DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (embodied in claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: for the term “semi-spherical” in claim 1. The instant specification only provides a description of the “hemispherical” type of shape.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the reference character 709 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "708" and "709" have both been used to designate hollow body, as recited in Paragraph [0044] of the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4: “the guide wire” should be changed to --the guidewire-- (for consistency).
In claim 1, line 9: “a semi-spherical cap operative to attach” should be changed to -- a semi-spherical cap operative to be attached-- (for clarity).
In claim 1, line 12: “having minimum diameter larger than the diameter of the cylinder” should be changed to -- having a minimum diameter larger than the diameter of the cylinder-- (for consistency).
In claim 1, line 13: “to prevent the cap and guidewire from” should be changed to --to prevent the cap and the guidewire from -- (for consistency).
In claim 2, line 1: “recited in claim 1 wherein” should be changed to -- recited in claim 1, wherein-- (for consistency).
In claim 4, line 1: “recited in claim 1 wherein” should be changed to -- recited in claim 1, wherein-- (for consistency).
In claim 5, line 1: “recited in claim 1 wherein” should be changed to -- recited in claim 1, wherein-- (for consistency).
In claim 6, line 1: “recited in claim 1 wherein” should be changed to -- recited in claim 1, wherein-- (for consistency).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 1-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the walls" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “walls of the hollow interior”.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because it sets forth that “the hollow opening”. As presently worded, it is unclear whether the claim is attempting to require a separate, distinct “opening” or further defines the “the hollow interior”, as cited in lines 4-5 of claim 1, or something else. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the “hollow interior”.
Further, claims 2-6 are rejected for their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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 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.
9. 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 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.
10. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dias et al. (hereinafter “Dias”) (Patent No.: US 11,428,295 B1) in view of Sargent (Patent No .: US 11,391,344 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Dias discloses a retainer or apparatus for securing a guidewire that can be provided with an internal or external thread for mating with the barrel's thread.
Notably, in column 9 lines 4-24, Dias discloses: Various embodiments of the bottom locking device 30 are shown in FIGS. 2 through 26. As shown in FIGS. 4, 5, 8 and 9, for example, the bottom locking device 30 includes a head 330 integrally formed with a ring-shaped body 332, wherein the head includes a head radially exterior surface 302, a head radially interior surface 304, a head axially exterior surface 305 and a head axially interior surface 307. When installed, the head axially exterior surface 305 is maintained in contact with the first wall 77 of the bottom locking device receiving area 100 and the radially extending wall 287 at the primary end 284 of the sleeve 28, as shown in FIG. 5. When installed, the head radially exterior surface 302 is further maintained in contact with the axially extending interior wall 78 of the bottom locking device receiving area 100 and the head axially interior surface 307 is maintained in contact with the second wall 79 of the bottom locking device receiving area 100. Such arrangement keeps the bottom locking device 30 of FIGS. 4, 5, 8 and 9 in secure engagement with the barrel 60 and further provides secure retention of the sleeve 28 during operation. In such embodiments, the bottom locking device 30 can be snapped into place in the barrel 60.
Then, in column 9 lines 25-48, Dias successfully teaches as how: The body 332 of the bottom locking device 30 includes a body interior surface 306 and a body radially exterior surface 308. The head radially interior surface 304 and the body interior surface 306 form an opening 319 extending along an axis T through the head 330 and ring-shaped body 332. In various embodiments, the head radially interior surface 304 is substantially cylindrical. In various other embodiments, the head radially interior surface 304 extends from the axially outer edge 333 at the radially innermost part of the head axially exterior surface 305 radially and axially inwardly to a lip 334, and the body interior surface 306 extends radially outwardly and axially inwardly from the lip 334 to an axially inner edge 337. The angled extensions of the head radially interior surface 304 and body interior surface 306 facilitate operation of the device when a cable is inserted and to be retained as described elsewhere herein. In various embodiments, the radial distance from the axis T to the head radially interior surface 304 at the axially outer edge 333 is greater than the radial distance from the axis T to the lip 334 and greater than the radial distance from the axis T to the axially inner edge 337. Further, the radial distance from the axis T to the head radially interior surface 302 is less than the radial distance from the axis T to the body radially interior surface 308.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Essentially, with reference to annotated Figures 17& 21, Dias’ retainer is certainly designed such that the bolt is being integrally connected to a body portion while forming a hollow interior HI304/306 through which the guide wire can be operative to extend through the walls of the hollow interior of the body portion forming a cylinder and/or the body portion having external threads operative to screw into an opening or interior surface formed on a wall of the receiving structure, which is defined by the tubular barrel, in response to turning the bolt to secure the retainer to the receiving structure.
Dias then goes on to describe how: a lanyard 15 is provided with a body segment 16, shank ball segment 23, clasp 18 and end loop segment 19. The lanyard 15 may or may not be considered part of the cable securing device 10 depending upon the nature of the embodiments of the present disclosure. In various embodiments, the shank ball segment 23 is integrally formed with the body segment 16 as at 13 so as to provide a monolithic structure, and the end loop segment 19 can be crimped or clasped as with clasp 18 so as to form a loop 12, which facilitates the secure connection of a fish tape or other external device having a latch or other mechanism securable to the loop segment 19 for pulling, as described in more detail hereafter. In various embodiments, the lanyard can be made of steel or other rigid material. The shank ball segment 23 is formed of a size appropriate to engage lower neck portion (e.g., 71) of an interior surface 64 of the barrel 60.
In fact, as best seen in annotated Figure 21 below, Dias explicitly exhibits as how a semi-spherical cap or shank ball segment 23 being operative to attach to one end of the guidewire and/or the cap or shank ball segment 23 having a maximum diameter D23 smaller than a diameter of the opening formed in the receiving structure to enable insertion of the cap or shank ball 23, as instantly claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
501
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, although Dias discloses the majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, he is silent as to the fact that the guidewire extending through the hollow interior. Nonetheless, the use of guidewire extending through the hollow interior is well-known in the art, as taught by Sargent. Sargent in the same field of endeavor teaches as how a set of tapered wedges fit in the tapered portion of the hollow bore of the terminal housing, and collectively the wedges define a central passageway for admitting a cable inserted into the bore of the housing from the one end (see column 2 lines 48-58).
Notably, in column 4 lines 3-20, Sargent discloses: the terminal 10 has an elongated cylindrical housing 12 with a hollow interior bore 14 extending from one end 16 of the housing to the opposite end 18. The housing has a bullet-shaped outer configuration with the end 16 being smaller than the opposite, larger end 18; however the bullet-shape is not essential and numerous other shapes are possible. A pair of flats 20 (only one visible in the figures) are provided on opposite sides of the outer surface of the housing 12 for gripping cylindrical housing with a wrench.
PNG
media_image4.png
450
858
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Clearly, Sargent explicitly exhibits as how the guidewire extending through the hollow interior of the body portion.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a guidewire extending through the hollow interior of the body portion, as taught by Sargent, with the retainer for securing a guidewire of Dias in order to further securely grip the cable, as motivated by Sargent in column 5 lines 38-39.
Furthermore, whether the guidewire extends through the hollow interior of the body or it is the cap that is installed inside the hollow interior of the body will depend on what direction the guidewire needs to be anchored to satisfy a particular application.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that a retainer having a bolt integrally connected to a body portion and/or the bolt and body portion forming a hollow interior through which the guide wire being operative to extend through, the walls of the hollow interior HI304/306 of the body portion of Dias would be further forming a cylinder, the body portion having external threads 320, as discussed by Dias, operative to screw into an opening formed on a wall of the receiving structure in response to turning the bolt to further secure the retainer to the receiving structure and/or a semi-spherical cap, would be further operative to be further attached to one end of the guidewire extending through the hollow interior and/or the cap would be having a maximum diameter smaller than a diameter of the opening formed in the receiving structure to further enable insertion of the cap into the receiving structure via the hollow opening and having minimum diameter larger than the diameter of the cylinder to further prevent the cap and guidewire from being pulled through the hollow interior, as instantly claimed.
Moreover, with respect to the limitation "an apparatus for securing a guidewire to a receiving structure that supports a fan", this limitation appears as a part of a preamble. With respect to the preamble, it should be noted that the preamble of the claims does not provide enough patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and a portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Thus, the combination of Dias and Sargent appears to disclose all aspects of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Dias and Sargent substantially disclose the apparatus, as claimed and detailed above. Additionally, as best seen immediately below, Dias explicitly exhibits as how the walls of the hollow interior of the body portion taper inward from the bolt toward the cylinder while the walls of the hollow interior HI 304/306of the bolt taper outward proportionally, as instantly claimed.
As such, according to the combination, one skilled in the art would surely recognize that the walls of the hollow interior HI304/306 of the body portion taper inward from the bolt toward the cylinder and/or the walls of the hollow interior HI304/306 of the bolt taper outward proportionally, as otherwise, the system cannot normally operate.
PNG
media_image5.png
432
556
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Dias and Sargent substantially disclose the apparatus, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, as best seen in annotated Figure 21, Dias evidently illustrates as how the cap or shank ball segment 23 includes a spherical portion and an elongated portion integrally connected to the spherical portion and/or how the elongated portion operative to be received in the hollow interior of the body portion, as instantly claimed.
PNG
media_image6.png
512
594
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Dias and Sargent substantially disclose the apparatus, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, in column 9 lines 48-65, Dias specifically teaches as how: the body radially exterior surface 308 is threaded as at 320 to mate with the thread 81 on the barrel 60. In these embodiments, the radial distance from the axis T to the head radially interior surface 302 is less than the radial distance from the axis T to the body radially interior surface 306. As shown in FIGS. 24 through 26, the body interior surface 306 extends radially outwardly and axially inwardly from the lip 334 along a first interior portion 340 to an intermediate ridge 342 at a first angle X to the axis T, and further extends radially outwardly and axially inwardly from the intermediate ridge 342 along a second interior portion 344 to the axially inner edge 337 at a second angle Y to the axis, wherein the second angle Y is greater than the first angle X. The different angles facilitate maintaining an inserted cable in an appropriately angled channel such that the cable is guided into the retaining jaw 26 and through the fastening ring 24 and spacer 22.
With specific regard to the claimed limitation “the external threads on the body portion are tapered from the bolt to an opposing end of the body portion”, as stated in claim 5, it is noted that applicant has not disclosed that using a cooling slot results in an unpredicted result not seen in the Prior Art and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the external threads 302, as taught by Dias.
Accordingly, absent persuasive evidence that the external threads being tapered is functionally significant, the limitations above constitute a mere change in shape and fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(4)(b).
11. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dias in view of Sargent, and further in view of Gajewski (Pub. No.: US 2008/0107527 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Dias and Sargent substantially disclose the apparatus, as claimed and detailed above. However, although the combination of Dias and Sargent discloses the majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, it is still silent as to the fact that the receiving structure comprises at least one of a hollow tube or a solid tube.
Nevertheless, Gajewski successfully discloses a ceiling fan 10, wherein, as discussed in Paragraph [0020], the outer downrod 30 rotates with the rotor 102 during operation via the coupling assembly 22. The coupling assembly 22 may be a mating interface. In a preferred embodiment, the coupling assembly 22 also includes one or more couplings. The mating interface includes a first interface 24 on the rotor 102 and a second interface 26 on the outer downrod 30 of the downrod assembly 16
Specifically, in Paragraphs [0022]-[0023], Gajewski teaches: The outer downrod 30 and the inner downrod 28 are not fixedly coupled, allowing them to operate independently. In some embodiments, there may be one or more bearing assemblies between the outer downrod 30 and the inner downrod 28. Both the outer downrod 30 and the inner downrod 28 are encased by the sleeve 32. The sleeve 32 has a first end 42 and a second end 44. The first end 42 of the sleeve 32 is coupled to the motor housing 100. The sleeve 32 remains stationary during operation. Although a mechanical fastener 202, such as a screw, is illustrated as coupling the first end 42 of the sleeve 32 to the motor housing 100, other commonly known mechanical methods of coupling the first end 42 of the sleeve 32 to the motor housing 100 are contemplated as being included in the present invention, and include, without limitation, pins, screws, spring loaded connectors and the like, including a plurality of mechanical fasteners. The second end 44 of the sleeve 32 is coupled to the upper portion 46 of the hub 18. The upper portion 46 of the hub 18 remains stationary during operation. Although a mechanical fastener 58 is illustrated as coupling the upper portion 46 of the hub 18 to the sleeve 32, other methods of coupling the upper portion 46 of the hub 18 to the sleeve 32 are contemplated as being included in the present invention, and include, without limitation, pins, screws, spring loaded connectors and the like, including a plurality of mechanical fasteners 58.
PNG
media_image7.png
760
444
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Most important aspect in Gajewski is his specific arrangement of the receiving structure comprising a hollow tube 16 and/or 32.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using the receiving structure with a hollow tube, as taught by Gajewski, with the retainer of Dias and Sargent, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case the use of receiving structure with a hollow tube, to achieve predictable results, in this case, to further provide a tensioning mechanism for tightening or lessening the tension in the cables. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Prior Art
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and consists of three patents.
US 2005/0207838 A1; US 2008/0107527 A1 and US 11,578,782 B1 are cited to show various wire attachments and/or tensioning assemblies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILYA PEKARSKAYA whose telephone number is (571)272-1158. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached on 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746