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 § 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, 3-4, 7-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura (2015/0042026, previously presented) in view of Takabayashi (4,086,686).
Regarding Claim 1, Uemura teaches A spring holder (Ref. 1, Fig. 3C) having an elastically deformable latching arrangement (Ref. 14,45&30, Fig. 3A) and an elastically deformable clamping arrangement (Ref. 12, Fig. 2C, [0043]) ;
wherein the respective clamping arrangement (12) and the latching arrangement (14,45,&30) are arranged folded on a base plate (Ref. 13, Fig. 2C);
wherein the latching arrangement (14,45,&30) and the base plate (13) form a lateral angle (Fig. 3B);
wherein the spring holder can be coupled in a latching manner to a workpiece carrier (Ref. 40&50, Fig. 3C) via the latching arrangement (Fig. 3C); and
wherein the clamping arrangement (12) has an elastically deformable clamping tab (Ref. 15, Fig. 2C) via which a holding force can be exerted on a workpiece (Ref. W, [0043]) in a clamping position (Fig. 3C) via a clamping region (Fig. 2C, [0043] the fold between the faces of the clamping arrangement and the space between the clamping faces (17a)) when the spring holder (32) is coupled to the workpiece carrier (Fig. 3C), so that the workpiece (W) can be frictionally coupled to the spring holder (1) via a clamping face (Ref. 17A, Fig. 2C) in contact with the clamping region and can thus be removably fixed to the workpiece carrier ([0042]).
Uemura fails to explicitly teach a lateral angle with a magnitude between 100 degrees and 120 degrees. Takabayashi teaches a spring holder and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Takabayashi teaches a spring holder comprising a latching arrangement (Ref. 1, 13&19, Fig. 1&6) arranged folded on a base plate (Ref. 2, Fig. 6), wherein the latching arrangement (1) and the base plate (2) form a lateral angle that is obtuse (Fig. 1&6, [Col. 4, Lines 51-55]) to permit easier insertion for connection to the other portion ([Col. 4, Lines 55-58]). Given the teachings of an obtuse lateral angle of Takabayashi, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Uemura lateral angle to have a magnitude between 100 degrees and 120 degrees, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify lateral angle of Uemura, given the suggestion of the obtuse lateral angle of Takabayashi, by making the magnitude be between 100 degrees and 120 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the lateral angle “can” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [pg. 12, para 1]).
Regarding Claim 3, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Uemura further teaches wherein the spring holder is integrally formed (Fig. 1-2C).
Regarding Claim 4, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and Uemura further teaches wherein the base plate is rectangular (Fig. 2a) and a first and a second latching arrangement (Ref. 14, Fig. 1, left and right sides) are formed on opposite edges (Fig. 1 shows left and right edges) and the clamping arrangement (12) is formed on an edge (Fig. 1&2C shows formed on the bottom edge) connecting the opposite edges (Fig. 1&2C).
Regarding Claim 7, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Uemura further teaches wherein the clamping tab (15) comprises a clamping leg (Ref. 16, Fig. 2C) and a guide leg (Ref. 17, Fig. 2C), wherein the clamping leg (16) and the guide leg (17) enclose a clamping angle (Ref. theta, fig. 2C). Uemura’s clamping angle is an acute angle. Uemura as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the clamping angle has a magnitude between 70 and 170 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the acute clamping angle, as taught by Uemura as modified, to have a magnitude between 70 and 170 degrees since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see [pg. 12] indicating the angle “can” be within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 8, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Uemura further teaches wherein the clamping region further comprises: a clamping strip which is formed as an edge and/or as a fold (fig. 2C shows the clamping region as the fold between the legs (17&16); or a clamping clasp (137) which is designed as a spherically curved tab.
Regarding Claim 9, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Uemura further teaches wherein the clamping region has at least one clamping point (Fig. 3C).
Regarding Claim 10, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and Uemura further teaches wherein the at least one clamping point (Fig. 3C) is in the form of an embossed or applied nub (examiner interprets an applied nub as a protrusion, Fig. 3C shows the guide leg (17) as a protrusion).
Regarding Claim 11, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Uemura further teaches the workpiece carrier (Ref. 101, Fig. 7) for receiving a plurality of workpieces (Ref. W, [0026]) with a plurality of removable spring holders (Ref. 1, Fig. 7, [0026]) according to claim 1, of which at least two clamping regions (Fig. 3C shows multiple folds as the clamping regions) are arranged in such a way that a fastening area of a workpiece is held by the clamping region (Fig. 3C, [0042-0045]) with a clamping face (Ref. 17a, Fig. 2C) facing the respective clamping region in a clamping position (Fig. 3C) with elastic deformation of the clamping tab ([0045]).
Regarding Claim 12, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Uemura further teaches wherein the at least two clamping regions are arranged facing one another (Fig. 3C), and the fastening area is held between the at least two clamping regions (fig. 3C, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 16, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and Uemura teaches the clamping angle (Ref. theta, fig. 2C). Uemura as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the clamping angle has a magnitude between 115 and 125 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the acute clamping angle, as taught by Uemura as modified, to have a magnitude between 115 and 125 degrees. since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Uemura as modified would not operate differently with the claimed angles since the clamping arrangement would exert a holding force on a workpiece. Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see [pg. 12] indicating the angle “can” be within the claimed range).
Claims 2, 5-6, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura as modified as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lee (5,397,856, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 2, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the latching arrangement comprises a resilient tab. Lee teaches a spring holder with a latching arrangement and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of a holder. Lee further teaches wherein a latching arrangement (Fig. 3A) comprises a resilient tab (Ref. 32, Fig. 3b) which, passing through a mating opening (Ref. 30c, Fig. 3A) in the workpiece carrier (Fig. 3B), can be coupled to the workpiece carrier via a latching tongue (Ref. 32d, Fig. 3) which acts as a snap hook (Fig. 3B shows the latching tongue hooking into the opening). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the latching arrangement, as taught by Uemura as modified, with the latching arrangement comprising a resilient tab and mating opening, as taught by Lee, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of attaching the spring holder to a workpiece carrier.
Regarding Claim 5, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and given the teaching of the latching arrangement with the resilient tab, Lee further teaches wherein the resilient tab (32) comprises a lateral plate (Ref. 32B, Fig. 3B shows the plate in a lateral direction) and the latching tongue (Ref. 32d, Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 6, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and given the teaching of the latching arrangement with the resilient tab, Lee further teaches wherein a latching end (Fig. 3B the free end of the latching tongue) is arranged in an end region of the latching tongue (Fig. 3A-B).
Regarding Claim 13, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the workpiece carrier having mating openings and the latching arrangement comprises a resilient tab. Lee teaches a spring holder with a latching arrangement and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of a holder. Lee further teaches the workpiece carrier comprises a plurality of mating openings (Ref. 30b&c, Fig. 3A), wherein a resilient tab (Ref. 32, Fig. 3b) of the latching arrangement, passing through the at least one of the plurality of mating opening (Ref. 30c&b, Fig. 3A) in the workpiece carrier (Fig. 3B), can be coupled to the workpiece carrier via a latching tongue (Ref. 32b, Fig. 3) which acts as a snap hook (Fig. 3B shows the latching tongue hooking into the opening);
wherein the dimensions of the plurality of mating openings in the workpiece carrier and the dimensions of the resilient tabs are matched to one another such that the spring holder is fixed to the workpiece carrier (Fig. 3B) with at least one degree of freedom of movement transversely to a mating direction (Fig. 5A-C, shows there is a degree of freedom in the longitudinal direction transverse to the lateral mating direction), in which the resilient tabs pass through the at least one of the plurality of mating opening (Fig. 3B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the latching arrangement and workpiece carrier, as taught by Uemura as modified, with the latching arrangement comprising a resilient tab and mating opening on the workpiece carrier, as taught by Lee, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of attaching the spring holder to a workpiece carrier.
Regarding Claim 14, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and given the teaching of the latching arrangement with the resilient tab, Lee further teaches wherein the resilient tab (32) comprises a lateral plate (Ref. 32d, Fig. 3B shows the plate in a lateral direction) and the latching tongue (Ref. 32b, Fig. 3B), wherein in the region of the plurality of mating opening a latching slot (Ref. 30b, Fig. 3A shows a latching slot) is formed which receives a latching end of the latching tongue (Fig. 3B the free end of the latching tongue) so that the spring holder can be adjusted in the direction of the degree of freedom of movement transversely to the mating direction (Fig. 5A-c, shows there is a degree of freedom in the longitudinal direction transverse to the lateral mating direction).
Regarding Claim 15, Uemura as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and given the teaching of the latching arrangement with the resilient tab, Lee further teaches wherein the resilient tab (32) comprises a lateral plate (Ref. 32d, Fig. 3B shows the plate in a lateral direction) and the latching tongue (Ref. 32b, Fig. 3B), wherein a latching notch (Ref. 30b, Fig. 3A) is arranged on at least one wall of the plurality of mating openings (Fig. 3A); wherein the latching notch (30b) receives a latching end of the latching tongue (Fig. 3B the free end of the latching tongue), so that the spring holder is adjustable in the direction of the degree of freedom of movement transversely to the mating direction (Fig. 5A-c, shows there is a degree of freedom in the longitudinal direction transverse to the lateral mating direction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s modifications to the specifications are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the specification objections.
Applicant’s modifications to the claims are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 25 March, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, examiner notes that the amended claim limitations change the scope of the claim thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Takabayashi. Uemura teaches wherein the latching arrangement (14,45,&30) and the base plate (13) form a lateral angle (Fig. 3B). Takabayashi teaches the latching arrangement (Ref. 1, 13&19, Fig. 1&6) can be an angle greater than 90 degrees with respect to the base plate (2) while maintaining the other portions of the latching arrangement (Ref. 19&13, Fig. 3&6), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify lateral angle of Uemura, given the suggestion of the obtuse lateral angle of Takabayashi, by making the magnitude be between 100 degrees and 120 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the lateral angle “can” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [pg. 12, para 1]).
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights