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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuzawa et al. (US 2017/0129766 A1).
Claim 1:
Fukuzawa discloses a clip device (abstract), comprising:
a component body (800) (figs. 5, 7, 9-10, [0006]); including a spring tensioner curve having a defined radius, the spring tensioner curve configured to elastically deform during installation and to apply an outward force against opposing inner walls of a structural channel to secure the clip device in a retained position (figs. 5, 7, 9-10, [0076] – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 7, below);
at least one retention brace (830) extending from the component body (800) and configured to engage with the structural channel to limit lateral or vertical displacement (figs. 5, 7, 9-10, [0076]); and
an object retainer body (810) extending from the component body (800) and configured to hold an object (figs. 5, 7, 9-10, [0076]); wherein the object retainer body (810) has an object retainer spring having a radius that provides resilient deflection during insertion of an object to retain the object (figs. 5, 7, 9-10, [0076] – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 7, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2:
Fukuzawa discloses the clip device of claim 1, further comprising a slide top limiter (820) connected to the component body (800) and configured to restrict vertical movement of the clip device once installed in the structural channel (figs. 5, 7, 9-10, [0076] – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 7, above).
Claim 6:
Fukuzawa discloses the clip device of claim 1, further comprising an installation slot formed between the object retainer and the component body (800), the installation slot configured to interface with an installation tool (figs. 5, 7, 9-10, [0076] – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 7, above).
Claim 8:
Fukuzawa discloses the clip device of claim 1, wherein the at least one retention brace (830) comprises two retention braces positioned at opposite ends of the component body (800) (figs. 5, 7, 9-10, [0076] – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 7, above).
Claim 9:
Fukuzawa discloses the clip device of claim 8, wherein each of the two retention braces (830) includes a spring tensioner extending therefrom (figs. 5, 7, 9-10, [0076] – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 7, above).
Claim 10:
Fukuzawa discloses an installation system, comprising:
a clip device according to claim 1 (figs. 5, 7, 9-10, [0006], [0076] – see also annotated reproduction of fig. 7, above); and
an installation tool comprising:
an angled tool head (240) assembly (fig. 13, [0093]);
a clip retainer (244) connected to the angled tool head (240) assembly and configured to engage with the clip device; and a clip installation tool body (246) configured to attach to an extension pole (fig. 13, [0093]).
Claim 11:
Fukuzawa discloses the installation system of claim 10, wherein the installation tool further comprises: at least one clip retention wall (247) connected to the angled tool head assembly (240); a clip retention channel (243) formed between the at least one clip retention wall (247); and a clip retention stop (245) positioned at an end of the clip retention channel (fig. 13, [0093]).
Claim 12:
Fukuzawa discloses the installation system of claim 11, further comprising a clip retention stop (245) positioned at an end of the clip retention channel (243) and configured to limit movement of the clip device during installation (fig. 13, [0093]).
Claim 13:
Fukuzawa discloses the installation system of claim 12, wherein the clip retainer (244) is configured to engage with an installation slot of the clip device (fig. 13, [0093]).
Claim 14:
Fukuzawa discloses the installation system of claim 13, wherein the clip installation tool body is configured to attach to a telescoping extension pole (230) (fig. 13, [0008]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa.
Claims 4 and 5:
Fukuzawa discloses the clip device of claim 1. Claims 4 and 5 merely recite alternative orientations of the object retainer spring and object retainer body relative to a longitudinal axis of the component body. The specification expressly discloses both parallel and perpendicular orientations as optional variations of the same structure without attributing any functional difference, technical advantage, or criticality to either configuration.
As such, the orientation limitations represent obvious matters of design choice that do not change the structure’s principle of operation or the manner in which the object is retained. A prior art clip device having an object retainer extending from a component body reasonably teaches the claimed configurations, regardless of whether the retainer is shown at a precise parallel or perpendicular angle.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the orientation of the prior art clip device attributed to Fukuzawa to arrive at applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claims 4 and 5.
Claim 15:
Fukuzawa discloses the installation system of claim 14, and Fukuzawa fails to disclose the angled tool head assembly is oriented at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees relative to the clip installation tool body. Instead Fukuzawa discloses an undefined angle. MPEP § 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Fukuzawa to provide the angled tool head assembly is oriented at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees relative to the clip installation tool body, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Fukuzawa renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 15.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hendry (US 2021/0062577 A1).
Claim 7:
Fukuzawa discloses the clip device of claim 1; and Fukuzawa fails to disclose the clip device is constructed from a material selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, high density polyethylene, polystyrene, polyethylene, high impact polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride, acrylic, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polycarbonate, nylon, polyurethane, polyetherimide, polyether ether ketone, and polyphenylene sulfide. Instead, Fukuzawa discloses the material of the clip device may be a resin.
Hendry discloses a clip device (abstract) wherein the clip device is constructed from a polycarbonate ([0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to fabricate the Fukuzawa clip device from a polycarbonate material as taught by Hendry. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 15 August 2025, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claimed invention, inter alia, to introduce a structural channel. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-15 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Drummond (US 2021/0404595 A1) discloses an extension pole comprising a clamp for holding objects.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726