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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 6, 2026 has been entered.
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, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 - 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer-Horn, US 2013/0186889.
Regarding claim 1, Meyer-Horn discloses a removable clip comprising: a body (32) comprising: a first arm (44a); a second arm (42a) coupled to the first arm (44a), defining a first corner (between 44a and 42a in figure 4); a third arm (54b, 54a) coupled to the second arm (42a), defining a second corner (see an annotated figure 4 below) ; a fourth arm (54b, 54a) coupled to the third arm (54b, 54a), defining a third corner (see the annotated figure 4); a fifth arm (42b), having a first distal end (see the annotated figure 4) and a second distal end (see the annotated figure 4), wherein the first distal end (see the annotated figure 4) of the fifth arm (54b, 54a) is coupled to the fourth arm (54b, 54a), defining a fourth corner (see the annotated figure 4); and a sixth arm (see the annotated figure 4) provided on the fifth arm (42b) between the first distal end (see the annotated figure 4) and the second distal end (see the annotated figure 4); wherein the first arm (44a), the second arm (42a), and the third arm (54b, 54a) define a first channel (60) wherein the fourth arm (54b, 54a), the fifth arm (42b), and the sixth arm (see the annotated figure 4) define a second channel (70), wherein the first channel is continuous with the second channel to form an L-shape (see an annotated figure 4 below), [and wherein the first channel is configured to receive a first piece of a crate and the second channel is configured to receive a second piece of the crate].
Claim language set in brackets [] set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of the removable clip, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the corner joint disclosed by Meyer-Horn (US 2013/0186889) or the clip by Philip (US 5,535,909), is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
712
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
528
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 1, wherein an inset length is defined as a length (between the 2nd distal end and the sixth arm in the annotated figure 4) between the second distal end of the fifth arm (42b) and an outer portion of the sixth arm (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 2, wherein a portion (46b) of the fifth arm (42b) between the second distal end of the fifth arm (42b) and the outer portion of the sixth arm (see the annotated figure 4) defines a grip length (a length 46b of 42b for gripping).
Regarding claim 7, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 1, wherein the second arm (42a) includes a set of spurs (72) located between the first corner (annotated figure 4) and the second corner (annotated figure 4), between the fourth corner and the sixth arm, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 9, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 1, wherein the first arm, the second arm, the third arm, the fourth arm, and the fifth arm form a G-shaped clip (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 1, wherein each of the first corner, the second corner, the third corner, and the fourth corner define an angle between 10 degrees and 110 degrees (approximately 90 degrees corners as shown in the annotated figure 4 and figure 4a).
Regarding claim 13, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 1, wherein the body (32) is a unitary monolithic body (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 15, Meyer-Horn discloses a removable clip comprising: a body (32) comprising: a first arm (44a), defining a first surface (on the first arm); a second arm (see the annotated figure 4) defining a second surface (on the second arm), wherein the second arm is coupled (see the annotated figure 4) to the first arm; a third arm (54b, 54a; see the annotated figure 4) defining a third surface (on the third arm), wherein the third arm is coupled (see the annotated figure 4) to the second arm; a fourth arm (54b, 54a; see the annotated figure 4) defining a fourth surface (on the fourth arm), wherein the fourth arm is coupled (see the annotated figure 4) to the third arm; a fifth arm (42b), defining a fifth surface (on the fifth arm), wherein the fifth arm has a first distal end (see the annotated figure 4) and a second distal end (see the annotated figure 4), wherein the first distal end of the fifth arm is coupled (see the annotated figure 4) to the fourth arm; and a sixth arm (see the annotated figure 4), defining a spur surface (on the sixth arm), wherein the sixth arm is provided (see the annotated figure 4) on the fifth arm between (see the annotated figure 4) the first distal end and the second distal end; [wherein the body (32) is configured to be clipped to a first piece and a second piece of a crate, the body is configured such that the first piece and the second piece are directly in contact with each other, wherein the body is configured such that the first surface, the second surface and the third surface are adjacent portions (see figure 7) to the first piece, and the fourth surface, the fifth surface, and the spur surface are adjacent portions (figure 7) to the second piece].
Regarding claim 16, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 15, wherein the body (32) is a unitary body (figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 15, wherein the body (32) further comprises a grip (see the annotated figure 4) having an inset length (the annotated figure 4) defined between the second distal end of the fifth arm (42b) and an outer portion of the sixth arm (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 15, wherein the sixth arm includes a free end (see the annotated figure 4), and wherein a portion of the free end includes a curved portion (see the annotated figure 4).
Regarding claim 21, Meyer-Horn discloses an assembly comprising: a first piece (70); a second piece (70); and a removable clip (30) for fastening together at least a portion (20) of the first piece (70) adjacent to (see figure 7) at least a portion of the second piece (70) to form a portion (10) of a crate, the removable clip comprising: a body (32) comprising: a first arm (44a); a second arm (42a) coupled to the first arm (44a), defining a first corner (between 44a and 42a in figure 4); a third arm (54b, 54a) coupled to the second arm (42a), defining a second corner (see an annotated figure 4 below) ; a fourth arm (54b, 54a) coupled to the third arm (54b, 54a), defining a third corner (see the annotated figure 4); a fifth arm (42b), having a first distal end (see the annotated figure 4) and a second distal end (see the annotated figure 4), wherein the first distal end (see the annotated figure 4) of the fifth arm (54b, 54a) is coupled to the fourth arm (54b, 54a), defining a fourth corner (see the annotated figure 4); and a sixth arm (see the annotated figure 4) provided on the fifth arm (42b) between the first distal end (see the annotated figure 4) and the second distal end (see the annotated figure 4); wherein the first arm (44a), the second arm (42a), and the third arm (54b, 54a) define a first channel (60) that receives the first piece (70) and wherein the fourth arm (54b, 54a), the fifth arm (42b), and the sixth arm (see the annotated figure 4) define a second channel (70) that receives the second piece (70; figure 7).
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) 4 - 6, 8, 12, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer-Horn, US 2013/0186889.
Regarding claim 4, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 1, wherein a length of the first arm (44a) is measured from a first free end to the first corner (see the annotated figure 4) and a length of the fifth arm (42b) is measured from the first distal end to the second distal end of the fifth arm (42b), wherein the length of the fifth arm (42b) is observed to be larger than the length of the first arm (44a).
Meyer-Horn does not explicitly disclose wherein the length of the fifth arm is between 50% and 200% of the length of the first arm since the drawings are not drawn to scale. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the fifth arm (42b) of Meyer-Horn to be between 50% and 200% of the first arm (36a) length because both arms must accommodate standard lumber dimensions used in crate construction, and sizing both arms proportionally to the pieces they receive would inherently produce a ratio within the claimed range. Further, it is noted 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.
Regarding claim 5, Meyer-Horn teaches the removable clip of claim 4, wherein a length of the sixth arm (annotated figure 4) is measured from a second free end to the fifth arm (the second distal end of the fifth arm 42b), wherein the length of the sixth arm is less than the length of the fifth arm (see the annotated figure 4). Meyer-Horn does not explicitly disclose wherein the length of the sixth arm is between 5% and 100% of the length of the fifth arm. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the sixth arm of Meyer-Horn to be between 5% and 100% of the fifth arm (42b) length to accommodate standard lumber dimensions used in crate construction, and sizing both arms proportionally to the pieces they receive would inherently produce a ratio within the claimed range. Further, it is noted that 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.
Regarding claim 6, Meyer-Horn teaches the removable clip of claim 5, wherein the length of the sixth arm is less than the length of the fifth arm (see the annotated figure 4). Meyer-Horn does not explicitly disclose wherein the length of the sixth arm is between 10% and 50% of the length of the fifth arm. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the sixth arm of Meyer-Horn to be between 10% and 50% of the fifth arm (42b) length to accommodate standard lumber dimensions used in crate construction, and sizing both arms proportionally to the pieces they receive would inherently produce a ratio within the claimed range. Further, it is noted that 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.
Regarding claim 8, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 7, wherein at least one spur of the set of spurs (72) extends a spur height from a second surface defined by the second arm (42a) or a fifth surface defined by the fifth arm, wherein the spur height is considerably less than a length of the second arm (42b) measured from the first corner to the second corner since the spurs (72) are projections designed to seat a vertical board (20) securely within the channels. Meyer-Horn does not explicitly disclose wherein the spur height is less than 15% of a length of the second arm (42b) measured from the first corner to the second corner. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the spur height of Meyer-Horn to be less than 15% of a length of the second arm (42b) measured from the first corner to the second corner to not require a tool for insertion given that the projection is shallow with the smaller length percentage range. Further, it is noted that 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.
Regarding claim 19, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 18, wherein a sixth arm length (see the annotated figure 4) is measured from the free end to the fifth arm (42b), wherein the sixth arm length is a smaller distance than that of a fifth arm length measured from the first distal end to the second distal end (see the annotated figure 4) to accommodate the piece (20) of the crate. Meyer-Horn does not explicitly disclose wherein the sixth arm length is between 20% and 80% of a fifth arm length measured from the first distal end to the second distal end. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the sixth arm of Meyer-Horn to be between 20% and 80% of the fifth arm (42b) length to accommodate standard lumber dimensions used in crate construction, and sizing both arms proportionally to the pieces they receive would inherently produce a ratio within the claimed range to provide structural integrity while receiving the pallet edge. Further, it is noted that 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.
Regarding claim 20, Meyer-Horn teaches the removable clip of claim 19. Meyer-Horn further discloses wherein the body (32) further comprises at least one spur (72) extending a spur height from the second arm (42a) and located between a first corner and a second corner (see the annotated figure 4), wherein the spur height is less than the sixth arm length (see the annotated figure 4).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer-Horn, US 2013/0186889 in view of Chiles et al., US 5,819,374.
Regarding claim 10, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 1. Meyer-Horn does not explicitly disclose wherein the body comprises thickened portions at the first corner, the second corner, the third corner, and the fourth corner.
Chiles teaches a clip (10) wherein the body (12) comprises thickened portions (20, 22) at their corners (see figures 1 and 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first, second and third corners of Meyer-Horn to comprised thickened portions as taught by Chiles in order to help hold the shape of the clip.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer-Horn, US 2013/0186889 in view of Philip, US 5,535,909.
Regarding claim 12, Meyer-Horn discloses the removable clip of claim 11 except for wherein the angle defined by the third corner (a right angle) is less than 90 degrees. Philip teaches a clip wherein the arms (4, 6) have an angle less than 90 degree (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clip of Meyer-Horn to include an angle less than 90 degrees for the third corner as taught by Philip so that the clip exerts a resilient restraining force (on the crate pieces) to improve in holding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the Meyer-Horn reference does not disclose the first channel is continuous with the second channel (to form an L-shape). The argument is found not persuasive in view of the rejection of claim 1 above wherein the channels are considered continuous (at their open ends) with no interruption as illustrated in the annotated figure 4a above. It is noted that applicant’s first and second channels (134, 136) are not connected continuously but are not interrupted as shown in figure 3.
In response to applicant's argument (concerning claim 15) that the body is configured to be clipped to a first piece and a second piece of a crate, the body is configured such that the first piece and the second piece are directly in contact with each other, wherein the body is configured such that the first surface, the second surface and the third surface are adjacent portions to the first piece, and the fourth surface, the fifth surface, and the spur surface are adjacent portions to the second piece, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the body is capable of clipping the mentioned first and second pieces (70, 70) of a crate so that the pieces can be directly in contact with each other (if the pieces are curved and anchored by said clip but are capable of directly contacting each other at their distal ends). It is noted that the clip (30) of Meyer-Horn can be intended for other crate pieces.
With regards to the argument concerning claim 21, it is found not persuasive in view of the rejection of the claim above. It is noted that the pieces are required to be adjacent or next to each other as claimed and the channels are required to receive said first and second pieces as shown in figure 7 of Meyer-Horn. Applicant has argued that Meyer-Horn does not teach or suggest the joint 30 couples the two side members 70 together. However, the argument is found not persuasive in view of the rejection of the claim 21 wherein the members 70 are adjacent to each other and are received within the first and second channels of the clip (30) as shown in the figure 7 of Meyer-Horn. As claimed, the removable clip is for fastening together the two pieces (70) and even though the pieces/members (70) are locked or secured, they can still be removed. Further, the claim does not require the pieces to move in a horizontal plane but instead to be fastened in the channels of the clip.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for similar art cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWLAND DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 7:00 PT.
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.
/R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677