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 § 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 3 and 6 are 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. In claim 3, line 3 and claim 6, line 16, there is no antecedent basis for “the outside”; it is suggested to change “towards the outside” to --radially outwardly--. In claim 6, line 3, “a seat portion” is now a double inclusion since that feature was introduced by amendment to the previous line. In claim 6, the paragraph beginning line 8 is indefinite because in its first three lines the orientation of the extension portion on the shaft is claimed in relation to the seat portion but, the seat portion is a part of the grommet where the claims are only to the pin; and it is unclear what is “a side opposite to a shaft portion”; and it appears the “leg portion” and “seat portion” may have been reversed. Also in line 1 of that paragraph the second occurrence of “recessed” would be inherent in the preciously introduced “recessed groove”. Generally that entire paragraph is confusing. Lastly in the last line of claim 6, the grommet member “inserted” into the recessed groove contradicts the pin only “configured to be engaged with the grommet” as in the preamble. The claims were examined as best understood.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wollar (US 4,405,272). Wollar discloses a clip structure (5) comprising: a grommet member (6) having an insertion hole (10) which surrounds leg portions (16) configured to face a mounting member (11) and inserted into a hole; a pin (7) including a shaft portion inserted into the insertion hole (Fig. 4); the grommet includes a continuous ring shaped projecting portion (8) projecting from a seat portion (15) opposite the leg portions; the pin member includes a ring shaped support portion with an even circumferential surface on the shaft adjacent with the projecting portion; and a flange (12) is connected to the support portion forming a recessed groove (13) receiving the projection portion (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
759
media_image1.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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollar as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Koscik (US 4,085,651). Wollar does not disclose the leg portions having a rib to come into contact the hole. Koscik discloses a clip structure including a grommet (22) with leg portions (24) wherein the leg portions include ribs (82) for coming into contact with a mounting hole (48). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the leg portion of Wollar with ribs as disclosed Koscik in order to improve the engagement with the hole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as suggested above in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 appears may also be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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 FLEMMING SAETHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7071. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 7:00 eastern.
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.
/FLEMMING SAETHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675