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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-13, 19 and 20 remain in the application as withdrawn.
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 1-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donofrio (US 3,493,026) in view of Dole (US 7,921,536). As best seen in Figs. 3-6, Donofrio discloses a hold-together assembly and method comprising: a working part (32) secured to a mounting part (10); a threaded member (34) having a shaft (66) through an aperture in the working part; a washer annularly received on the shaft opposite a head which is then radially deformed to form two radial deformations (note the two arrows in Fig. 5) to secure the threaded member to the working part allowing for threaded member to rotate but, preventing axial movement (column 3, paragraph beginning line 43). The deformation are in localized regions circumferentially spaced to opposite sides of the shaft. Donofrio disclose the deformations on the washer to extend radially into the shank but not radially into the thread. Dole discloses a hold-together assembly where a washer extend radially into a thread (Figs. 4 and 5) as an alternative to a washer extends radially into a shank (Figs. 1-3). 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 threads in Donofrio extend the length of the shank and the washer deformations extend radially into the thread because Dole teaches that as an alternative yielding the same results.
In regards to claims 15 and 16 the vehicle sub-assembly and mounting part are recitations of intended use of the hold-together assembly of which modified Donofrio would be capable of.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donofrio in view of Dole as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Chretien. Modified Donofrio does not disclose a seatbelt buckle assembly. Chretien teaches to use a hold-together assembly in combination with seatbelt buckle assembly. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the hold-together assembly disclosed in modified Donofrio in a seatbelt assembly environment as disclosed in Chretien because Chretien teaches that as a possible use for a hold-together assembly.
Response to Remarks
The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn as a result of amendments to claims 1 and 17.
The 102(a)(1) rejection over Donofrio has been withdrawn as a result of amendment to claim 1.
The 102(a)(1) rejection over Chretien has been withdrawn as a result of amendment to claim 17.
The 103 rejection over Donofrio in view of Dole has been maintained and, as a result of the amendments to claims 1 and 17 the rejection is now applied to claims 1-8 and 15-18.
Applicant argues the claims define over the combination of Donofrio in view of Dole because neither Donofrio nor Dole teaches the threaded member having the ability to rotate after the washer has been installed. Applicant specifically points to Donofrio where it describes that the washer is deformed so that the screw “it cannot be threaded off” which applicant equates to eliminating both axial and rotational movement of the screw relative to the working part. In response, the examiner does not agree with applicant’s understanding of Donofrio. In what was quoted the “it” refers to the washer (equated to annular member 36 in Donofrio) not the working part (equated to clamp assembly 30 in Donofrio) so it is the washer than cannot be threaded off. After the deformation of the washer the working part is captivated to the screw but only in the axial direction. As described in the paragraph beginning line 61, after the working part is captivated with the screw the screw is “screwed into the insert 35” which would not be possible if the rotational movement of the screw was eliminated. In other words the screw would have to be allowed relative to the and working part or the screw would not be able to be screwed into the insert.
The applicant argued that Donofrio does not disclose the deformation of the washer occurs directly in the threaded portion. In response, the examiner agrees but Donofrio is not relied upon for teaching the deformation of the washer directly in threaded portion. Dole is relied upon for teaching the washer directly in the threaded portion as an alternative to the washer in a smooth portion as explained in the above rejection.
Applicant argues that Dole discloses a washer plastically deformed radially inward into the bolt threads providing a secure lock which prevents both axial and rotational movement which again contrasts the claimed invention which requires rotational movement. In response, the examiner does not necessarily agree that in Dole the rotational movement is prevented but, it is nonetheless irrelevant because Dole is only relied upon for the washer deformation that extends into the threads. The applicant does not point to nor does the examiner find any evidence in Dole which supports the relative rotational movement is prevented.
Applicant argues that in combining Donofrio and Dole the screw would be both axially and rotationally locked. In response, the examiner disagrees because for the reasons as explained above the screw would be only axially locked otherwise the device would be inoperative.
Applicant argues claim 6 separately arguing Donofrio does not disclose the washer deformed into engagement with the threads. In response, the examiner agrees but 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). Dole is relied upon for teaching the washer deformed into engagement with the threads.
In regards to claim 15 and 17, applicant reiterates the same arguments presented in regards to claim 1 and therefore no further response is believed necessary.
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