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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus US6264393 (hereinafter, Kraus) in view of Clarke US6752950 (hereinafter, Clarke), in further view of Tanaka US5641255 (hereinafter, Tanaka).
Regarding claim 1, Kraus in the same field of endeavor, teaches a fastener assembly for forming a sealed connection between a first panel and a second panel (see panels 2 and 55 in Figs. 4 and 5a-5b), the fastener assembly (see Figs. 1a-d) comprising:
a rigid part component 1 configured to retain the second panel relative to the first panel,
wherein the rigid part component comprises a head portion (Head, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) configured to engage the first panel and a shaft portion 5 extending from the head portion along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1 showing central dotted line as a longitudinal axis where shaft extends vertically in downward direction) comprising a linear segment of greater surface area (see interface 14 in Figs. 1-2 having linear segment extending in longitudinal direction with greater surface area than shank 5) adjacent to the head portions; and
The Examiner interprets both, component 15 and component 20, combined in Fig. 1 to be a flexible seal.
a flexible seal (Seal, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) that is integral with the rigid part component and positioned at an interface 14 which surrounds the linear segment with engagement features extending in the longitudinal direction (see Figs. 1-2 showing flexible seal posited at an interface 14 surrounding linear segments),
wherein the interface defines a non-circular horizontal cross-section (10, see Figs. 1-2 and 4-5) taken along a cut-line perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1).
Kraus fails to teach wherein the seal is a unitary flexible seal.
However, Clarke teaches a unitary flexible seal 14 providing effective seal around the periphery of the aperture (see Figs. 5-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the flexible seal of Kraus to a unitary flexible seal as taught by Clarke for efficient molding for its effective intended use as shown in Figs. 5-6.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified seal component to a unitary flexible seal, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Kraus fails to teach wherein the rigid part component is fabricated from a part material and the flexible seal is fabricated from a seal material that is different from the part material.
Clarke in the same field of endeavor teaches a fastener device having a fastener portion and integral seal portion of different material (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Kraus’ rigid part component to be made from a part material and the flexible seal fabricated from a seal material that is different from the part material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetic, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have Kraus’ rigid part component from a part material and the flexible seal fabricated from a seal material as taught by Clarke to have improved advantage of the fastener device and the sealing device, where each component enhances their respective functional purposes (see column 1, lines 55-65).
As best understood, Kraus fails to teach wherein an outer contour of the non-circular horizontal cross-section of the interface includes at least four tapered lobes.
However, Tanaka teaches a clip 10 which is comprised of a male member 14 and a female member 12, wherein an outer contour of the non-circular horizontal cross-section of the interface includes at least four tapered lobes 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in thar art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the interface of Kraus to have four tapered lobe as taught by Tanaka for guided and translational movement of the shank to engage male member with the female member (see Figs. 1-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
568
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener assembly of claim 1, Clarke further teaches wherein the rigid part component and the flexible seal are fabricated to form the fastener assembly via a two-shot injection process (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener assembly of claim 2, wherein Kraus further teaches the rigid part component conforms to and bonds with an inner interface surface of the flexible seal to define the interface.
Please refer to Fig. 4 where the rigid part component conforms to and bonds with an inner interface surface of the flexible seal at bonding region between reference numbers 10 and 18.
Regarding claim 5, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener assembly of claim 4, wherein Kraus further teaches the flexible seal conforms to and bonds with an outer interface surface (10, see Fig. 1) of the rigid part component to define the interface.
Regarding claim 6, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the at least one lobe is an arrow.
However, the Examiner interprets changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of criticality of the arrow shaped lobe in the disclosure. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of lobe in Kraus to be arrow shape as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Regarding claim 7, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener assembly of claim 6, but fails to teach wherein the at least one lobe is a dovetail.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the shape of the locking element (10) in Kraus to be a dovetail in order to improve the connection of interface. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the shape of the locking element to dovetail as an obvious change in shape.
Further, modifying the shape of locking element to dovetail improves strength and stability of the interface region preventing the flexible seal from losing its bond with rigid part.
Regarding claim 8, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener assembly of 6, Tanaka further teaches wherein the at least one lobe forms a longitudinal taper in a direction along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 9, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener assembly of claim 1, wherein Kraus further teaches the rigid part component is configured to engage the second panel (2, in Fig. 4) via a second fastener component (12, see Fig. 1d) coupled thereto.
Regarding claim 10, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener assembly of claim 9, wherein Kraus further teaches the second fastener component is a grommet (see Figs. 1 and 4) configured to engage an opening (7, see Fig. 4) formed in the second panel.
Regarding claim 11, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener assembly of claim 9, wherein the rigid part component is a pin (see Figs. 1-5).
The Examiner interprets the rigid part component (1) in Kraus as a pin because installation of the rigid part component is carried out by inserting or applying pressure to the element 1.
