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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Sept. 22, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 remain pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watt et al. (US 3,373,479).
Regarding claim 1, Watt discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-5, an insert fixing apparatus for fixing an insert member (e.g., item 7 (i.e., a shell), Fig. 1 or 2 (col. 2, lines 28-29)) having an inner circumferential surface in a mold (e.g., item 1, Fig. 1 (col. 1, lines 64-65)), the insert fixing apparatus comprising:
a groove (e.g., each tine has a recessed thread segment and a projecting bead segment which upon expansion of the collet cooperate with similar segments on the other tines to provide a continuous thread 16 and a continuous sealing bead 6 (col. 2, lines 3-7); at least, the bead 6 can be considered as the groove being formed on the inner circumferential surface of the shell) formed on the inner circumferential surface of the insert member;
a coupling protrusion (e.g., the top portion of the item 3 (i.e., an axially reciprocating actuating pin or plunger (col. 2, lines 8-9)) as shown in Fig. 1 or 2) protruding from the mold so that the insert member is inserted over the coupling protrusion, the coupling protrusion having an outer circumferential surface in contact with the inner circumferential surface of the insert member;
at least one hook member (e.g., item(s) 4 (a and b), Figs. 3, 4 (i.e., a plurality of radially flexible tines 4 (col. 2, line 3))) coupled to the mold such that a hook member moves between a protrusion position at which one end of the hook member protrudes from the outer circumferential surface of the coupling protrusion (col. 2, lines 31-36 (i.e., the tines 4 radially outward when the plunger 3 reaches its deepest penetration)) and a retreat position at which the one end of the hook member retreats from the outer circumferential surface of the coupling protrusion (col. 2, lines 43-48 (i.e., the actuating pin 3 is withdrawn and the collet collapses inwardly)), wherein, when the hook member is located at the protrusion position, the one end of the hook member engages with the groove of the insert member to prevent the insert member from moving in a direction opposite to a direction in which the insert member is inserted over the coupling protrusion (col. 2, lines 9-19; also see in Fig. 5), and when the hook member is located at the retreat position, the one end of the hook member disengages from the groove of the insert member to allow the insert member to move in the direction opposite to the direction in which the insert member is inserted over the coupling protrusion (col. 3, lines 7-10 (i.e., the collet in collapsed position)); and
a driving unit (col. 4, lines 10-13 (i.e., mechanical, hydraulic or pneumatic means)) configured to move the at least one hook member between the protrusion position and the retreat position.
It is noticed that, when the collect 2 in collapsed position has alternating internally disposed tines 4a and outwardly disposed tines 4b (col. 3, lines 8-10). As illustrated in Fig. 4, between two adjacent outwardly disposed tines 4b, there is a hole to accept the expansion and retraction of the internally disposed tines 4a. These holes can be considered a guide hole for the reciprocal movement of the internally disposed tines 4a (i.e., the hook member (s)). As mentioned above, the plurality of radially flexible tines 4 are divided into (col. 2, lines 1-3) to correspond with the related guide holes formed between two adjacent outwardly disposed tines 4b. Thus, these radially flexible tines 4 are equally disposed annularly (as shown in Fig. 3 or 4; it is noticed that, there are 5 pieces of the outwardly disposed tines 4b uniformly distributed in the annular manner).
However, Watt does not explicitly disclose that, the guide hole is extended linearly in a horizontal direction.
If Watt selects 2 or 4 or 6 pieces of the outwardly disposed tines 4b, at least two of the guide holes will be extended linearly in a horizontal direction.
A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Watt discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-5, the driving unit comprises: a cam member (e.g., item 3, Fig. 1 (i.e., an axially reciprocating actuating pin or plunger (col. 2, lines 8-9))) installed to be movable in a first direction (i.e., in the axial direction) perpendicular to a direction in which the at least one hook member moves (i.e., the moving direction of the tines 4), the cam member having at least one inclined cam groove that extends in a direction inclined relative to the first direction (i.e., the die or collet (2) is substantially cylindrical, extending upwardly from an annular retaining ring 5 at its base, with the upper portion divided into a plurality of radially flexible tines 4 (col. 1, line 71 and col. 2, lines 1-3); at least, there are inclined groove(s) disposed just above the retaining ring 5);
at least one cam follower provided at another end of the at least one hook member, the at least one cam follower being coupled to the at least one inclined cam groove such that the at least one cam follower moves relative to the cam member in the direction in which the at least one inclined cam groove extends (e.g., it is noticed that, when the collect 2 in collapsed position has alternating internally disposed tines 4a and outwardly disposed tines 4b (col. 3, lines 8-10); The mere observation of still another beneficial result of an old process cannot form the basis of patentability. Allen et al. v. Cae, 57 USPQ 136; In re Maeder et al. 143 USPQ 249); and
a driving source connected to the cam member to move the cam member in the first direction (col. 4, lines 10-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) that Watt does not disclose the guide hole(s) extending linearly in a horizontal direction, it is not persuasive.
It is noticed that, when the collect 2 in collapsed position has alternating internally disposed tines 4a and outwardly disposed tines 4b (col. 3, lines 8-10). As illustrated in Fig. 4, between two adjacent outwardly disposed tines 4b, there is a hole to accept the expansion and retraction of the internally disposed tines 4a. These holes can be considered a guide hole for the reciprocal movement of the internally disposed tines 4a (i.e., the hook member (s)). As mentioned above, the plurality of radially flexible tines 4 are divided into (col. 2, lines 1-3) to correspond with the related guide holes formed between two adjacent outwardly disposed tines 4b. Thus, these radially flexible tines 4 are equally disposed annularly (as shown in Fig. 3 or 4; it is noticed that, there are 5 pieces of the outwardly disposed tines 4b uniformly distributed in the annular manner).
If Watt selects 2 or 4 or 6 pieces of the outwardly disposed tines 4b, at least two of the guide holes will be extended linearly in a horizontal direction.
A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding arguments that, in the teachings of Watt, the hook member(s) cannot be located within a guide hole when the tine is located at the retreat position, it is not persuasive. As illustrated in Fig. 4, in this retreat position of the hook member, at least one portion of the hook member (i.e., internally disposed tines 4a) is still located inside the guide hole(s).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights