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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 is dependent on a withdrawn claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11-12, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al., US20160223010 (hereinafter, Williams).
Regarding claim 11, Williams teaches a retainer clip 1 of a compression-limiting fastener assembly (see Figs. 1-2) for attaching a first component having a first opening relative to a second component having a second opening (intended use), the retainer clip comprising:
a body portion having a pair of generally parallel legs 10, 12 that are resiliently connected to define a channel (see U shaped channel formed by parallel legs 10, 12 and the side plate 14), wherein the body portion is configured to engage the first component 32 via the first opening and the channel (see Figs. 5);
a recessed pocket 28 formed in one of said pair of generally parallel legs, wherein the recessed pocket configured to maintain a first distance (d1, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) between the pair of generally parallel legs; and
a fastener hole (see central hole of recessed pocket 28 where the bolt 36 is received in Fig. 5) formed in said recessed pocket,
wherein the recessed pocket 28 is configured to serve as a compression stop that limits deflection of the pair of generally parallel legs toward one another during tightening of the male fastener (see rejection set forth in claim 1 above).
Williams fails to teach where the recessed pocket contacts the opposing leg in a plane aligned with the body portion of the retaining leg when compressed.
However, Williams does teach the recessed pocket 28 is compressed between the body portion and contacts the cone shaped dent to prevent the damage cause by overload (see para. [0025]).
Further, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the shape of recessed pocket 28 in Williams to be larger in order to withstand the overload cause onto the flange 32 (see Figs. 1-2), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding clam 12, Williams teaches and/or make obvious of the retainer clip of claim 11, wherein the recessed pocket 28 is configured to contact the other one of the pair of generally parallel legs (see modification and rationale established in claim 11 above).
Regarding claim 14, Williams teaches and/or make obvious of the retainer clip of claim 11, wherein the body portion defines a guide lip 24 at an entrance to the channel (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, Williams teaches and/or make obvious of the retainer clip of claim 11, wherein Williams further teaches the body portion comprises one or more clip tabs 24 configured to secure the retainer clip to the first component via an interference fit.
Regarding claim 17, Williams teaches and/or make obvious of the compression-limiting fastener assembly of claim 16, wherein each of the one or more clip tabs 24 extends into the channel from one of the pair of generally parallel legs (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Williams teaches and/or make obvious of the retainer clip of claim 11, wherein the body portion is a stamped- metal component (para. [0019]).
Claims 1, 4-7, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Daniel et al., US6575658 (hereinafter, Daniel).
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses a compression-limiting fastener assembly (see Fig. 2) for attaching a first component having a first opening relative to a second component having a second opening (intended use), the compression-limiting fastener assembly comprising:
a male fastener 36 having a head and a shank (see Fig. 2 for a head and a shank of the fastener 36);
a retainer clip 1 having a recessed pocket 28 with a fastener hole (see Figs. 1-2 and 5) formed therein,
wherein the retainer clip comprises a body portion having a pair of generally parallel legs 10, 12 that are resiliently connected to define a channel (see U shaped channel formed by parallel legs 10, 12 and the side plate 14),
wherein the recessed pocket is configured to maintain a first distance (d1, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) between the pair of generally parallel legs, and
wherein the retainer clip is configured to engage the first component 32 via the first opening and the channel; and
a female fastener 38 having a bore (see central bore of nut 38 in Fig. 2), wherein the shank is configured to pass through the fastener hole and the second opening to engage the bore (see Fig. 5),
wherein the recessed pocket 28 is configured to serve as a compression stop that limits deflection of the pair of generally parallel legs toward one another during tightening of the male fastener (see para. 0025 states that the recessed pocket 28 functions as a stopper to keep the fastener plates 10, 12 apart from each other).
Williams fails to teach wherein the retainer clip further comprises a tab extending from an outer surface in a direction opposite a fastener insertion direction.
However, Daniel teaches a device (see Figs. 12-13) for assembling a steering column bracket with a steering gear shaft, wherein the retainer clip 1 further comprise a tab 83, 84 extending from an outer surface (see Figs. 12-13) in a direction opposite a fastener insertion direction (see tab 83, 84 connected by an end base 82 extending in a direction opposite to a fastener insertion direction).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention for retainer clip in Willaims modified to have tab as taught by Daniel to engage and retain the clamping bolt (see Figs. 12-13).
PNG
media_image1.png
254
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Williams in view of Daniel teaches and/or make obvious of the compression-limiting fastener assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the recessed pocket is formed in one of the pair of generally parallel legs and is configured to contact the other one of the pair of generally parallel legs.
However, Williams does teach the recessed pocket 28 is compressed between the body portion and contacts the cone shaped dent to prevent the damage cause by overload (see para. [0025]).
Further, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the shape of recessed pocket 28 in Williams to be larger in order to withstand the overload cause onto the flange 32 (see Figs. 1-2) and contact the other one of the pair of generally parallel legs, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 4, Williams in view of Daniel teaches and/or make obvious of the compression-limiting fastener assembly of claim 1, wherein Williams further teaches the body portion defines a guide lip 24 at an entrance to the channel (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Williams in view of Daniel teaches and/or make obvious of the compression-limiting fastener assembly of claim 1, wherein Williams modified by Daniel further teaches the tab is a retainer tab (see tab established in claim 1 above) capable of being configured to retain the head of the male fastener within the recessed pocket prior to assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Williams in view of Daniel teaches and/or make obvious of the compression-limiting fastener assembly of claim 1, wherein Williams further teaches the body portion comprises one or more clip tabs (see tabs 24 in each side of the body 10 in Figs. 1-2) configured to secure the retainer clip to the first component via an interference fit.
Regarding claim 7, Williams in view of Daniel teaches and/or make obvious of the compression-limiting fastener assembly of claim 6, wherein Williams further teaches each of the one or more clip tabs 24 extends into the channel (see tabs 24 extending downwards towards the channel) from one of the pair of generally parallel legs 20.
Regarding claim 9, Williams in view of Daniel teaches and/or make obvious of the compression-limiting fastener assembly of claim 1, wherein the retainer clip is a stamped-metal component (para. [0019]).
Regarding claim 15, Williams teaches and/or make obvious of the retainer clip of claim 13, wherein Willaims modified by Daniel further teaches the body portion comprises a retainer tab configured to retain the head of the male fastener within the recessed pocket prior to assembly (see rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 1).
Claims 8 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Daniel, in further view of Bisset et al., US20150086290 (hereinafter, Bisset).
Regarding claim 8, Williams in view of Daniel teaches and/or make obvious of the compression-limiting fastener assembly of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the shank comprises a shoulder adjacent the head that is configured to pass through the fastener hole and the second opening to maintain a second distance (D2) between the body portion and the female fastener, wherein the shoulder directly abuts the female fastener to define the second distance (D2) independent of clamping force applied to the body portion.
However, Bisset teaches similar Compression limiting fastening system (see Figs. 1-2) wherein a shank 19 comprises a shoulder (S, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) adjacent the head 17 that is configured to pass through the fastener hole (see Figs. 1-2) and the second opening to maintain a second distance between the body portion and the female fastener (the Examiner interprets the system and bolt in Bisset is capable of being configured to maintain a second distance upon connecting with female fastener).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the bolt of Williams to have shoulder adjacent to the head as taught by Bisset to increase the biasing force between the bolt and the clamping fingers/portion of the clip (para. (0023]).
Further, upon modification of the threaded fastener above, it is the examiner’s position that combination above is capable of being configured to create distance (D2) without clamping force as a part of installation steps. Please refer to the rejection above where all the structural limitations are met based on Williams modified by Bisset.
PNG
media_image2.png
288
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 21, Williams teaches a retainer clip 1 configured for use with a compression-limiting fastener assembly, the retainer clip comprising:
a body portion having a pair of generally parallel legs that are resiliently connected
at one end to define a channel (see central hole/channel in Fig. 1) therebetween (see Fig. 1 and legs 10, 12);
a central sleeve 28 extending from a first one of the pair of generally parallel legs into
the channel (see Fig. 1), the central sleeve defining a fastener hole (see central hole of sleeve 28); and
one or more retainer tabs 22 extending from a second one of the pair of generally
parallel legs,
wherein the central sleeve has a height corresponding to a first distance (d1, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) between the pair of generally parallel legs such that the central sleeve is configured to contact the second leg to limit deflection of the legs toward one another during tightening (para. [0025]).
Williams in view of Daniel fails to teach wherein the retainer clip is configured such that a head of a male fastener is, when assembled, positioned external to and flush with an outer surface of said second leg.
However, Bisset teaches a compression limiting fastening system (see Figs. 1-3) showing the retainer clip is configured such that a head 17 of a male fastener is, when assembled, (see Figs. 1-2), positioned to and flush with an outer surface 34 of said second leg (see Figs. 1-3).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have fastener in Williams to be modified to have head structure as taught by Bisset for the equally distributed load maybe applied by the fastener when assembling the system (see Figs. 1-2).
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the shape of the head in Williams as disclosed by Bisset flush head in order to provide distributed compression load, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Furthermore, it is the examiner’s position that Williams in view of Daniel, in further view of Bisset is capable of being configured where head of the fastener is at least partially in contact with the one or more retainer tabs (see rejection established in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 22, William in view of Daniel, in further view of Bisset teaches and/or make obvious of the retainer clip of claim 21, wherein William further teaches the one or more retainer tabs 22 are bent to extend at approximately ninety degrees (see Fig. 1 showing retainer tabs extending not exactly ninety degrees, but appears to be bent approximately/closer to ninety degrees) relative to the outer surface of the second leg and are in direct contact with side surfaces of the head (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 23, Williams in view of Daniel, in further view of Bisset teaches and/or make obvious of the retainer clip of claim 21, wherein Williams further teaches the body portion further comprises one or more clip tabs 24 extending into the channel from at least one of the pair of generally parallel legs (see clip tabs 24 extending towards bottom and towards channel between the first and second legs 10, 12) and configured to secure the retainer clip to a first component via an interference fit (see Figs. 3-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, filed 09/10/2026, in response to Drawing objection in previous Office Action has been found persuasive, therefore Drawing objection of Previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2026 have been fully considered, however rejection based on existing and/or newly found prior art has been set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights