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 .
This is a final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 11/20/2025.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 15, 16 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: (630).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sensor from claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, 16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 5 “second ring magnet, and button magnet” should be - - the second ring magnet, and the button magnet - -.
Claim 2, line 7 “second ring magnet, and button magnet” should be - - the second ring magnet, and the button magnet - -.
Claim 8, line 19 “the magnets” should be - - the ring magnets - -.
Claim 16, line 2 “the undeployed” should be - - the undeployed position - -.
Claim 16, line 3 “the undeployed” should be - - the undeployed position - -.
Claim 20, line 4 “button magnet” should be - - the button magnet - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Budreck (US Patent No. 3,041,697).
Regarding claim 1, Budreck discloses a fastener, comprising:
a base defining an interior space (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5);
a button at least partially retained within the interior space of the base the button having a deployed position and an undeployed position (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6); and
a ring having a magnetic field and defining an aperture sized to accept at least a portion of the button (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5);
wherein:
in the deployed position, at least the portion of the button is within the ring (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6);
the button is moved from the undeployed position to the deployed position by the magnetic field (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6); and
a motion of the button is transverse to the magnetic field (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, Budreck discloses a method for fastening a fastener, comprising:
moving a ring of the fastener adjacent to a base of the fastener, the ring defining an aperture (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5);
magnetically attracting a button of the fastener to the ring, thereby moving the button towards the aperture of the ring relative to the ring (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6); and
receiving the button within the aperture defined in the ring (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5);
wherein:
a magnetic field extends in a first direction (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6); and
the button moves in a direction transverse to the magnetic field (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Budreck further discloses, comprising resisting a shear force exerted on one of the ring or base when the button is within the aperture (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Budreck discloses, wherein:
the ring contains a ring magnet (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5);
the button contains a button magnet (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5); and
the ring magnet and button magnet cooperate to magnetically attract the button to the ring (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budreck (US Patent No. 3,041,697), in view of Bolen (US Patent No. 9,974,363).
Regarding claim 2, Budreck further discloses, comprising:
a ring magnet positioned within the ring (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5); and
a button magnet positioned within the button (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5);
wherein:
the ring magnet, and button magnet generate the magnetic field (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5); and
magnetic attraction between the ring magnet, and button magnet causes the button to move into the deployed position (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5).
Budreck does not disclose a first ring magnet, and a second ring magnet positioned within the ring.
However, Bolen teaches a first ring magnet (2330), and a second ring magnet (2330) (see Fig. 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the ring magnet from Budreck with the first and second ring magnets from Bolen, in order to align the magnet and the fastener so that the user does not have to align the pieces manually.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Budreck in view of Bolen discloses, wherein the first and second ring magnets (2330) are positioned at opposing positions within the ring (see Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Budreck in view of Bolen discloses, wherein a strength of the magnetic field increases when the button is in the deployed position (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budreck (US Patent No. 3,041,697), in view of Bolen (US Patent No. 9,974,363) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fiegler (US Publication 2012/0291227 cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 5, Budreck as modified by Bolen does not discloses the claimed invention except for a sensor configured to sense the strength of the magnetic field.
However, Fiegler teaches a sensor (see paragraph [0035] and [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a Hall sensor in order to measure the magnetic field of the magnets.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budreck (US Patent No. 3,041,697), in view of Fiegler (US Publication 2012/0291227 cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 6, Budreck discloses the claimed invention except for a biasing mechanism operable to move the button from the deployed position to the undeployed position by exerting a biasing force on the button.
However, Fiegler teaches a biasing mechanism (10a, 11a, 25) operable to move the button from the deployed position to the undeployed position by exerting a biasing force on the button (see Fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have biasing mechanism in order the magnet function as a bias magnet an facilitate to engage two parts.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Budreck in view of Fiegler discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the biasing force is less than a magnetic force of the magnetic field.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added a spring to the magnetic connection in order to have the connection automatically engage and disengage based on the biasing force of a spring. The Examiner notes the biasing force of the spring would be less than a magnetic force of the magnetic field because if the magnetic force of the magnet is greater than the biasing force of the spring, the biasing force would not function in the connection.
Claims 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budreck (US Patent No. 3,041,697), in view of Fiegler (US Publication 2012/0291227 cited by applicant), and Bolen (US Patent No. 9,974,363).
Regarding claim 8, Budreck discloses a fastener, comprising:
a base (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5) comprising:
a base shell defining an interior space (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5); and
a button retained at least partially within the interior space of the base, the button having a deployed position and an undeployed position (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6),
the button (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5) comprising:
a button cap (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5); and
a button magnet attached to the button cap (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5); and
a ring defining an aperture (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5) and comprising:
a ring shell (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5); and
a ring magnet attached to the ring shell and defining a magnetic field;
wherein:
the magnetic field extends to the ring magnet (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6);
the magnetic field attracts the button magnet towards the aperture when the base abuts the ring (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6);
the magnetic field moves the button from the undeployed position to the deployed position when the magnetic field attracts the button magnet (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6); and
as the button moves from the undeployed position to the deployed position, it moves in a direction other than a polarization direction of the magnet (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).
Budreck does not teach a biasing mechanism, and a set of ring magnets.
However, Fiegler teaches a biasing mechanism (10a, 11a, 25) (see Fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have biasing mechanism in order the magnet function as a bias magnet an facilitate to engage two parts.
Also, Bolen teaches a set of ring magnets (2330) (see Fig. 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the ring magnet from Budreck with the first and second ring magnets from Bolen, in order to align the magnet and the fastener so that the user does not have to align the pieces manually.
Regarding claim 9, Budreck discloses, wherein the button moves transversely to the polarization direction of the magnets (see annotated Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Budreck, in view of Fiegler, and Bolen discloses the claimed invention except for the biasing mechanism is a biasing magnet.
However, Fiegler teaches the biasing mechanism is a biasing magnet (10a, 11a, 25) (see Fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have biasing mechanism in order the magnet function as a biasing magnet an facilitate to engage two parts.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Budreck, in view of Fiegler, and Bolen discloses the claimed invention except for the ring magnets are made of a hard magnetic material; and the biasing magnet is made of a soft magnetic material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ring magnets are made of a hard magnetic material; and the biasing magnet is made of a soft magnetic material , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, Budreck discloses, wherein the button magnet defines first and second scalloped sidewalls opposing one another (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 13, Budreck discloses, wherein the button magnet focuses the magnetic field when the button is in the deployed position (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Budreck, in view of Fiegler, and Bolen discloses the claimed invention except for the biasing mechanism is a first biasing mechanism; the fastener further comprises a second biasing mechanism attached to the base; the first biasing mechanism is a spring; and the second biasing mechanism is a magnet.
However, Fiegler teaches the biasing mechanism is a first biasing mechanism; the fastener further comprises a second biasing mechanism attached to the base; the first biasing mechanism is a spring (25); and the second biasing mechanism is a magnet (10a, 11a) (see Fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have biasing mechanism in order the magnet function as a biasing magnet an facilitate to engage two parts.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Budreck, in view of Fiegler, and Bolen discloses the claimed invention except for the spring is further attached to the button magnet.
However, Fiegler teaches the spring (25) is further attached to the button magnet (see Fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have biasing mechanism in order the magnet function as a biasing magnet an facilitate to engage two parts.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Budreck, in view of Fiegler, and Bolen discloses the claimed invention except for the spring resists expansion as the button moves from the undeployed to the deployed position.
However, Fiegler teaches the spring (25) resists expansion as the button moves from the undeployed to the deployed position (see Fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have biasing mechanism in order the magnet function as a biasing magnet an facilitate to engage two parts.
Regarding claim 17, Budreck discloses, wherein:
the button further comprises a flange attached to the button cap (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5); and
the flange is retained within the base as the button moves from the undeployed to the deployed position (see annotated Figs. 4 and 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 6-8, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8 and 18 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Budreck. Budreck broadly discloses a button at least partially retained within the interior space of the base, the button having a deployed position and an undeployed position.
Regarding claim 8, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in Budreck, in view of Fiegler, and Bolen. Budreck broadly discloses a button retained at least partially within the interior space of the base, the button having a deployed position and an undeployed position.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677