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
Claims 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, line 9, the phrase “top bottom portion” should be replaced by --top body portion--.
In claim 20, line 2, the phrase “from retaining” should be replaced by --from the retaining--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuthill et al. (US 10,753,380) in view of Clarke et al. (US 4,502,186).
Regarding claims 1-4, Tuthill et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a bottom body portion (30) including a first rounded inner surface (31) for receiving an elongated element (170);
a top body portion (20), hinged to the bottom body portion (via 40), including a second rounded inner surface (21) for receiving the elongated element, a top surface (Fig. 3 as annotated below), and a rounded end surface (convex surface of 27) extending between the top surface and a distal end of the second rounded inner surface (Figs. 1 and 3 as shown), wherein the rounded end surface is configured to nest within the first rounded inner surface (Figs. 8-9 as shown), wherein a distance between the top surface and the second rounded inner surface is largest at the distal end of the second rounded inner surface (Figs. 3 and 8 as shown);
a protrusion (28) extending from the top body portion where the top surface meets the rounded end surface;
a ratchet (22) extending from the protrusion, the ratchet extending adjacent to the rounded end surface and beyond the distal end of the second rounded inner surface (Fig. 3 shows wherein the ratchet is adjacent to the rounded end and is extended in a circumferential direction beyond the second rounded inner surface); and
a retaining assembly (34) including a first retainer on a first side of the bottom body portion including a pawl (35) for adjustably engaging a portion of the ratchet.
Tuthill et al. fails to disclose the ratchet having a first plurality of teeth on a first side of the ratchet and a second plurality of teeth on a second side of the ratchet opposite the first side of the ratchet, wherein the retaining assembly includes a second retainer pawl on a second side of the bottom body portion opposite the first side of the bottom body portion, each pawl selectively disengaged by manipulating the respective first or second retainer and an opening in the bottom portion for removably receiving the ratchet.
Clarke et al. teaches wherein a protrusion (5) includes a first and second plurality of teeth (6, 7), a second retaining pawl (11) and an opposed opening (13) formed by opposed retainers (9, 10) for removably receiving the ratchet wherein the pawls (11, 12) can be selectively disengaged (the pawls (11, 12) can be selectively disengaged by selectively pressing either retainer (9, 10) in a direction perpendicular to engagement therefore sliding the pawls out of alignment with the teeth provided on the protrusion 5) .
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to add an additional outward arm (9 taught by Clarke et al.) to the outer surface (23 of Tuthill et al.) to form an opening and to include additional teeth (6 and 7 as taught by Clarke et al.) on each side of the protrusion (28 of Tuthill et al.) and a second retaining pawl (11) opposite to the retaining pawl (35 of Tuthill et al.). The additional outward arm and subsequent opening would ensure engagement of the ratcheting teeth by providing additional resistance to the outer arm (28 of Tuthill et al.) from bending away from the exterior surface (33 of Tuthill et al.) of the bottom body portion (30 of Tuthill et al.). Also, having additional teeth on both sides of the top body portion protrusion, each with an opposed pawl, would provide redundant engagement over having a single tooth. A single tooth might be damaged and additional redundant teeth/pawls would allow for the desired ratcheting engagement despite any damage or failure.
PNG
media_image1.png
451
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 as reproduced and annotated from Tuthill et al.
Regarding claim 6, the combination device of Tuthill et al. and Clarke et al. further discloses wherein each of the first and second retainers is rotatably attached to the bottom body portion (Column 2, lines 31-35 of Clarke et al. describe wherein the jaws have resilience. This resilience provides rotation about the root portion 8).
Regarding claim 9, Tuthill et al. further discloses wherein the ratchet is formed integrally with the top portion (Fig. 1 as shown).
Regarding claim 10, Tuthill et al. further discloses wherein the elongated element is a cable or a tube (wires 170 are considered to be synonymous with cables).
Regarding claim 14, Tuthill et al. further discloses a living hinge (40) between the top portion and the bottom portion of the body.
Regarding claims 18-20, Tuthill et al discloses a method comprising steps of:
engaging a clamp (10) around the elongated element (170), the clamp including a bottom body portion (30) including a first rounded inner surface (31), a top body portion (20) hinged to the bottom body portion (via 40) the top body portion including a second rounded inner surface (21), a top surface (Fig. 3 as annotated above), and a rounded end surface (convex surface of 27) extending between the top surface and a distal end of the second rounded inner surface (Figs. 1 and 3 as shown), wherein the rounded end surface is configured to nest within the first rounded inner surface (Figs. 8-9 as shown), wherein a distance between the top surface and the second rounded inner surface is largest at the distal end of the second rounded inner surface (Figs. 3 and 8 as shown), the clamp further including a protrusion (28) extending from the top bottom portion where the top surface meets the rounded end surface, a ratchet (22) extending from the protrusion adjacent to the rounded end surface and beyond the distal end of the second rounded inner surface (Fig. 3 shows wherein the ratchet is adjacent to the rounded end and is extended in a circumferential direction beyond the second rounded inner surface), and a retaining assembly (34) having a pawl (35) configured to removably engage a tooth of the ratchet (35, Column 4, lines 33-38) on a first edge of the ratchet; at least partially closing the top body portion of the clamp toward the elongated element (Figs. 3, 8 and 9 as shown) until the rounded inner surfaces of the top body portion and the bottom body portion are secured against the elongated element (Figs. 7-9 as shown); and the ratchet being selectively releasable from the retaining assembly (Column 5, lines 4-12).
Tuthill et al. fail to disclose a second retainer having a pawl configured to removably engage at least one of a plurality of teeth on a second edge of the ratchet opposite the first edge and an opening in the bottom body portion for removably receiving the ratchet, wherein the ratchet has a plurality of teeth on the first edge of the ratchet, and the retaining assembly engages a portion of the plurality of teeth in the opening.
Clarke et al. teaches wherein a protrusion (5) includes a first and second plurality of teeth (6, 7) on opposed edges, a second retaining pawl (11) and an opposed opening (13) formed by opposed retainers (9, 10), and inserting the ratchet into the opening (Column 2, lines 33-35).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to add an additional outward arm (9 taught by Clarke et al.) to the outer surface (23 of Tuthill et al.) to form an opening and to include additional teeth (6 and 7 as taught by Clarke et al.) on each side of the protrusion (28 of Tuthill et al.) and a second retaining pawl (11) opposite to the retaining pawl (35 of Tuthill et al.). The additional outward arm and subsequent opening would ensure engagement of the ratcheting teeth by providing additional resistance to the outer arm (28 of Tuthill et al.) from bending away from the exterior surface (33 of Tuthill et al.) of the bottom body portion (30 of Tuthill et al.). Also, having additional teeth on both sides of the top body portion protrusion, each with an opposed pawl, would provide redundant engagement over having a single tooth. A single tooth might be damaged and additional redundant teeth/pawls would allow for the desired ratcheting engagement despite any damage or failure.
Regarding claim 20, the combination device of Tuthill et al. and Clarke et al. further disclose releasing the ratchet from retaining assembly by simultaneously pressing each of the first and second retainers to release the respective pawls (pressing simultaneously on 9 and 10 of Clarke et al. in a perpendicular manner would release the pawls and clamp).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tuthill et al. and Clarke et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toll et al. (US 2019/0036314).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tuthill et al. and Clarke et al. disclose the invention except for wherein the rounded inner surfaces of the top portion and the bottom body portion include ribs.
Toll et al. teaches interior ribs (21).
From this teaching of Toll et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention the need to provide additional resistance to slippage of held resilient elongate items. Adding the ribs of Toll et al. to the interior surfaces (21, 31) of Tuthill et al. would further hold and bite into the surface of resilient elongate items preventing slippage.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the combination device of Tuthill et al. and Clarke et al. disclose the invention except for wherein the bottom body portion includes an attachment portion formed integrally with the body portion, the attachment portion with at least one hole configured to receive a fastener.
Toll et al. teaches an integral attachment portion with a hole (48).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize the need to secure the elongated items to another object to prevent relative migration of the elongated items. Providing an integral attachment portion hole to the exterior surface of the bottom portion of Tuthill et al. would allow for a fastener to be inserted therethrough for securing the elongated items to another object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7 and 8 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 and if the double patenting rejection below is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record and Tuthill et al. fail to disclose or make obvious a clamp wherein first and second retainers include a button and a center portion, the pawl and the button being at least partially rotatable about the center portion in combination with all the limitations in its parent claims 1-4.
Regarding claims 7-8, the prior art of record and Tuthill et al. fail to disclose or make obvious a clamp comprising retainers including a pawl extending into an interior of a bottom body portion, a center portion, and a button wherein the pawl and button being rotatable about the center portion and the pawl being selectively disengaged by pressing the button in combination with the limitations in claim 7 and its parent claim 1.
Claims 15-17 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection below is overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Tuthill et al. and the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a clamp wherein a rounded end surface is configured to nest within a rounded inner surface of a bottom portion and each of first and second retainers include a button and pawl wherein the pawl being selectively disengaged by pressing the button of the respective first and second retainers in combination with all the limitations in independent claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,208. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because at least Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by lines 1-23 of US Patent No. 12,326,208.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maggi et al. (US 2017/0130873), Olsen, (US 6,186,454), Aranyos (US 4,372,011), Drake (US 6,164,605), Fukuda (US 10,697,577) are further references that demonstrate an analogous “nested” structure. Geiger (US 5,937,488) discloses interior ribs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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.
/MICHAEL S LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights