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Claims 5-8 and 19-20 remain in the application as withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10-11, 13-16, 18 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In each of the independent claim there is found no support for the panel-engagement feature configured to “engage an underside” of the panel. To the contrary the edge of the teeth facing the head are shown at an angle relative to horizontal plane such they would engage only an edge of the panel opening and not the panel underside.
PNG
media_image1.png
426
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paquet (US 2008/0286066). Paquet discloses a stamped metal retainer to couple a component (24) having a tower (23) to a panel (22) that would be capable of having various thicknesses which inherently would be inclusive of a first thickness and a larger second thickness. The retainer comprises: a body formed as a pair of parallel legs (5) flexibly connected to one another at a head portion (1) defining a cavity (16) for receiving the tower; a panel-engagement feature (18); and at least one portion with a retaining tab (19) coupled directly to the body portion configured to engage the tower and cause the panel engagement feature to push into the panel (p.[0020]). The panel-engagement feature is sloped defining at least two locations that are different distances from the head lower portion capable of accommodating the different panel thicknesses. The engagement with underside of the panel and the outward bias to push the panel-engagement feature into the panel are both recitations of intended use of which Paquet would be capable of since they are dependent on the panel which is not claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
826
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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, 10-11, 13-16, 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofmann (US 2021/0131771) in view of Vassiliou (US 6,691,380). In considering the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-11, Hoffmann discloses a stamped metal retainer (16) to couple a component (20) having a tower (32) to a panel (14) that would be capable of having various thicknesses which inherently would be inclusive of a first thickness and a larger second thickness. The retainer comprises: a body formed as a pair of parallel legs (40) flexibly connected to one another (at 38) defining a cavity for receiving the tower; a panel-engagement feature (18); at least one portion with a retaining tab (pointed to below) configured to engage the tower and cause the panel engagement feature to push into the panel (p.[0047]); and at least one portion directly coupled to the body extending into the channel to engage the tower. The head is defined by a pair of spring shaped flanges (44) extending outwardly from a free end of the legs defining the body which would be capable of absorbing movements. The panel-engagement feature is sloped defining at least two locations that are different distances from the head lower portion capable of accommodating the different panel thicknesses. Additionally as pointed to below, the retainer includes upper and lower head portion where the upper portion comprises a retaining tab.
PNG
media_image3.png
588
889
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hofmann does not disclose the panel-engagement feature comprising a saw-tooth structure. Vassiliou discloses a stamped-metal retainer including a panel-engagement feature similar to Hofmann except in Vassiliou the panel-engagement (20) includes a fin (48) with a saw-tooth structure defining a plurality of offset steps (50). The steps are different distances from the from the legs such that the step farthest from the head is spaced farthest from the respective leg (18 or 20) as seen in Fig. 1. 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-engagement feature of Hofmann with a saw-tooth structure as disclosed in Vassiliou for an improved accommodating different thickness panels as discussed in Vassiliou (Abstract). The steps dig into the panel is a recitation of intended use which modified Hoffman would be capable of with a relatively softer panel material.
Claims 1, 13-16 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paquet (US 2008/0286066) in view of Vassiliou (US 6,691,380). Paquet discloses a stamped metal retainer (Fig. 1) to couple a component (24) having a tower (23) to a panel (22) that would be capable of having various thicknesses which inherently would be inclusive of a first thickness and a larger second thickness. The retainer comprises: a body formed as a pair of parallel legs (5) flexibly connected to one another at a head (1) and free from one another at a leading end defining a cavity for receiving the tower; a panel-engagement feature (18); at least one portion with a retaining tab configured to engage the tower and cause the panel engagement feature to push into the panel (19); and at least one portion directly coupled to the body extending into the channel to engage the tower. Paquet does not disclose the panel-engagement feature comprising a saw-tooth structure. Vassiliou discloses a stamped-metal retainer including a panel-engagement feature similar to Paquet except in Vassiliou the panel-engagement (20) includes a fin (48) with a saw-tooth structure defining a plurality of offset steps (50). The steps are different distances from the from the legs such that the step farthest from the head is spaced farthest from the respective leg (18 or 20) as seen in Fig. 1. 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-engagement feature of Paquet with a saw-tooth structure as disclosed in Vassiliou for an improved accommodating different thickness panels as discussed in Vassiliou (Abstract). The steps dig into the panel is a recitation of intended use which modified Paquet would be capable of with a relatively softer panel material.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The combination of claim 1, 10, 11 and 24 with the appropriate correction of the 112 rejection would be allowable over the prior art because in the context of the claimed invention the prior art does not disclose the upper head with the retaining tab and the legs with free leading ends.
Response to Remarks
The 102 rejection over Hoffman has been overcome by the rejection. But in regards to Hoffman applicant argues that the latching members 26 in Hoffman are not readable on the claimed “at least one portion directly coupled to the body portion” because they interact with a separate locking pin. In response, the examiner disagrees because there is only one locking pin disclosed which is analogous to the claimed tower so they must be interacting the same locking pin.
The rejection over Hoffman has been maintained.
Applicant argues that there would be no motivation for the combination of Hoffman in view of Vassiliou. There would be no reason for modifying the panel-engaging feature of Hoffman with the sawtooth of Vassiliou because in Hoffman the panel engaging features are expanded with a pin while in Vassiliou is a passive expansion, without the pin. In response, the examiner disagrees because how the panel engaging feature is expanded would not affect the panel-engaging feature because the panel engaging is on a resilient arm which would make and necessary compensations. And Vassiliou teaches the teeth as an alternative to the no teeth as in Hoffman.
Applicant argues the claims additionally define over Vasiliou because in Vassiliou the teeth are configured so they would not contact a bottom of the panel but instead would engage an edge of the panel opening. In response, the examiner disagrees because the teeth of Vassiliou are shaped the same as the teeth of the instant invention so would engage the panel in a similar manner. Additionally, the claims are directed only to the retainer so any engagement with the panel would be a recitation of intended use where the teeth of Vasiliou would be capable of engaging the underside or digging into the panel depending on the shape and material of the panel.
In regards to the 102 rejection of claim 18 over Paquet, applicant argues the panel-engagement feature disclosed in Paquet is not configured to engage an underside of the panel. In response, the examiner disagrees because the panel-engagement feature of Paquet engages the panel in a similar manner as disclosed in the instant invention. In the instant application there is no disclosure of not engaging the edge of the opening and only the underside. Additionally, as noted above the claims are directed only to the stamped metal retainer so any engagement with the panel would be a recitation of intended use where the panel-engagement feature of Paquet would be capable of engaging the underside of the panel depending on the shape and material of the panel.
Applicant argues that Paquet also fails to disclose that when the tower is inserted it engages the at least one portion to bias the panel-engagement outward into the panel but instead teaches the tower only as preventing inward deflection of the panel-engagement feature. In response, the examiner agrees that the tower in Paquet prevents the panel-engagement feature from moving inward but that does not preclude it from also basing it outward. Indeed, any inward deflection would be countered by the tower providing an outward bias. Additionally, the outward bias is dependent on the interaction with the panel so in Paquet with an appropriately sized hole and panel it would similarly be capable of the outward bias since it includes all the same elements of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that Paquet fails to disclose the integrated dual-retention functionality. In response the examiner disagrees because as noted by applicant the tower in Paquet prevents the inward deflection of the at least one portion thus preventing both the inward deflecting and at the same time providing a force against the tower retaining the tower.
Applicant argues that Paquet receives a bolt and not a tower. In response the examiner agrees but there is no structure claimed of the tower which precludes a bolt from reading on a tower. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
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
