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 § 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 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimann (US 9,995,331) in view of Kempf (US 2011/0123294) and Poe (US 3,988,808). Heimann discloses a grommet (20) fixed in a hole in a panel (B1) and receiving a stud (10), the grommet comprising: a hollow body (22); a flange at an end of the body (32); panel retention fingers (34) pivoted to an outer surface of the body (36) and configured to flex towards the outer surface when the hollow body is inserted in the hole and flex outward from the outer body to engage a bottom surface of the panel; and stud retention fingers (40) pivoted to an inner surface of the body (36) and configured to flex towards the inner wall when a head (12) of the stud is inserted in the grommet and flex away from the inner surface to engage an underside of the head when the head is fully inserted. The grommet is formed as a unitary body; the flange includes openings (33) aligned with the panel retention fingers; there are recesses in the inner and outer surfaces of the body to accommodate the flexing of the fingers (see Figs. 3 and 4); and the hollow body includes guide surfaces (at the entrance to the hollow body as shown in Fig. 4). The stud (10) includes a cylindrical body extending from the head to a hexagonal flange and a threaded shank (14) capable of being threaded into a component (B2). Heimann does not disclose the shape of each stud retention fingers as claimed. Kempf discloses a grommet (15) fixed to a hole (18) having a plurality of retention fingers (29) similar to Heimann but Kempf further shows (see Figs. 1 and 2) each of the retention fingers having a first width extending an across an inner surface at a proximal end, a second width at a juncture of the inner surface and an end surface and a third width at a distal end wherein the second width is smaller than the first and third widths and; each of the retention fingers has a first thickness at the first width, a second thickness at the second width and a third thickness at the third width wherein the second thickness is larger than the first and third thicknesses. Additionally, Kempf discloses a stud (2) wherein the juncture between the inner and end surfaces of each stud retention finger engages the stud (see Fig. 4). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the retention fingers of Heimann to have a shape as disclosed in Kempf because both fingers are for the same purpose of retaining a stud so modifying one with the other would yield the same predictable results.
Heimann in view of Kemps does not disclose the panel retention fingers have teeth nor the hole extending completely through the grommet. Poe discloses a stud (1) and grommet (15) assembly similar to modified Heimann but wherein panel retention fingers (18) include teeth (19) and the grommet has the hole extending completely through the grommet on the center axis. 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 panel retention fingers of modified Heimann with teeth as disclosed in Poe for accommodating panels having various thicknesses. And before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the hole extend completely through the grommet of modified Heimann as disclosed in Poe because it would simplify the grommet making it more economical in material and manufacturing.
Claims 10-15, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heimann in view of Kempf and Poe as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Flynn (US 9,631,653). Heimann in view of Kempf and Poe do not disclose the stud provided with a pair of flanges including an umbrella-shaped flange. Flynn discloses a stud (14) and grommet (12) assembly similar to modified Heimann but where the stud includes a pair of flanges (50, 80) to couple with a component (column 4, paragraph beginning line 64) wherein a stud flange includes an umbrella-shaped flange (78) to seal against a panel. 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 stud flange of modified Heimann with a pair of flanges and an umbrella-shape as disclosed in Flynn for the same purpose of coupling with a component and providing a sealing the hole in the panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 19-20 and 29-30 are allowed.
Claims 24 and 26 are 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.
Response to Remarks
In regards to the remarks still relevant to the pending rejection, applicant argues the claim 1 as amended defines over the combination of modified Heimann (US 9,995,331) in view of Poe (US 3,988,808). Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Heimann in view of Poe to meet the limitation of the grommet hole extending completely through the grommet along the center axis. Applicant argues that in Heimann the supporting element 42, blocking the hole along the central axis, is critical to invention of Heimann thus it would not have been obvious to remove it in view of Poe because it would make the invention unsuitable for its intended purpose. In response, the examiner understands the applicants’ position and agrees that the supporting elements is preferred. However, Heimann additionally discloses that the supporting element “may also provide only a punctual abutment” if there is sufficient support with the holding webs (paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7). Therefore, the abutment is not necessity in all application and could be removed when there is sufficient force provided by the holding webs (fingers). As such the skilled artisan would have recognized that the abutment is not critical or necessary and the grommet could have been improved by not having the abutment and the complexities associated therewith such as taught in Poe.
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 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
Prosecution Insights