Regarding claim 17, Kraus in view of Clarke teaches a pin and grommet (P&G) fastener (see Fig. 1) for forming a sealed connection between a first panel and a second panel, the P&G fastener comprising:
a grommet (12, see Fig. 1); and
a fastener assembly comprising a rigid part component (1, see Fig. 1) and a flexible seal (seal, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) that is integrally coupled with the rigid part component at an interface (14, see Fig. 2) and completely encloses the grommet after installation (see Fig. 4),
wherein the rigid part component defines a longitudinal axis (see dotted central line extending vertically in Fig. 1),
wherein the flexible seal is fabricated from a first material and the rigid part component is fabricated from a second material that is different from the first material. (Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth for claim 1 above)
wherein the rigid part component configured to retain the second (2, see Fig. 5) panel relative to the first panel (55, see Fig. 5) via the grommet (12), and
wherein the interface defines a horizontal cross-section taken along a cut line perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and
wherein an outer contour of the horizontal cross-section of the interface is non-circular and includes one or more dovetails to interlock the flexible seal with the rigid part component. (Please refer to rejection and rationale set forth for claims 1 and 7 above based on Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka.)
Regarding claim 18, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the P&G fastener of claim 17, wherein Kraus further teaches the fastener assembly comprises a head portion (Head, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) configured to engage the first panel (55) and a shaft portion (5, see Fig. 1) extending from the head portion.
Regarding claim 19, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the P&G fastener of claim 18, wherein the flexible seal is positioned adjacent the head portion to surround the shaft portion (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 20, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the P&G fastener of claim 17, wherein the rigid part component and the flexible seal are fabricated to form the fastener assembly via a two-shot injection process.
The Examiner interprets the limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to limitations in claim 2, where Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka still teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 21, A fastener for forming a sealed connection between a first component and a second component, the fastener comprising:
a rigid part component configured to retain the second component relative to the first component,
wherein the rigid part component is fabricated from a part material and comprises a head portion configured to engage the first component and a shaft portion extending from the head portion along a longitudinal axis; and
a flexible seal that is integral with the rigid part component and bonded to the rigid part at an interface adjacent the head portion to surround the shaft portion (see Figs. 1-5 in Kraus showing locking elements 10 engages with the counter tops 18 in the jacket zone 17 of the casing component 15),
wherein the flexible seal is fabricated from a seal material that is different form the part material,
wherein the interface defined a non-circular horizontal cross-section taken along a cut line that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
(Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 1 for limitations above based on Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka)
Furthermore, Kraus in view of Clarke fails to teach wherein the interface defined an outer contour of the non-circular horizontal cross-section defines four lobes around the longitudinal axis that are configured to interlock the flexible seal with the rigid part component.
However, Tanaka teaches a clip 10 which is comprised of a male member 14 and a female member 12, wherein an outer contour of the non-circular horizontal cross-section of the interface includes at least four tapered lobes 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in thar art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the interface of Kraus to have four tapered lobe as taught by Tanaka for guided and translational movement of the shank to engage male member with the female member (see Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 22, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener of claim 21, but fails to teach wherein each of the four lobes is a dovetail.
However, the Examiner interprets changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of criticality of the dovetail shaped lobe in the disclosure. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of lobe in Kraus to be arrow shape as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Regarding claim 23, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener of claim 21, but fails to teach wherein each of the four lobes is an arrow.
However, the Examiner interprets changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of criticality of the arrow shaped lobe in the disclosure. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of lobe in Kraus to be arrow shape as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Regarding claim 24, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener of claim 21, but fails to teach wherein each of the four lobes is a saw-toothed cross.
However, the Examiner interprets changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of criticality of the saw-toothed cross shaped lobe in the disclosure. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of lobe in Kraus to be arrow shape as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Regarding claim 25, Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener of claim 21, wherein Kraus further teaches rigid part 1 comprises a tree fastener (see rigid part shaped like a tree).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka, in further view of Lewis et al., US20080052878 (hereinafter, Lewis).
Regarding claim 4, Kraus in view of Clarke in further view of Tanaka teaches the fastener assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the flexible seal is over-molded onto the rigid part component to form the fastener assembly.
The Examiner notes that the instant 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 step 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.
However, Lewis in the same field of endeavor teaches a single piece fastener includes a relatively hard clip and a relatively soft seal where the seal can be over molded onto the clip (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have flexible seal taught by Kraus in view of Clarke, in further view of Tanaka to be over-molded as taught by Lewis for molding of parts in desired orientation to achieve better positional tolerances at the conclusion of forming of the fastener system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection to claims 1-11 and 17-25 has been established above based on existing and newly found prior art. Please refer to rejection and rationale set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hubert et al., (US20140050548) teaches a Fastening Clip, in particular a lining part of a motor vehicle to a body sheet, having an anchor member (12), a locking member (16) and a sealing member (14) in Fig. 1.
Bugner (US20080276436) teaches a Device for Connecting a Carrier Part A and an Add-on Piece, where the device includes a receiving part (1), an anchoring part (3) and a connecting part (2). See Fig. 1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights