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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the legal phraseology “comprised” and “comprising” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0001] should be amended to the final form:
This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 18/459,950, filed September 1, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,258,994 issued March 25, 2025, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/695,900, filed March 16, 2022 now U.S. Patent No. 11,746,822 issued September 5, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 16/880,405, filed May 21, 2020 now U.S. Patent No. 11,293,479 issued April 5, 2022, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/850,936, filed May 21, 2019, and U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/904,329, filed September 23, 2019, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 2 “a combination of the two” should be - - a combination of two - -.
Claim 11, line 1 “the plane” should be - - a plane - -.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to amend to - - the arcuate surfaces are aligned - -.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowerman (US Publication No. 2016/0095406).
Regarding claim 1, Bowerman discloses a clipping apparatus comprising:
a base plate with a connection point (see annotated Fig. 9);
a spring connection mechanism with a connection point and a spring locking mechanism (see annotated Fig. 9); and
a plurality of members each comprising a handle with a connection point and an arcuate surface formed therein such that upon cooperation between the plurality of members, the base plate and the spring connection mechanism through at least their respective connection points, the arcuate surfaces form a variable-circumference opening such that upon relative movement between the plurality of handles to overcome a spring bias formed by the spring connection mechanism, a male fitting (306) is accepted into the variable-circumference opening along an axis orthogonal thereto while upon a relaxing movement between the plurality of handles in response to the spring bias; the male fitting (306) is locked to the clipping apparatus through the variable-circumference opening (see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Bowerman discloses, wherein the male fitting (306) is a peg (see Fig.10).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bowerman discloses, wherein the peg (306) defines an accentuated portion (see Fig.10).
Regarding claim 4, Bowerman discloses, wherein the base plate is further comprised of a base slide mechanism (see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Bowerman discloses, wherein the base slide mechanism is configured to attach to webbing (see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Bowerman discloses, wherein the base plate is disengageable and rotatable (see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Bowerman further discloses, comprising a clip locking mechanism (340) (see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Bowerman discloses, wherein the spring connection mechanism is disposed between the base plate and the plurality of members (see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Bowerman discloses, wherein the base plate is further comprised of a plurality of webbing guides (see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Bowerman discloses, wherein the clipping apparatus is comprised of plastic, metal or a combination of the two (see [0043], lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 11, Bowerman discloses, wherein the base plate further defines within the plane an opening (342) formed therein (see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Bowerman discloses, wherein the opening defined (342) within the base plate extends therethrough along the axis orthogonal (see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Bowerman discloses, wherein the opening (342) that is defined within the base plate the variable-circumference opening that is defined by the arcuate surfaces are substantially aligned with one another along the axis orthogonal (see annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bowerman in view of Guilfoyle discloses, wherein each of the plurality of members comprise a reinforcing arm formed therein (see annotated Fig. 9).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,258,994. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations required of claims 1-14 of the instant application are claimed in claims 1-14, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,258,994.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights