18] wherein the opening is round, rectangular or obround(fig 3).
[claim 19] wherein the opening is in the form of a narrow slot(fig 3), including a first side edge and a second side edge opposite each other(longer edges) and perpendicular to a direction of extension of the cable or pipe, and two opposite end edges(shorter edges) connecting the first side edge and second side edge.
[claim 20] wherein the extension part has a same shape as the opening, but a smaller size than the opening overall(as seen in fig 3).
[claim 21] wherein the stop part extends at least partially past the first side edge and second side edge in the direction of extension of the cable or pipe, thereby at least partially coinciding with an edge part of the opening(as seen in fig 2).
[claim 22] wherein a cut hole(shown receiving stop part 4 in figures 1 and 2) is provided in the sidewall, the stop part extending within the cut hole, and a length of the cut hole being equal to the length of the narrow slot(fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bettermann as applied to claim 14 above in view of Ellepi(EP1744087).
[claim 24] Bettermann teaches a connector as detailed above, however Bettermann may not teach that the adapter part is connected to the sidewall by at least one flexible strip. Ellepi teaches a similar connector, which uses flexible strips(10a,10b,10c,10d) to connect an adapter part(3) to the sidewall of an installation part(2). The flexible strips aiding in aligning the adapter part during installation(see para[0019-0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the flexible strips of Ellepi to connect the adapter part of Bettermann to the sidewall, as this could aid a user in positioning the adapter part during installation, as taught by Ellepi.
[claim 25] wherein the flexible strip has a predetermined breaking point of weakened material(see para[0023]).
[claim 26] wherein the at least one flexible strip is designed as a thin film hinge(fig 2 Ellepi).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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, as well as being amended to overcome the above 112 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior teaches a connector as defined in claim 22, as detailed above, however the prior art does not teach the use of an anti-slip structure on a side of the stop part facing towards the base, or on an opening edge part of the first side edge and the second side edge of the base as recited in claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US11982384, US10814500, US10439381, US10029835, US6732982.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights