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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I drawn to claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeMayo U.S. Patent No. (9,022,334 B1).
With respect to claim 1, DeMayo discloses a restraint bracket comprising:
a bracket body (11, fig.1) having an upper surface and a lower surface opposite the upper surface (as shown in fig.1 and the reproduced image fig.1 below);
a flange (23 and as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below) formed on the upper surface of the bracket body extending in a direction opposite the lower surface of the bracket body; and
an attachment member (12) extending from the lower surface of the bracket body (as shown in figs.1 and 3), the attachment member (12) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the first end and the second end fixed to the lower surface of the bracket body (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
762
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, DeMayo discloses a line manager socket (aperture where element 25 is located, as shown in fig.1) formed on the upper surface of the bracket body, the flange (23) proximate the line manager socket (as shown in fig.1).
With respect to claim 3, DeMayo discloses the attachment member (12) comprises: a bar having a first end and a second end opposite the first end (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below); a first leg extending from the first end of the bar to the lower surface of the bracket body at a first mount portion ([Col.2], lines 48-51); and a second leg extending from the second end of the bar to the lower surface of the bracket body at a second mount portion and ([Col.2], lines 48-51) and (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
782
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. (12,343, 279 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are a broader recitation of the invention than that of the patent application.
Claim 1 of the instant application recites: a restraint bracket comprising: a bracket body having an upper surface and a lower surface opposite the upper surface; a flange formed on the upper surface of the bracket body extending in a direction opposite the lower surface of the bracket body; and an attachment member extending from the lower surface of the bracket body, the attachment member having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the first end and the second end fixed to the lower surface of the bracket body.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. (12,343, 279 B2) recites: a restraint bracket comprising: a bracket body having an upper surface and a lower surface opposite the upper surface; an attachment member extending from the lower surface of the bracket body, the attachment member having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the first end and the second end fixed to the lower surface of the bracket body, the attachment member comprising: a bar having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the bar defining a bar axis; a first leg extending from the first end of the bar to the lower surface of the bracket body at a first mount portion; and a second leg extending from the second end of the bar to the lower surface of the bracket body at a second mount portion; and a pair of flanges formed on the upper surface of the bracket body, the pair of flanges comprising: a first flange defining a first flange axis; and a second flange defining a second flange axis perpendicular to the first flange axis, the bar axis extending at an angle between 20 degrees and 70 degrees from the first flange axis.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between claim 1 of the current application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. (12, 343, 279 B2) lies in the fact that the patented claims includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. (12, 343, 279 B2) is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of current application claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species". See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claim 1 of the current application is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. (12, 343, 279 B2), it is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. (12, 343, 279 B2).
All of the limitations of claim 2 can be found in claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. (12,343,2790 B2).
All of the limitations of claim 3 can be found in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. (12,343,2790 B2).
All of the limitations of claim 4 can be found in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. (12,343,2790 B2).
All of the limitations of claim 5 can be found in claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. (12,343,2790 B2).
All of the limitations of claim 6 can be found in claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. (12,343,2790 B2).
All of the limitations of claim 7 can be found in claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. (12,343,2790 B2).
All of the limitations of claim 8 can be found in claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. (12,343,2790 B2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OPHELIA ALTHEA HAWTHORNE whose telephone number is (571)270-3860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, EST.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 5712703076. 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.
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights