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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandell (US 6,426,215) in view of Farina et al. (2003/0129095). This rejection was applied in Paragraphs 15-23 of the Non-Final Rejection 10/01/05. The rejection remains in effect. Please see Response to Arguments below.
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandell (US 6,426,215) in view of Farina et al. (2003/0129095), and further in view of Turner et al. (US 2008/0233015). This rejection was applied in Paragraph 24 of the Non-Final Rejection 10/01/05. The rejection remains in effect. Please see Response to Arguments below.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandell (US 6,426,215) in view of Farina et al. (2003/0129095), and further in view of Pham et al. (US 6,171,780). This rejection was applied in Paragraph 25 of the Non-Final Rejection 10/01/05. The rejection remains in effect. Please see Response to Arguments below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/20/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to address the issues set forth in Paragraphs 5-10 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/01/25. See claims and page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/20/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandell (US 6,426,215) in view of Farina et al. (2003/0129095) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that “the disclosed configuration of its system's snap-fit mechanism 10 ‘extends upwards or downwards from the surrounding rim of the plate’. This configuration is shown clearly in the portion of Applicant's Fig. 1 below, with S-shaped snap fit part 10 extending upward and/or downward from the rim of the plate 5” and further:
“In contrast, the corresponding parts retaining devices/ribs 233/236 of Sandell are embodied not as upward/downward extensions but rather as cutout indentations from the middle of the support walls 231, as shown for example in Fig. 6 below, that are configured as a sideways arrangement. This structural difference also carries with it a distinction in functionality. In particular, according to col. 8, lines 1-6 of Sandell, the ribs 236 promote alignment between cover 20 and plate 30. Thus, said features are not configured for directly attaching two plates, as is the case with Applicant's system. Rather, they merely align cover 20 and plate 230”. See page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits Applicant is attacking the references individually. The Examiner further submits that the Examiner is relying upon the Farina reference for the feature of a snap fit mechanism that extends upwards or downwards from the surrounding rim of the plate. See Paragraphs 16-17 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/01/25.
The Examiner finally submits One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See MPEP 2145, Section IV.
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 DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is (571)272-1259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/DWAYNE K HANDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1798 July 30, 2026
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights