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 with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 18-29 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 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 sets forth “a first connecting element and second connecting element” and further states that “each connecting element comprising: a body…a base surface, an end side…a cavity…a slot…a plug-in component…a stalk portion and a head portion”. But, the claim also sets forth “one connecting element is inserted into the cavity of the other connecting element with its head portion inserted form the end side of the other connecting element”. It is not understood how all the elements of “one connecting element” can be inserted into the “cavity of the other connecting element”. The details of the claim are not sufficient to make the connection structure understood. Note that independent claims 18 and 27 set forth similar limitations which are not considered indefinite.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-6, 18, 22-24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dorman, U.S. Patent 2,797,463.
Regarding Claim 1, Swan teaches:
A first connecting element (2) and a second connecting element (3), each connecting element comprising:
a body (8) which has a base surface (on 8), and end side (see below) extending laterally relative to the base surface and a cavity (see below) open toward the end side, a slot (see below) opening toward the end side being provided in a wall of the cavity facing the base surface; and
a plug-in component (10) which protrudes from the base surface, is spaced apart from the end side, and has a stalk portion (see below) and a head portion (see below);
wherein the first and second connecting elements are configured to be connected to each other such that one connecting element is inserted into the cavity of the other connecting element with its head portion inserted from the end side of the other connecting element (see Fig. 3), and
wherein, during insertion, the one connecting element is guided with its stalk portion in the slot of the other connecting element, and the base surfaces of the connecting elements are opposing each other and are spaced apart from each other in a connected state (see Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
377
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Dorman teaches:
At least one of the connecting elements has a positioning component (10), which is configured to fix the connecting element in a movement direction of the connecting element defined by a base surface and the stalk portion.
Regarding Claim 5, Dorman teaches:
The positioning component is formed as latch elements of formed as a protrusion protruding from the base surface (see element 10).
Regarding Claim 6, Dorman teaches:
Each of the connecting element are formed integrally (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Dorman teaches:
A first connecting element (Fig. 3, element 2), comprising:
a body having a base surface and a cavity open toward an end of the body, a
slot opening provided in a wall of the cavity facing the base surface (see
rejection of Claim 1 above); and
a plug-in component protruding from the base surface and having a stalk portion and a head portion (see rejection of Claim 1 above); and
a second connecting element, comprising:
a body having a base surface and a cavity open toward an end of the body, a
slot opening provided in a wall of the cavity facing the base surface (see
rejection of Claim 1 above); and
a plug-in component protruding from the base surface and having a stalk portion and a head portion (see rejection of Claim 1 above);
wherein the first and second connecting element are configured to be connected to each other such that the plug-in component of one connecting element is inserted in to the cavity of the other connecting element (see Fig. 3, see rejection of Claim 1 above); and
wherein, during insertion, the one connecting element is guided with its stalk portion in the slot of the other connecting element, and the base surfaces of the connecting elements are opposing each other and are spaced apart from each other in a connected state (see Fig. 3, see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 22, Dorman teaches:
At least one of the connecting elements has a positioning component (10), which is configured to fix the connecting element in a movement direction of the connecting element defined by a base surface and the stalk portion.
Regarding Claim 23, Dorman teaches:
The positioning component is formed as latch elements of formed as a protrusion protruding from the base surface (see element 10).
Regarding Claim 24, Dorman teaches:
Each of the connecting element are formed integrally (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 27, Dorman teaches:
A first member (2);
a second member (3); and
a connection device comprising a first connecting element (elements 2) and second
connecting element (elements 3), each connecting element comprising:
a body (8) having a base surface (on 8) and a cavity (see below) open toward an end of the body, a slot opening (see below) provided in a wall of the cavity facing the base surface; and
a plug-in component (see below) protruding from the base surface and having a stalk portion and a head portion (see below),
wherein one of the connecting elements has a spacer protruding laterally from the stalk portion of the plug-in component (see below),
wherein the plug-in component of one connecting element is inserted into the cavity of the other connecting element to connect the first and second connecting elements to each other (see Fig. 3), and
wherein the first member is located between the base surface of the first connecting element and the spacer and the second member is located between the spacer and the base surface of the second connecting element (see below, note Fig. 4 and symmetry of first and second member).
PNG
media_image2.png
368
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 7 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorman, U.S. Patent 2,797,463.
Regarding Claims 7 and 25, Dorman teaches:
Each of the connecting elements are integrally formed of a plastic material (see Col 2, Lns 29-33).
Dorman does not teach:
By injection molding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Dorman ‘463 device made by injection molding because injection molding is an efficient and affordable process for high volume polymer manufacturing and the “injection molding” limitation amounts to a product-by-process claim and “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966. See MPEP 2113.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 8, 19-21, 26 and 28-29 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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.
/MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights