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 a final Office Action for serial number 19/210,836, Tightening Member, Clamp Member And Clamp Assembly, filed on May 16, 2025.
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 16-24, and 31-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,365,290. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant and patent claims are almost identical with the recitation of a tightening member, coupling portion; an operating portion etc.
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) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0376631 to D’Angelo et al. (Angelo ‘631).
Angelo ‘631 discloses wherein a tightening member (20) for tightening a clamping device for fixing an accessory to a crossbar, the tightening member comprising: a coupling portion (94) configured to detachably couple the tightening member to a coupling section (56) protruding from the clamping device (40), the coupling portion being engageable with the coupling section in a torque transferable manner; an operating portion (24) configured to be grasped and rotated by a user, wherein the coupling portion (94) comprises an accommodating portion ( 94-central upright protrusion) for at least partially receiving portion of the coupling section (56 with 32).
Regarding claim 17, Angelo ‘631 discloses a securing mechanism (108) configured to temporarily fixedly couple the coupling portion to the coupling section.
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.
Claim(s) 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angelo ‘631.
Angelo ‘631 discloses the previous invention failing to disclose wherein the coupling portion extends along a rotation axis of the tightening member less than or equal to 20% of a thickness of the operating portion. Accordingly, 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 thickness of the coupling portion of Angelo ‘631 to be less than 20% of the thickness of the operating portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovery basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 32, Angelo ‘631 discloses wherein a diameter of the tightening member is greater than the thickness of the operating portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20, 21-24 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.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to disclose wherein the engaging portion comprises a resilient engaging member configured to automatically establish locking with the coupling section upon inserting the tightening member on the force receiving portion.
Claims 19-20 are inherently objected as depending on objected claim 18.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art fails to discloses wherein the torque limiting mechanism comprising an urging member.
Claims 22-24 are inherently objected as depending on objected claim 21.
Claims 25-30 are allowed.
The prior art fails to disclose wherein the force receiving portion comprising a torque transmitting profile defined by a wall portion, and the torque transmitting profile is provided on a radially outer surface of the wall portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant will now see that Angelo ‘631 – Fig. 7 with a tightening member (20), an operating portion (24), a coupling portion (94), and a clamping device (40) with a coupling section (56) – it reads on the limitations of claim 16, and newly claim 31.
Conclusion
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 TODD M. EPPS whose telephone number is (571)272-8282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 5pm.
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.
/TODD M EPPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 February 2, 2026