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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2013/0071177 A1) in view of Wang ‘647 (US 2016/0138647 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a fastener structure (see Fig. 10), provided at a handle (3), comprising:
a body (32), wherein the body is U-shaped (see Fig. 2) or L-shaped and is formed integral with the handle (see Fig. 10); and
a fastening portion (1), movably assembled with the body by a coupler (322), and being configured to be receivingly fastened into, assembled into or fitted with a hole portion (101) of a coupling counterpart (10), the bottom surface (B in annotated Figure 10 below) and a top surface (A in annotated Figure 10 below) of the coupling counterpart are exposed outside (see Fig. 10) when the fastening portion is fastened into, assembled into or fitted the hole portion (see Fig. 10), and
wherein a distance between the coupler and the fastening portion is fixed when the handle moves relative to the fastening portion (see Fig. 10 and see NOTE below), and there is no elastic element between the fastening portion (1) and the body (32, see Fig. 10).
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of “…fixed when the handle moves relative to the fastening portion…” are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 1 is that the distance is capable of being fixed when the handle moves relative to the fastening portion.
Wang fails to disclose as claimed that the hole portion is tapered and expands inward from a bottom surface of the coupling counterpart towards the body,
wherein the fastening portion comprises a material retaining portion extending into the hole portion, the material retaining portion comprises a root, an end, and two lateral sides, a distance between the root and the end is equal to a distance between the top surface and the bottom surface, the two lateral sides are parallel and extending from the root to the end, and a distance between the two lateral sides extending from the root to the end is consistent,
wherein the material retaining portion is configured to be laterally expanded when the fastening portion is pressed by an external force in a direction towards the body, for retaining the coupling counterpart, so as to fix and assemble the fastening portion and the coupling counterpart.
However, Wang ‘647 teaches a fastener structure comprising a fastening portion (2 in Fig. 5) and a coupling counterpart (3 in Fig. 5), the hole portion of the coupling counterpart (see Fig. 5) is tapered and expands inward from a bottom surface of the coupling counterpart towards the body (see Fig. 5),
wherein the fastening portion comprises a material retaining portion (22 in Fig. 5) extending into the hole portion (see Fig. 5), the material retaining portion comprises a root (C in annotated Figure 5 below), an end (D in annotated Figure 5 below), and two lateral sides (see Fig. 5), a distance between the root and the end is equal to a distance between the top surface (E in annotated Figure 5 below) and the bottom surface (F in annotated Figure 5 below), the two lateral sides are parallel and extending from the root to the end (see Fig. 5), and a distance between the two lateral sides extending from the root to the end is consistent (see Fig. 5),
wherein the material retaining portion is configured to be laterally expanded when the fastening portion is pressed by an external force in a direction towards the body (see Figs. 12-13), for retaining the coupling counterpart, so as to fix and assemble the fastening portion and the coupling counterpart (see Fig. 5), in order to provide a material retaining portion that is a consistent thickness along its length, in comparison to Wang, such that the weight of the material retaining portion can be reduced and therefore reduce manufacturing costs when using costly materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastener structure of Wang, with Wang ‘647, such that it comprises the laterally expanded material retaining portion of Wang ‘647, in order to provide a material retaining portion that is a consistent thickness along its length, in comparison to Wang, such that the weight of the material retaining portion can be reduced and therefore reduce manufacturing costs when using costly materials.
NOTE: The handle (3) is capable of being moved relative to the fastening portion (1) in a rotational manner about the longitudinal axis of stem (2) while keeping the distance between the coupler (322) and the fastening portion (1) fixed.
PNG
media_image1.png
507
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 10.
PNG
media_image2.png
548
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 5.
PNG
media_image3.png
554
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 5.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wang and Wang ‘647 teaches wherein the handle (3 of Wang, see Fig. 10 of Wang) is picked up by a tool and placed at the coupling counterpart (10 of Wang) so as to be assembled.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of claim 2 are given limited patentable weight. All that is required of claim 2 is that the handle is capable of being picked up and placed at the coupling counterpart by a tool.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wang and Wang ‘647 teaches wherein the handle (3 of Wang, see Fig. 10 of Wang) is picked up by a tool and placed on an assembly position of the coupling counterpart (10 of Wang), or the handle (3 of Wang) is picked up by the tool, compared with the assembly position of the coupling counterpart (10 of Wang) by a comparison device, and placed on the assembly position of the coupling counterpart.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of claim 3 are given limited patentable weight. All that is required of claim 3 is that the handle is capable of being picked up and placed at the assembly position by a tool.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wang and Wang ‘647 teaches wherein the handle (3 of Wang, see Fig. 10 of Wang) is configured to be placed on a carrier, which comprises or does not comprise a cover.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of claim 4 are given limited patentable weight. All that is required of claim 4 is that the handle is capable of being placed on a carrier.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2013/0071177 A1) and Wang ‘647 (US 2016/0138647 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Porter (US 2017/0298976 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wang and Wang ‘647 teaches the body (32 of Wang), the fastening portion (1 of Wang), or the neck of the handle (3 of Wang).
The combination of Wang and Wang ‘647 fails to teach as claimed that the body, the fastening portion, or the neck of the handle is formed by plastic in-mold injection.
However, Porter teaches a fastener formed of plastic injection molding (see Fig. 5B) in order to provide a fastener made of plastic in an efficient manner, and further including a combination of rigidity and structural collapsibility when necessary (see paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wang and Wang ‘647, with Porter, such that it comprises a plastic injection molding construction in order to provide a fastener made in an efficient manner, and further including a combination of rigidity and structural collapsibility when necessary (see paragraph [0023] of Porter).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 04 August 2025, pages 3-4, recite: “…As shown in the following annotated FIGS. 3 and 4 of Wang-177, when the wrench section 31 is moved and the pushing section 32 is thus rotated, the pivot 322 moves upwardly/downwardly during the rotation of the pushing section 32 of the wrench unit 3. Accordingly, the distance between the pivot 322 and the sleeve 1 is changed when the pushing section 32 of the wrench unit 3 is rotated (as shown in the following figures, d1 is different from d2)…” and “…Therefore, Wang-177 fails to disclose “a distance between the coupler and the fastening portion is fixed when the handle moves relative to the fastening portion” recited in the amended claim 1 of the present application…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of “…fixed when the handle moves relative to the fastening portion…” are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 1 is that the distance is capable of being fixed when the handle moves relative to the fastening portion. Further, the handle (3) is capable of being moved relative to the fastening portion (1) in a rotational manner about the longitudinal axis of stem (2) while keeping the distance between the coupler (322) and the fastening portion (1) fixed. Therefore, the rejection stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 04 August 2025, page 5, recites: “…Accordingly, Wang-177 neither teaches nor suggests “there is no elastic element between the fastening portion and the body” recited in the amended claim 1 of the present application. The fastener structure of the present application (simplified assembling) 1s nonobvious over the cited references (e.g., the apparatus of Wang-177, in which an elasticity unit 4 and a positioning unit 2 should be arranged as mentioned above)…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It can be clearly seen in Figs. 1 and 10 of Wang that there is no elastic element between the fastening portion (1) and the body (32). The elastic element (4) could be interpreted as being between the fastening portion (1) and member (22 of Fig. 1) in order to produce a fastening tension force. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 stands as the prior art reads on the new claim limitations.
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 ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678