DETAILED ACTION1
Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on May 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by https://www.homedepot.com/p/Master-Magnet-Handy-Utility-Clip-Magnet-2-per-Pack-96334/2036131342 (hereafter the “Handy Clip”)
Claim 1 recites a clamp. The Handy Clip is such a clamp, as shown in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 recites the clamp has a stationary jaw…and a hinged jaw. The Handy Clip has both. The reproduced figure shows the bottom stationary jaw has a coupling member defined to be the flattened terminal region that clamps onto paper, a backstop defined to be the rising element at the front the hinge flange. The tab extends vertically from an interior surface of the stationary jaw. Finally, the Handy Clip has a peg in the form of the magnet holder. The Handy Clip also shows the hinging jaw [has] an exterior surface, wherein the exterior surface comprises an arched shape along its side. Claim 1 then recites a bridge on the exterior surface of the hinging jaw, [with] the bridge [being] on a crest of the exterior surface. The above figure shows a region of the upper jaw that extends rear-ward of the hinge. Examiner defines this region to be the crest of the jaw, which is reasonable because it is an upwardly extending segment that flares out. This is consistent with the definition of a crest. The region surrounding the hole is defined to be the bridge in that it bridges the region between the hinge and the flared top. The hole in this segment span[s] a width of the bridge, defining the width to be the thickness of the jaw. Finally, the Handy Clip is spring loaded to remain in the clamped position, thus the stationary jaw and the hinging jaw are in opposable contact fixed by a hinging mechanism and having a force that resists separation of the hinging jaw from the stationary jaw.
Regarding claim 2, the flared, flat terminal clamping region of the jaw may be defined as a prong. Regarding claim 6, the reproduced figure below shows he peg comprises at least one magnet.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 recites that at least a portion of the interior surface of the stationary jaw comprises a concave ramp. The reproduced figures show the jaws have a concave side portion. This portion is mirrored on the interior surface because the edge is slightly flared up, as shown in the first reproduced image. The inner surface of this flare is therefore a concave ramp.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Handy Clip in view of U.S. 11,826,496 to Dougherty.
Claim 3 recites the at least one prong comprises a plurality of teeth. The Handy Clip does not have gripping teeth, but such teeth are well known in the clamp and clip field. For example, Dougherty (which is cited simply because the numerous images of toothed clips on google rarely have clear publication dates) shows a clamp (14) with jaws (48a, b) having opposing teeth. See Dougherty col. 4, ll. 21-27 and Fig. 4. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, it would have been obvious to modify the Handy Clip with teeth for better gripping properties as was known and predictable in the art. Regarding claim 4, figure 4 of Dougherty also shows the teeth are angled toward the backstop.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Handy Clip in view of https://www.amazon.com/COOK-COLOR-Nesting-Plastic-Handles/dp/B07ZHLSVYK (hereafter Amazon).
Claim 9 recites that the exterior surface of the hinging jaw comprises a first material, and wherein the first material is at least one of an acrylic (PMMA), a nylon (PA), a polycarbonate (PC), a polyethylene (PE), a polyoxymethylene (POM), a polypropylene (PP), a polystyrene (PS), a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), and a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU). The Handy Clip appears to be made of metal, rather than any of the recited materials. But Amazon shows chip clips made of plastic with reviews dating back to 2020, as shown in the reproduced figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
452
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it was known to fabricate magnetic fridge clips (like the Handy Clip) from plastic. It therefore would have been obvious to modify Handy Clip to be plastic rather than metallic. See MPEP 2143(D). Furthermore, the figure from Amazon shows a rubber reinforcement around the hole. This constitutes a liner [from] a second material having a higher coefficient of friction as recited in claim 10.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Handy Clip in view of https://discover.hubpages.com/living/how-to-replace-a-recessed-refrigerator-door-handle (hereafter Hubpages) with a listed update date of Jan. 7, 2024.
PNG
media_image4.png
798
406
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 recites a device having both a base plate and a clamp. The clamp features are substantially the same as in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Hubpages teaches a refrigerator door and freezer door having a recessed handle. Handy Clip teaches a refrigerator door magnet. Thus, it would be obvious to combine a fridge or freezer door with a fridge door magnet into a system. Hubpages shows a replacement slot liner. A image from Hubpages is reproduced to the left and shows the replacement liner. For purposes of claim 11, either the entire fridge door or just the liner may be defined to be the base plate. Both have a receiving slot in it that is distally directed. Finally, claim 11 also recites that the peg [of the clamp] is configured to be inserted into the receiving slot. This constitutes intended use. The magnet of the Handy Clip is capable of being inserted into the slot, size wise. Thus, it meets this limitation. It need not actually be inserted to teach claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the receiving slot is oblong in shape. For purposes of claim 12, the replacement liner alone is defined to be the base plate. The figure above shows the slot is oblong in shape. It also shows the slot also extends across a majority of the length of the base plate. Regarding claim 13 the entire door is defined to be the base plate. Claim 13 recites he base plate further comprises a stop, and wherein the stop is adjacent a distally directed end of the receiving slot. The edge of the door constitutes a stop and is adjacent to the end of the slot. Claim 14 recites the base plate further comprises a plurality of ridges. The fridge door has an accordion style plastic seal along the edge for sealing against the main body of the fridge. The accordion seal has a plurality of ridges, as shown in the figure above. These ridges are also pleated as recited in claim 15. Regarding claim 16, the door itself is magnetic and is proximate the slot. Finally, claim 17 recites that the peg is reversibly insertable into the receiving slot of the base plate. This again constitutes intended use. The magnet of the clamp can be inserted and then removed from the door handle.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 5 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.
The prior art does not teach adhesive or a downward sloping concave ramp from an exterior edge. Such features are useful in the context of an air filter holder, but not to a paper clamp. Thus, it would not have been obvious to modify the cited prior art to add this feature.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics.
2 The product webpage contains comments and questions going back to August, 2017. As such, the product in question was publicly available for purchase on that date.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
Prosecution Insights