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 .
Amendment filed 8/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application.
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 “cable tie” in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Applicant argues that the cable tie is not required to be shown since it is not necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the subject matter. This argument is not persuasive since it does not address the regulation at issue. 37 CFR 1.83(a) requires that the drawings show every feature of the invention specified in the claim. Since Applicant claims a cable tie, it must be shown in the figures. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
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 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 1-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt US 2011/0154623 (hereinafter Schmidt) in view of Kovac US 2007/0018057 (hereinafter Kovac).
Re. Cl. 1, Schmidt discloses: A fastening device (Fig. 3) for fastening a first component (see 12, Fig. 1 for instance) to a second component (see 14, Fig. 2 for instance) comprising a base body (22, Fig. 3) delimiting an approximately U-shaped receiving space for receiving a portion of a second component (see Fig. 3), wherein a first leg (see 24, Fig. 6)of the U-shaped receiving space forms a first fastening wall (see Fig. 6 along with 60) and a second leg (26, Fig. 3) opposite to the first leg of the receiving space forms a second fastening wall (see Fig. 6 along with 60), and a lever element (50, Fig. 3) for applying a compressive force to one of the first and second fastening walls which acts in a direction of the other fastening wall in such a way that the fastening device is connected to a second component via the fastening walls (see Fig. 3-6).
Re. Cl. 2, Schmidt discloses: the lever element is rotatably mounted in the base body and can be disposed in an open position to receive a second component (see Fig. 6) and in a securing position to connect to a second component (see Fig. 7).
Re. Cl. 3, Schmidt discloses: the lever element comprises an eccentric portion (56, Fig. 7) for applying the compressive force acting in a direction of the first fastening wall to the second fastening wall (see Fig. 6-7) and a lever portion for rotating the eccentric portion (54, Fig. 6-7).
Re. Cl. 4, Schmidt discloses: the first fastening wall is fixedly disposed on the base body and the second fastening wall is pivotably connected to the base body (Paragraph 0107, due to the expandability of the clamp as discussed, the fastening walls are pivotably connected to one another since they can flex relative to one due to their elasticity as discussed).
Re. Cl. 5, Schmidt discloses: a first and a second plate- shaped retaining element (see 60, Fig. 6, on both legs 24 and 26) made of a soft component (Paragraph 0108) are respectively disposed on the first and the second fastening wall toward the receiving space (see Fig. 6-7), and wherein the base body and the lever element are made of a hard component (see Paragraph 0099).
Re. Cl. 11, Schmidt discloses: the base body comprising a fastening tab (38, Fig. 4) configured to receive a fastening element (cable tie, Paragraph 0097).
Re. Cl. 12, Schmidt discloses: the second component is a plate-shaped element (see Fig. 1-2).
Re. Cl. 13, Schmidt discloses: the fastening device is an edge clip (see Fig. 3, used in the manner shown in Fig. 1-2)
Re. Cl. 14, Schmidt discloses: the fastening element is a cable tie (Paragraph 0097, Lines 1-3).
Re. Cl. 1, Schmidt does not disclose the base body comprising two side walls connected to one another via a plurality of struts. Kovac discloses a cable fastening clamp (Fig. 1) which includes a base body (14) that is comprised of two side walls (see annotated figure 2) connected to one another via a plurality of struts (66, 68, Fig. 2) forming rigid structure that contributes to limiting weight and material costs of the device.
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 Schmidt base body to be made using the sidewalls and strut configuration of Kovac with reasonable expectation of success since Kovac states that such a modification contributes to limiting the weight of the device while adding rigidity (Paragraph 0027, Lines 1-6). Re. Cl. 1, specifically, the language “the two side walls delimit an approximately U-shaped receiving space, it is the Examiner’s position that Schmidt discloses the body delimiting a U-shape as discussed above and modifying the body to have the side walls and struts as disclosed by Kovac would result in the side walls delimiting the U-shaped space.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Kovac as applied to claims 1-5 and 11-14, and in further view of Harding US 2004/0039373 (hereinafter Harding).
Re. Cl. 6, Schmidt discloses a rotating shaft (see Fig. 3 and 6-7) formed on the lever portion and is rotatably mounted in a corresponding bearing recess of the base body (see Fig. 3 and 6-7). However, Schmidt does not disclose that the rotating shaft is integrally formed on the lever portion. Harding discloses a fastening device (Fig. 1) which includes a lever element (16) having a rotating shaft (16P, Fig. 4) integrally formed on the lever portion (see Fig. 4) and rotatably mounted in corresponding bearing recess of the base body (34, Fig. 4).
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 Schmidt device to have its rotating shaft integrally formed on the lever portion as disclosed by Harding with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to form in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Kovac in view of Harding as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Barbour US 4910833 (hereinafter Barbour).
Re. Cls. 7-9, the combination of Schmidt, Kovac and Harding does not disclose at least one latching element is disposed on a free end region of the lever portion to connect the lever element in the securing position to at least one correspondingly configured latching edge of the base body (Cl. 7), the lever portion comprises two parallel lever arms that extend from the rotating shaft, wherein a respective latching element is disposed on the respective end region of the two lever arms (Cl. 8) or the two lever arms are disposed spaced apart parallel to one another and resiliently deflectably on the rotating shaft such that the respective latching element in the securing position can be released from contact with the corresponding latching edge (Cl. 9). Barbour discloses a lever element (16, Fig. 1-2) which rotated relative to a base body (12, Fig. 1) wherein at least one latching element (38, Fig. 1, 4) is disposed on a free end region of the lever portion (see Fig. 1) to connect the lever element in the securing position to at least one correspondingly configured latching edge of the base body (see Fig. 1 and 2, latching with forward edge of 22); the lever portion comprises two parallel lever arms (24s, Fig. 4) that extend from the rotating shaft (18, Fig. 1), wherein a respective latching element is disposed on the respective end region of the two lever arms (see 38, Fig. 4); the two lever arms are disposed spaced apart parallel to one another and resiliently deflectably on the rotating shaft such that the respective latching element in the securing position can be released from contact with the corresponding latching edge (see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 12-18).
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 Schmidt device to have the latching element and latching edge structure of Barbour with reasonable expectation of success since Barbour states that such a modification locks the lever into place (Col. 5, Lines 6-10). Such a modification would prevent accidental pivoting of the lever element which could lead to the device being released from the second element.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Kovac as applied to claims 1-5 and 11-14 above, and in further view of Yates US 2463451 (hereinafter Yates).
Re. Cl. 10, Schmidt discloses the eccentric portion of the lever element is configured such that a compressive force is applied during the transition from the open position to the securing position (see Fig. 6-7, compressive force from 56 onto 60), and rotating the lever portion toward the securing position initially compresses the wall (60) and further rotation increases the compressive force (see Fig. 6-7). However, Schmidt does not disclose that the eccentric portion presses on the second fastening wall such that rotating the lever portion toward the securing position initially reduces a distance between a pressure surface of the eccentric portion and the second fastening wall until it is pressed against the second fastening wall and further rotation increases the compressive force such that the second fastening wall is pivoted in the direction of the first fastening wall. Yates discloses a fastening device (Fig. 1) comprising a base body (5, Fig. 1) which delimits an approximately U-shaped receiving space (within 5, between 6 and 7, Fig. 1), a first leg of the U-shaped receiving space forms a first fastening wall (see 6, Fig. 1) and a second leg (see 7, Fig. 1) opposite to the first leg of the receiving space forms a second fastening wall (see Fig. 1-2), and a lever element (15, Fig. 1-2) for applying a compressive force to one of the first and second fastening walls which acts in a direction of the other fastening wall in such a way that the fastening device is connected to a second component via the fastening walls (see Fig. 1-2); the first fastening wall is fixedly disposed on the base body and the second fastening wall is pivotably connected to the base body (see Fig. 1-2, the second wall 7 pivotally is connected to the top portion as its resiliently flexes between the positions shown in Fig. 1-2) and an eccentric portion (15b, Fig. 1-2) of the lever element is configured such that a compressive force is applied to the second fastening wall during the transition from the open position to the securing position (see Fig. 1-2), and rotating the lever portion toward the securing position initially reduces a distance between a pressure surface of the eccentric portion and the second fastening wall until it is pressed against the second fastening wall and further rotation increases the compressive force such that the second fastening wall is pivoted in the direction of the first fastening wall (see Fig. 1-2).
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 Schmidt clamp to have its lever contact the second fastening wall rather than pass through it as disclosed by Yates with reasonable expectation of success to provide a larger surface area applying pressure to the clamped component. Such a modification would reduce any localized stress in the clamped component and prevent potential damage to the component.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Kovac as applied to claims 1-5 and 11-14 above, and in further view of Meyers US 2013/0240684 (hereinafter Meyers).
Re. Cl. 15, Schmidt in view of Kovac discloses: A method for producing a fastening device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein the fastening device is produced by means of a two-component injection molding process (Paragraph 0073, Schmidt) from a hard component (metal, Paragraph 0073, Schmidt) and a soft component which are both made of plastic (see Paragraph 0073, Schmidt), and wherein a base body and a lever element of the fastening device are formed in a single- stage or multi-stage manufacturing process (see Fig. 3-6, Schmidt).
Re. Cl. 15, Schmidt in view of Kovac does not disclose the lever element is connected to the base body via at least one web that forms one or more preset breaking points. Meyers discloses a method of producing a fastening device (injection molding as discussed in Paragraph 0023) which includes a lever element (18, Fig. 1) connected to a base body (16, Fig. 1) via at least one web that forms one or more preset breaking points (see 68, Fig. 2).
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 Schmidt device to include the preset breaking points of Meyers with reasonable expectation of success to initially bias the lever towards an open position such that the lever is held open until purposefully rotated towards the closed position. Such a modification would make initial installation easier for the user.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Harding.
Re. Cl. 16, Schmidt discloses: A fastening device (Fig. 3) for fastening a first component (see 12, Fig. 1 for instance) to a second component (see 14, Fig. 2 for instance) comprising a base body (22, Fig. 3) which delimits an approximately U-shaped receiving space for receiving a portion of a second component (see Fig. 3), wherein a first leg (see 24, Fig. 6)of the U-shaped receiving space forms a first fastening wall (see Fig. 6 along with 60) and a second leg (26, Fig. 3) opposite to the first leg of the receiving space forms a second fastening wall (see Fig. 6 along with 60), and a lever element (50, Fig. 3) for applying a compressive force to one of the first and second fastening walls which acts in a direction of the other fastening wall in such a way that the fastening device is connected to a second component via the fastening walls (see Fig. 3-6).
Re. Cl. 20, Schmidt discloses: the lever element comprises an eccentric portion (56, Fig. 6) for applying the compressive force acting in a direction of the first fastening wall to the second fastening wall (see Fig. 6-7) and a lever portion for rotating the eccentric portion (54, Fig. 6).
Re. Cl. 16, Schmidt discloses a rotating shaft (see Fig. 3 and 6-7) formed on the lever portion and is rotatably mounted in a corresponding bearing recess of the base body (see Fig. 3 and 6-7). However, Schmidt does not disclose that the rotating shaft is a non-circular rotating shaft integrally formed on the lever portion. Harding discloses a fastening device (Fig. 1) which includes a lever element (16) having a non-circular rotating shaft (16P, Fig. 4, as shown, the shaft has flat sides and is therefore not circular) integrally formed on the lever portion (see Fig. 4) and rotatably mounted in corresponding bearing recess of the base body (34, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the rotating shaft of Schmidt with the shaft of Harding with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held obvious to replace one known means with another to achieve a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. ___, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR)
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view Harding as applied to claim 16 and 20 above, and further in view of Barbour.
Re. Cls. 7-9, the combination of Schmidt and Harding does not disclose at least one latching element is disposed on a free end region of the lever portion to connect the lever element in the securing position to at least one correspondingly configured latching edge of the base body (Cl. 17), the lever portion comprises two parallel lever arms that extend from the rotating shaft, wherein a respective latching element is disposed on the respective end region of the two lever arms (Cl. 18) or the two lever arms are disposed spaced apart parallel to one another and resiliently deflectably on the rotating shaft such that the respective latching element in the securing position can be released from contact with the corresponding latching edge (Cl. 19). Barbour discloses a lever element (16, Fig. 1-2) which rotated relative to a base body (12, Fig. 1) wherein at least one latching element (38, Fig. 1, 4) is disposed on a free end region of the lever portion (see Fig. 1) to connect the lever element in the securing position to at least one correspondingly configured latching edge of the base body (see Fig. 1 and 2, latching with forward edge of 22); the lever portion comprises two parallel lever arms (24s, Fig. 4) that extend from the rotating shaft (18, Fig. 1), wherein a respective latching element is disposed on the respective end region of the two lever arms (see 38, Fig. 4); the two lever arms are disposed spaced apart parallel to one another and resiliently deflectably on the rotating shaft such that the respective latching element in the securing position can be released from contact with the corresponding latching edge (see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, Lines 12-18).
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 Schmidt device to have the latching element and latching edge structure of Barbour with reasonable expectation of success since Barbour states that such a modification locks the lever into place (Col. 5, Lines 6-10). Such a modification would prevent accidental pivoting of the lever element which could lead to the device being released from the second element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provides a different combination of prior are references for the rejection of record and therefore the arguments are not relevant for the matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gustafson US 3101185, Cherdo US 2023/0256274, Moreau US 2018/0119714, and Miraboutalebi US 2023/0042349 disclose other known fastening devices which are presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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 (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights