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 Objections
Claim 28, 34, and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recites “connecter,” in line 2 and it appears it should recite “connector.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 32, 38, and 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the button" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the button" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the button" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "detachable handle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the detachable handle is the handle recited in claim 41 or an introduced new handle.
Claims 43-47 are rejected being dependent from a rejected independent claim.
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.
Claim(s) 28-32 and 37-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Batash (U.S. 11,221,503, as cited by Applicant).
Examiner Notes: It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (italicized) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
As for Claim 28, Batash discloses a system for attaching two objects comprising:
a first object (200) comprising a button type connecter (230);
a handle (220) attached to a button type connector; and
a second object (300) comprising a mount (320) for said button type connector, said mount
having an opening (322) for connecting the mount (320) to said button type connector by inserting
said button type connector therethrough and inhibiting disconnection between said
button type connector and said mount by inhibiting said button type connector from
passing back out therethrough (see Figs. 4-7) and wherein said handle is configured for facilitating
said inserting said button type connector through said opening by pulling said handle (see Figs. 4-7).
29. (New) They system of claim 28, wherein said handle is thinner than said button type connector and therefore passes more easily through said opening than said button type connector (220 is thinner than 230, see also Fig. 5).
30. (New) The system of claim 28, further comprising: a biasing mechanism (210) for biasing the button type connector to a preferred rotational orientation within the mount (see Figs. 8A-8B).
31. (New) The system of claim 30, wherein the biasing mechanism includes a matching surface (exterior surface of 210) between the first object and the second object.
32. (New) The system according to claim 28, wherein the handle is removable or detachable from the button (see .Figs. 5-6)
37. (New) The system according to claim 28, wherein the first object has at least one flat side (exterior surfaces of 200).
38. (New) The system according to claim 28, wherein the button has at least one flat side (312).
39. (New) The system according to claim 28, wherein the first object is rotated with respect to the second object to a preferred orientation (see Figs. 8A-8B).
40. (New) The system according to claim 28, wherein a third object (50) is connected to said system through the first object (see Fig. 3B).
41. (New) A method for attaching a first object to a second object comprising: threading a handle (220) connected to a button type connecter (230) through a mount opening (324) on the second object; pulling the handle to draw the button through the mount opening (see Figs. 8A-8B).
42. (New) The method of claim 41 further comprising: breaking detachable handle off from the button after said threading (see Figs. 8A-8B).
43. (New) The method of claim 41, further comprising rotating the button within the mount to orient the second object to a preferred orientation with the first object (see Figs. 8A-8B).
44. (New) The method of claim 43, further comprising: locking orientation between the first and second objects in said preferred orientation (see Fig. 8B).
45. (New) The method according to claim 41, further comprising elastically deforming at least one of the button and the mount in order to pass the button through the mount opening (see Claim 1).
46. (New) The method of claim 45, further comprising returning at least one of the button and the mount to its original shape once said button has passed through the mount opening (see Claim 1).
47. (New) The method according to claim 42, wherein the breaking off of the detachable handle is performed by pulling, twisting, tearing or cutting said handle (see Figs. 8A-8B).
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.
Claim(s) 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batash (U.S. 11,221,503, as cited by Applicant).
Batash discloses a handle with a length and a band having a diameter but fails to recite the claimed limitations disclosed in claims 35-36.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the length of handle and diameter of band limitations disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Marks (U.S. 4,471,509).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M UPCHURCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7957. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-3PM EST M-F.
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 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.
/DAVID M UPCHURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677