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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson, JR. et al., US20050271492 (hereinafter, Jackson).
Regarding claim 1, Jackson discloses a push-in retainer 10 for attaching a first component having a first opening relative to a second component having a second opening via a fastener (intended use), the push-in retainer comprising:
a cross member 12 having a female fastener portion 14 configured to engage a threaded shank of the fastener (see fastener in abstract and 300 in Fig. 17 as a reference);
a pair of retaining legs 22 resiliently connected to the cross member, wherein the pair of
retaining legs comprises a first retaining leg (see first retaining leg 22 on left side of the clip) and a second retaining leg (see second retaining leg 22 on opposite to first on the other end of the clip in Figs. 1-2); and
one or more downturn flanges 18 coupled to the cross member and extending downwardly from cross member to engage a portion of the first retaining leg or the second retaining leg (see Figs. 1-2 showing engagement at 46).
Regarding claim 2, Jackson discloses the push-in retainer of claim 1, wherein the downturn flange 18 overlaps or otherwise envelopes the portion of the first retaining leg or the second retaining leg (see downturn flange 18 overlaps and/or envelopes at least one of the legs at engagement 46 in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Jackson discloses the push-in retainer of claim 1, wherein each of the first retaining leg and the second retaining leg comprises a first leg section (FLS, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) and a second leg section (SLS, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) resiliently connected to one another via a connecting portion (CP, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 4, Jackson discloses the push-in retainer of claim 3, wherein the downturn flange is configured to limit outward flex of the second leg section relative to the first leg section via the connecting portion (see para. [0037] stating the recess 46 protects the retaining arms 22 of the fastener mounting clip against deformation by insertion forces).
Regarding claim 11, A push-in retainer for attaching a first component having a first opening relative to a second component having a second opening via a fastener, the push-in retainer comprising:
a cross member having a female fastener portion configured to engage a threaded shank of the fastener;
a pair of retaining legs resiliently connected to the cross member,
wherein the pair of retaining legs comprises a first retaining leg and a second
retaining leg, and
wherein each of the first retaining leg and the second retaining leg comprises a
first leg section and a second leg section resiliently connected to one another via a
connecting portion; and
one or more downturn flanges coupled to the cross member and extending downwardly
from cross member to engage the second leg section of the first retaining leg or the second
retaining leg to limit outward flex of the second leg section relative to the first leg section via
the connecting portion.
Concerning limitations in claim 11, it is the Examiner’s position that limitations in claim 11 are as same as claims 1, 3-4. Therefore, Jackson still discloses the limitations of claim 11. Please refer to rejection set forth in claims 1, 3-4 above.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Johnson et al., US20040052607 (hereinafter, Johnson).
Regarding claim 5, Jackson teaches the push-in retainer of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein cross member includes one or more spring flanges.
However, Johnson teaches a panel fastener system (10, see Fig. 1) wherein cross member 18 includes one or more spring flanges 22.
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 modified the fastener of Jackson to have spring flanges as taught by Johnson to assist in anchoring the fastener to the panel and/or lockingly engage/secure the fastener to the panel.
Regarding claim 6, Jackson in view of Johnson teaches and/or make obvious of the push-in retainer of claim 5, but fails to expressly disclose wherein the one or more spring flanges are configured to increase a contact area footprint with the second component to mitigate risk of damage thereto.
However, the examiner considers the fastener of Jackson modified with spring flanges of Johnson are capable of being configured to increase a contact area footprint with the second component to mitigate risk of damage thereto. Given the fact that flanges in Johnson are for mitigate risk of damage by securing the fastener to the component.
It is the examiner’s position that Jackson in view of Johnson meets structural limitation of claim 6, and is capable of being configured to increase a contact area footprint to secure the fastener in the components (see para. [15-17]).
Regarding claim 7, Jackson in view of Johnson teaches and/or make obvious of the push-in retainer of claim 5, wherein Johnson further teaches the one or more spring flanges are configured to absorb movement between the first component and the second component (see para. [0015-0017]) where shape, contour and functions of the panel engaging member 22 are discussed).
It is the Examiner’s position that Jackson in view of Johnson teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations of the claim 7 and is capable of being configured to absorb movements between the first and the second component permitting the twisting of the fastener into the opening 42 and onto the panel 40 (see para. [0015]).
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson.
Regarding claim 8, Jackson discloses the push-in retainer of claim 1, and teaches the push-in retainer is a metal, but fails to expressly teach wherein the push-in retainer is a stamped-metal component.
However, the examiner considers the claim 8 is directed to a product-by-process claim wherein the process relied upon is “stamping”. This limitation is not given any patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 10, Jackson discloses the push-in retainer of claim 3, in embodiments shown in Figs. 1-4, but fails to teach wherein the second leg section includes at least one wing configured to engage the second opening.
However, Jackson in embodiment shown in Fig. 16 teaches similar fastener wherein the second leg section includes at least one wing 394 configured to engage the second opening.
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 fastener in embodiment shown in Figs. 1-4 to have a wing as shown in embodiments shown in Fig. 16 so the wings may be configured to engage opposite vertical surface of the apertures to position the clip laterally within the aperture and improve resistance to extraction forces (see para. [0061]).
Regarding claim 12, The push-in retainer of claim 11, wherein the push-in retainer is a stamped-metal component.
It is the Examiner’s position that limitations in claim 12 is similar to claim 8. Therefore, Jackson still teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 8.
Claims 9, 13-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Hullmann et al., US20090169326 (hereinafter, Hullmann).
Regarding claim 9, Jackson teaches the push-in retainer of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein each of the first retaining leg and the second retaining leg comprises a shelf, wherein the shelf is configured to bias a respective one of the first retaining leg and the second retaining leg outwardly once the threaded shank passes through the female fastener portion.
However, Hullmann teaches similar fastening device (see Fig. 6) wherein each of the first retaining leg 6 and the second retaining leg 7 comprises a shelf 32, wherein the shelf is configured to bias a respective one of the first retaining leg and the second retaining leg outwardly once the threaded shank passes through the female fastener portion (see Fig. 6 and para. [0031]).
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 fastener of Jackson to have shelves as taught by Hullmann to further secure the component due to outward expansion of the legs 10 and prevent easy removal of the fastener from the component.
Regarding claim 13, Jackson teaches a push-in fastener assembly (see claim 1 and Fig. 18 for the fastener as a reference) for attaching a first component having a first opening relative to a second component having a second opening (intended use), the push-in fastener assembly comprising:
a fastener (see Figs. 17-18 for the reference of fastener) having a head (see Fig. 17) and a threaded shank (see Fig. 17); and
a push-in retainer (10, see Fig. 1) having
a cross member 12 having a female fastener portion 14 configured to engage the threaded shank,
a pair of retaining legs 22 resiliently connected to the cross member, wherein the pair of retaining legs comprises a first retaining leg (see Figs. 1-2) and a second retaining leg (see Figs. 1-2), and
one or more downturn flanges 18 coupled to the cross member and extending downwardly from cross member to engage a portion of the first retaining leg or the second retaining leg,
Jackson fails to teach wherein each of the first retaining leg and the second retaining leg comprises a shelf, wherein the shelf is configured to bias a respective one of the first retaining leg and the second retaining leg outwardly once the threaded shank passes through the female fastener portion.
However, Hullmann teaches similar fastening device (see Fig. 6) wherein each of the first retaining leg 6 and the second retaining leg 7 comprises a shelf 32, wherein the shelf is configured to bias a respective one of the first retaining leg and the second retaining leg outwardly once the threaded shank passes through the female fastener portion (see Fig. 6 and para. [0031]).
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 fastener of Jackson to have shelves as taught by Hullmann to further secure the component due to outward expansion of the legs 10 and prevent easy removal of the fastener from the component.
Regarding claim 14, Jackson in view of Hullmann teaches and/or make obvious of the push-in fastener assembly of claim 13, wherein each of the first retaining leg and the second retaining leg comprises a first leg section (FLS, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1 above) and a second leg section (SLS, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) resiliently connected to one another via a connecting portion (CP, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Jackson in view of Hullmann teaches and/or make obvious of the push-in fastener assembly of claim 14, wherein the downturn flange is configured to limit outward flex of the second leg section relative to the first leg section via the connecting portion (see para. [0037] stating the recess 46 protects the retaining arms 22 of the fastener mounting clip against deformation by insertion forces).
Regarding claim 18, Jackson in view of Hullmann teaches and/or make obvious of the push-in fastener assembly of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the push-in retainer is a stamped-metal component.
However, the examiner considers the claim 18 is directed to a product-by-process claim wherein the process relied upon is “stamping”. This limitation is not given any patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 19, Jackson in view of Hullmann teaches and/or make obvious of the push-in fastener assembly of claim 14, wherein the second leg section includes at least one wing configured to engage the second opening.
However, Jackson in embodiment shown in Fig. 16 teaches similar fastener wherein the second leg section includes at least one wing 394 configured to engage the second opening.
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 fastener in embodiment shown in Figs. 1-4 to have a wing as shown in embodiments shown in Fig. 16 so the wings may be configured to engage opposite vertical surface of the apertures to position the clip laterally within the aperture and improve resistance to extraction forces (see para. [0061]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Hullmann, in further view of Johnson.
Regarding claim 16, Jackson in view of Hullmann teaches and/or make obvious of the push-in fastener assembly of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein cross member includes one or more spring flanges configured to increase a contact area footprint with the second component to mitigate risk of damage thereto.
However, Johnson teaches a panel fastener system (10, see Fig. 1) wherein cross member 18 includes one or more spring flanges 22.
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 modified the fastener of Jackson to have spring flanges as taught by Johnson to assist in anchoring the fastener to the panel and/or lockingly engage/secure the fastener to the panel.
Further, the examiner considers the fastener of Jackson modified with spring flanges of Johnson are capable of being configured to increase a contact area footprint with the second component to mitigate risk of damage thereto. Given the fact that flanges in Johnson are for mitigate risk of damage by securing the fastener to the component.
It is the examiner’s position that Jackson in view of Johnson meets structural limitation of claim 16, and is capable of being configured to increase a contact area footprint to secure the fastener in the components (see para. [15-17]).
Regarding claim 17, Jackson in view of Hullmann teaches and/or make obvious of the push-in fastener assembly of claim 13, However, Johnson teaches wherein cross member includes one or more spring flanges 22 configured to absorb movement between the first component and the second component.
It is the Examiner’s position that Jackson in view of Hullmann, in further view of Johnson meets the structural limitations of claim 17 and capable of being configured to absorb movement between the first component and the second component since the spring flanges in Johnson secures the fastener onto the panel.
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