This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 19/144836.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “0,7B” is a grammatical error should be “0.7B”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "claim 2" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All of the limitations within claim 4 do not have antecedent basis since claim 4 depends from canceled claim 2.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “0,7B” and “10B” in claim 4 is used by the claim to mean “radius of curvature,” while the accepted meaning is “ In stationery, 0.7B refers to a 0.7mm diameter pencil lead with a "B" hardness grade. 0.7mm: This is the thickness of the lead. B: Stands for "Black" or "Bold," indicating a softer lead that produces a darker line compared to HB.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "an end flange" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “opposing flanges” within claim 2 which appears to be the same as “the end flange” of Claim 8, line 3 therefore the claim is confusing and indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "an end flange" in line 9. There is improper antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites “an end flange” within claim 3 which appears to be the same as “the end flange” of Claim 9, line 2 therefore the claim is confusing and indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation the flanges (2), and the claim also recites the flange (line 9) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert et al (Gebert) CH562980. Gebert discloses:
(Claim 1) A pipe clip comprising an annular clip body (1, 2) for accommodating a pipe, the annular clip body having at least one pair of opposing flanges (3, 4) adapted to be pulled together by a tightening screw (5) to clamp the pipe clip around the pipe, wherein the annular clip body is adapted to accommodate the pipe and has a central axis parallel to a width direction of the clip body (1, 2) , wherein the flanges (3, 4) extend under an angle outwardly with respect to a circumferential direction of the annular clip body, whereby a transition zone having an angular portion is formed between the annular clip body and the flange (3, 4), characterized in that the annular clip body at the transition zone has a curvature in the width direction, wherein the curvature has a radius of curvature, wherein the pipe clip is made of strip material wherein the flanges (3, 4) are bent outwardly with respect to the circumferential direction of the annular clip body with a bending axis substantially parallel to the central axis, wherein the bend at the transition zone has a bending radius about the bending axis,
(Claim 3) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the curvature has a radius of curvature which is constant across the width of the clip body.
(Claim 5) The pipe clip according to claim 1 wherein a chord (see figure below) can be defined between the two lateral edges of the clip body at the curvature in the width direction at the transition zone, wherein the maximum chord to arc distance is smaller than 1/3 R.
(Claim 6) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the pipe clip is made of strip material wherein the flanges (3, 4) are bent outwardly with respect to the circumferential direction of the annular clip body (1, 2) with a bending axis substantially parallel to the central axis, wherein the bend at the transition zone has a bending radius about the bending axis and the strip material has a thickness.
(Claim 7) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein at the transition zone the radius of curvature is different from a radius of curvature at the remainder of the annular clip body.
(Claim 8) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the annular clip body comprises two semi-annular body parts (1, 2), each having an end flange (3, 4) at least one end of the semi-annular body part, wherein the flanges (3, 4) of the two semi-annular body parts in use are positioned opposite each other and form a pair of said at least one pairs of opposing flanges (3, 4).
(Claim 9) The pipe clip according to claim 8, wherein the two semi- annular body parts have an end flange (3, 4) at each end of the semi-annular body part.
(Claim 10) The pipe clip according to claim 8, wherein the semi- annular body parts are substantially semi-circular (1, 2).
(Claim 11) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the flanges (3, 4)of the at least one pair of opposing flanges (3, 4) are spaced apart from each other when the annular clip body (1, 2) is in use clamped around the pipe.
(Claim 12) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the annular clip body is made from a metal strip (column 1, lines 35 and 36).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Chord )][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
684
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Radius of curvature
Flange (3, 4), End Flange (3,4))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Transition zone)]
PNG
media_image1.png
684
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bending axis)]
PNG
media_image2.png
580
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gebert discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the curvature has a radius of curvature (R), wherein the radius of curvature is within a range 12r<R<16r. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to (Claim 1) for the curvature has a radius of curvature (R), wherein the radius of curvature is within a range 12r<R<16r, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05 The curvature of the annular clip body acts like a reinforcement rib or conventional curvature which strengthens the band to prevent bending which is well known and conventional in the art as taught by Gebert therefore the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert CH562980.
Gebert discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for (Claim 4) The pipe clip according to claim 2, wherein the clip body has a width, wherein the radius of curvature is within a range of 0,7B to 10B. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to (Claim 4) for the wherein the clip body has a width, wherein the radius of curvature is within a range of 0,7B to 10B, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert CH562980.
Gebert discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the (Claim 6) the strip material has a thickness s, and wherein the bending radius (r) is within a range s< r<5s. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have (Claim 6) the strip material has a thickness s, and wherein the bending radius (r) is within a range s< r<5s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05 The curvature of the annular clip body acts like a reinforcement rib or conventional curvature which strengthens the band to prevent bending which is well known and conventional in the art as taught by Gebert therefore the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert CH562980.
Gebert discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the annular clip body is made from a plastic or composite material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to (Claim 13) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the annular clip body is made from a plastic or composite material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art discloses conventional pipe clips.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631