DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancari, DE 20301519 U1 in view of Rudnick, US 11224267 B.
Ancari discloses a magnetic, chain link necklace jewelry comprising a first component divided into parts A and B (10, 10) and a second component divided into first and second chain link components. The first chain link component connects parts A and B to their first ends (bottoms of parts A and B). The second chain link component (19) connects parts A and B to their second ends (tops of parts A and B). Ancari’s necklace is capable of at least two configurations. The first configuration, as shown in figure 6, is a large loop necklace. The second configuration is where magnets (10, 10, parts A and B) are connected to form two loops of the necklace, a top smaller loop and a bottom smaller loop.
Ancari discloses that parts A and B are a formed magnet and not an embedded magnet in the side of part A and B, as claimed. However, Rudnick discloses a magnetic necklace jewelry comprising a first component (figure 3) having magnets (304, 310) embedded inside part A (300) and part B (306).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rudnick also discloses a jewelry chain (102) as a second component.
PNG
media_image2.png
740
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
When part A (304) is detached from part B (310), the necklace forms a first loop (figure 1). When part A and part B are attached to one another, the necklace forms two loops, one smaller in circumference than the other (figure 6).
Both type of magnet arrangements, i.e., a whole magnet and an embedded in the side of an ornament magnet function equally as well as the other in converting the large loop necklace into two smaller loops. Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ancari’s magnet to include parts A and B with a body including an embedded magnet in the side as an alternative design to achieve the same results of being able to provide multiple configurations of the necklace.
The claim requires that the single large loop have a length in the range between 15-25 inches or 10-15 inches, which is a commonly known length of jewelry necklaces. Ancari fails to disclose the sizes of the large loop or the size of the smaller loops. It would have been obvious, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form Ancari’s single large loop to having a length in the range of 15-25 inches to make the necklace aesthetically appealing to the wearer.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Rudnick discloses small magnets (304, 310) embedded in part A and part B. The claim requires the magnets to have dimensions in the range of 1-2mm. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that magnetics are produced in this size and density range. The size and material of the magnet determines the magnetic flux density produced by the magnet, i.e., the retaining force connecting the two magnets. Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make Ancari in view of Rudnick’s magnets have dimensions in the size of 1-2mm and a magnetic flux and field strength between 33-35 BH to effectively provide the appropriately amount of magnetic force to secure part A to part B without it inadvertently disconnecting during wear of the necklace.
Regarding claim 3, Ancari and Rudnick discloses magnets (10, 304, 310), but fails to disclose the material of the magnets. The claim requires the magnets to be formed as nickel plated neodymium magnets. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that nickel plated neodymium magnets are old and well-known magnets. They would work equally as well as the magnets disclosed in Ancari and Rudnick. Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use nickel plated neodymium magnets in Ancari in view of Rudnick’s jewelry component as an effective magnetic for connecting part A to part B.
Regarding 5, Rudnick fails to disclose how the magnets are secured in part A and part B of the first component. The examiner takes official notice of the fact that hypoallergenic adhesives and solders are old and well-known materials and techniques for securing parts of a jewelry article to one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a non-harmful chemical adhesive to attach Rudnick’s magnets within part A and part B to properly secure the magnets to the jewelry component without any harmful effects produced on the wearer’s skin.
Regarding claim 9, Ancari discloses the jewelry chain being from gold (claim 11).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ancari in view of Rudnick, US 11224267 B and further in view of Budreck, US 3111736. Ancari in view of Rudnick discloses magnets embedded within part A and part B. The claim requires that the magnet extends from part A by 0.3mm and the magnet recesses within part B by 0.3mm, which is not shown in Rudnick. However, Budreck discloses this type of socket mechanical coupling in a magnetically connected parts (figures 3,5 and figures 8,9). This overlapping/socketing arrangement gives added mechanical stability to the magnetic coupling, i.e., it further prevents the lateral movement between the parts when magnetically coupled. Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the earliest effective filing date, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the overlap to Rudnick’s first component to improve its lateral securement of the coupled parts.
PNG
media_image3.png
370
451
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the amount of extension or embeddedness depends on how much lateral retention force is desired, i.e., the larger the extension/embeddedness, the larger the retention force. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to determine the required dimension of 0.3mm to provide the correct amount of retention desired for the mechanical portion of the magnetic coupling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 JACK W LAVINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 9-4pm (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, Tom Will can be reached on 571-272-6998. 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.
JACK W. LAVINDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JACK W LAVINDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677