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 .
This is the first office action for application number 19/091,358, WIRE CONNECTION SYSTEM AND DEVICE, filed on March 26, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 of the claims, "device" should be changed to --system--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16-18 and 20 (the claims currently depend directly or indirectly from claim 1) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 6-8, and 10. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 19, claim 19 depends indirectly from claim 1, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,083,276 to Schopp. Schopp discloses a wire connection device (10) comprising: a head (near element 14) comprising: a dock comprising: a top opening (36); a front opening (50); a cutout (34); a neck (portion between elements 12 and 34 along the length of element 10) attached to the head; and a base (near element 12) attached to the neck comprising: a connector (16); wherein the connector is a threaded (24) connector; wherein the cutout reduces a thickness of the neck such that a thickness of the cutout is smaller than the thickness of the neck; wherein the top opening is disposed in a top of the head; wherein the top opening and the front opening are connected to accommodate a wire (64); wherein the front opening is large enough to accept the wire; and wherein the front opening is separated by a first fork (26) and a second fork (28).
In regards to claims 11-13, Schopp discloses a wire connection system comprising a wire connection device (10) comprising: a head comprising: a dock comprising: a top opening (36); a front opening (50); a cutout (34); a neck attached to the head; a base attached to the neck comprising: a connector (16); and an extension pole (22); wherein the connector is a threaded connector; and wherein the cutout reduces a thickness of the neck such that a thickness of the cutout is smaller than the thickness of the neck.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schopp. Schopp discloses the claimed invention except for the limitation of wherein the top opening is smaller than a crown of the wire.
Since the crown of the wire is not a positively recited limitation of the claimed subject matter, Schopp need only be capable of this limitation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to have modified the size of the top opening in Schopp to have been smaller than a crown of the wire, since such a modification would have merely involved a change in size for the purpose of prevent the wire from easily dislodging from the top opening or from being fully received within the top opening during usage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitations of wherein the front opening is at least partially disposed in the cutout, cited in dependent claim 4 and in combination with the limitations of claim 1, is not found in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 10,867,530 to White is directed to a system and method for mounting, including a elongated channel having magnets that are affixed to a ceiling grid and mounting hooks. U.S. Patent No. 6,487,765 to Brekken is directed to a tool having a body having a top portion with a notch to handle a wire placed therein. U.S. Patent No. 2,640,236 to Hume is directed to a line gripping device for props.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-6817. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-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, 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.
/ANITA M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights