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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “it is not possible for the aperture to receive the female connector interface portion” because these components are integral. However, since elements 32 and 90 are clearly separately manufactured elements that are then made integral (likely by welding or brazing) then the aperture (which is defined by both the outer diameter of the spring and the void inside the diameter) must be received at the surface of element 32 in order to be made integral with element 32 (Examiner notes that this surface is not provided with a reference numeral). This is interpreted to meet the claim limitation as currently written. However, limitations requiring the “part of the female connector interface portion” to be received IN the aperture would traverse this interpretation. See the attached NPL sample from Merriam-Webster online dictionary which discusses the use of the term “receive” in engineering contexts such as “to take the weight of pressure of” which is met by the prior art. Furthermore, the female connector can be interpreted as being received “around” the coil spring. Note that there are two mechanical definitions and the prior art clearly meets one of these “designed to “receive” or bear a specific load, pressure, or weight” is clearly met by the prior art spring 90 relative to the female connector.
Arguments directed to Fevre are traversed because this prior art is not relied upon to remedy the female connector portion part being received IN the aperture since the claim does not require the part to be received IN the aperture.
Applicant arguments directed to the X-Y-Z axes are persuasive. The 112 rejection is therefore withdrawn.
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) 1-9 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over anticipated by Lindberg, U.S. Patent 5,154,385 in view of Fevre, FR Patent 2768205.
Regarding Claim 1, Lindberg teaches:
a male connector (32) comprising a batten interface portion (80/86) for attachment to a
batten, and a female connector interface portion (98/104/108) for engaging a female connector; and
a female connector (26) comprising a support structure interface portion (40) for attaching to a support structure and a male connector interface portion (44/48) for engaging the male connector, the male connector interface portion including a retainer (36/38).
Lindberg further teaches a resilient coil spring (90) comprising an aperture (see 90, in fig. 2) which receives at least part of the female connector (Col 6, Lns 54-56) and biases the female connector interface portion against the retainer when in use.
Lindberg does not teach:
a resilient clip comprising of an aperture, wherein the aperture receives at least part of
the female connector interface portion and the clip biases the female connector interface portion against the retainer when in use.
Fevre teaches a connection device which employs a leaf spring or resilient clip to bias a connection (see figs. 2-7, see element 95 in fig. 20)
At the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Lindberg with a leaf spring or resilient clip as taught by Fevre because that would allow element 32 of Lindberg to be attached to spring 90 in a non-integral manner that still permits rotation of element 32, but also permits easy replacement of the spring/resilient clip.
Regarding Claim 2, both the prior arts teach the “clips” having an aperture (see Lindberg, fig. 2, element 90 and see Fevre, elements 95, 98). At the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Lindberg-Fevre with a nut-and-bolt structure to secure the male connector to the resilient clip because that would permit assembly and disassembly as required without altering the performance of the device.
Regarding Claim 3, Lindberg, in the Lindberg-Fevre combination, teaches:
wherein the retainer comprises a pair of arms (36, 38) extending from a base (40) of the female connector to define a channel (see fig. 1) dimensioned for receiving the female connector interface portion of the male connector (see fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 4, Lindberg, in the Lindberg-Fevre combination, teaches:
wherein each arm includes a projection (42, 44) which extends inwardly into the channel
Regarding Claim 5, see Lindberg, fig. 1 and see Col 7, Lns 7-20. It is abundantly to clear that the structure of Lindberg and Lindberg as modified by Fevre would satisfactorily render the functions of this claim obvious.
Regarding Claims 6-8, see 112 rejections above, and note that the coordinate axis of the prior art as set forth below satisfies the pending claim limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, see fig. 20 of Fevre which clearly shows a curved resilient clip.
Regarding Claims 12-20, Examiner notes that the method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg-Fevre as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita, U.S. Patent 10,056,716.
Regarding Claims 10-11, the prior arts are silent with regard to the features of these claims.
Fujita clearly teaches a male female connector that employs a leaf spring (or resilient clip) that resides within a recess or rebate (see below) with at least one tab (114a) to frictionally retain the resilient clip in the rebate or recess
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Lindberg-Fevre with the features of Fujita because that would allow for tool free assembly of the device which ease assembly costs.
PNG
media_image2.png
434
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights