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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson(US3659319).
[claim 1] Erickson teaches a bracket(fig 1), comprising: a bracket body(10); an elastic member(16,20), wherein a fixed end of the elastic member is assembled on the bracket body(fig 1); and a position-limiting member(24,28), wherein a fixed end of the position-limiting member is assembled on the bracket body(fig 1); wherein the position-limiting member, the elastic member, and the bracket body enclose and define a position-limiting space(central space in fig 1); an end of the elastic member away from the fixed end of the elastic member is a free end(at 22); an end of the position-limiting member away from the fixed end of the position-limiting member is a position-limiting end(at 30); and a guiding opening(32) is defined between the free end of the elastic member and the position-limiting end of the position-limiting member, and the guiding opening is communicated with the position-limiting space ; and wherein the guiding opening has a size being adjusted by changing a degree of deformation of the free end of the elastic member(C2 L13-19), wherein the elastic member comprises an elastic plate post(16) and an elastic plate(20), and the elastic plate and the elastic plate post are integrally formed by bending; wherein the position-limiting member comprises a position-limiting head post(24) and a position-limiting head(28), the position-limiting head post and the position-limiting head are integrally formed by bending, and the elastic plate and the position-limiting head are bent towards each other(fig 1); wherein back bending sides of the elastic plate post and the elastic plate are provided with a first chamfer(A in annotated fig 1 below) and a second chamfer(B in annotated figure 1 below), respectively; a side of the position-limiting head adjacent to the guiding opening is provided with a fourth chamfer(D in annotated fig 1 below), a first flat surface(30a) and a fifth chamfer(E in annotated fig 1 below), the first flat surface is between the fourth chamber and the fifth chamber(fig 1,3); a side of the elastic plate adjacent to the position-limiting head is provided with an eighth chamfer(H in annotated fig 1 below), the elastic plate is further provided with a second flat surface(20a) between the second chamfer and the eighth chamfer, wherein the fourth chamfer is adjacently connected with the fifth chamfer(D and E located adjacent each other as seen in figure 1 below) via the first flat surface, and the first flat surface and the second flat surface are extended inclinedly downward at an acute angle therebetween(Erickson teaches that the first and second flat surfaces are “generally parallel”(C1 L73-75) which would include arrangements within a few degrees of parallel, placing the first and second flat surfaces at an acute angle to each other, and further in figure 3, Erickson shows the clip in a flexed state, which would angle the first second flat surface towards the first flat surface, creating an acute angled between the two surfaces). Erickson however does not provide specific or relative chamfer radii for the second, fourth, fifth or eighth chamfers, or that they are the same. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the second, fourth, fifth and eighth chamfers have the same chamfer radius, as one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation would be able to select any desired chamfer radii without affecting the overall functionality of the device.
[claim 2] wherein the size of the guiding opening gradually increases in a case that the free end of the elastic member is elastically deformed towards a direction to the position-limiting space(opening 32 gets larger as the end at 22 moves towards the bracket body 10); and the size of the guiding opening gradually decreases in a case that the free end of the elastic member is elastically deformed towards a direction away from the position-limiting space(opening 32 gets smaller as the end at 22 moves away from the bracket body 10).
[claim 3] wherein the free end of the elastic member abuts against the position-limiting end of the position-limiting member in the case that the free end of the elastic member is elastically deformed towards the direction away from the position-limiting space(fig 1, when free end at 22 is deflected away from the position-limiting space, it would come into contact with the position-limiting end).
[claim 4] wherein the elastic member and/or the position-limiting member is provided with at least one bending portion(bend between 16 and 20, and bend between 24 and 28), so that the elastic member and the position-limiting member are bent towards each other to define the guiding opening(fig 1).
[claim 5] wherein an end of the elastic plate post away from the elastic plate and an end of the position-limiting head post away from the position-limiting head are both assembled on the bracket body , and the elastic plate post is at a fixed end of the elastic plate(fig 1); and wherein the guiding opening is defined between a free end of the elastic plate and a position-limiting end of the position-limiting head, and projections of the free end of the elastic plate and the position-limiting end of the position-limiting head on the bracket body at least partially overlap with each other(as seen in figure 1, position-limiting end overlaps the free end of the elastic plate).
[claim 6] wherein a bending side angle between the elastic plate post and the elastic plate is less than a bending side angle between the position-limiting head post and the position-limiting head(fig 1).
[claim 7] Erickson teaches a bracket as detailed above, wherein as seen in figure 1, base on a horizontal reference plane taken by the bracket body, the elastic plate post(16) has a height H1 and the position limiting head post(24) has a height H2. Erickson however does not provide the relative values of H1 and H2 and may not teach that H1>H2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the bracket of Erickson such that H1 was greater than H2, without undue experimentation, as there are a finite number of possible relative heights(i.e. H1>H2, H1=H2, H1<H2) for the bracket.
[claim 8] wherein based on a horizontal reference plane taken by the bracket body, there is only one longitudinal reference plane passing through the position-limiting member and the elastic member(fig 1, the position-limiting member and elastic member are in the same plane); the elastic plate has a length X1 in the only one longitudinal reference plane; the position-limiting head has a length X2 in the only one longitudinal reference plane, and X1＞X2(as seen in figure 1, elastic plate is shown having a longer length than the position-limiting head).
[claim 9] wherein in the only one longitudinal reference plane, the elastic plate comprises a point C(point on end 22 opposite 30a in fig 1) that is adjacent to the guiding opening and is closest to a point A(point on surface 30a) of the position-limiting head, the elastic plate further comprises a point E(point on end 22 facing post 24) that is adjacent to the guiding opening and is closest to a point D(point on 24 opposite point E) of the position-limiting head post; a distance between the point A and the point C is less than a preset value, and a distance between the point D and the point E is less than a preset value.
[claim 10] a distance between the first chamfer and the position-limiting head is greater than a distance between the second chamfer and the position-limiting head(fig 1);.
Erickson however does not detail what the specific chamfer radius is for A or B, or that the chamfer radius of the first chamfer is less than a chamfer radius of the second chamfer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the first and second chamfers with different relative chamfer radii such that the chamfer radius of the first chamfer was less than the chamfer radius of the second chamfer, as a matter of simple design choice, as one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation would be able to select any desired chamfer radii without affecting the overall functionality of the device.
[claim 11] wherein a bending side between the elastic plate post and the elastic plate is provided with a third chamfer(C in annotated figure 1 below). Erickson however does detail the chamfer radius of the third chamfer, or that it is the same as the chamfer radius of the first chamfer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the first and third chamfers with same chamfer radii, as a matter of simple design choice, as one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation would be able to select any desired chamfer radii without affecting the overall functionality of the device.
[claim 12] wherein a distance between the fourth chamfer and the elastic plate post is less than a distance between the fifth chamfer and the elastic plate post(fig 1).
[claim 13] wherein a back bending side between the position-limiting head post and the position-limiting head is provided with a sixth chamfer(F in annotated figure 1 below); a bending side between the position-limiting head post and the position-limiting head is provided with a seventh chamfer(G in annotated figure 1 below). Erickson however does not provide specific or relative chamfer radii for the first, sixth and seventh chamfers, or that they are all the same. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the first, sixth and seventh chamfers all have the same chamfer radius, as one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation would be able to select any desired chamfer radii without affecting the overall functionality of the device.
[claim 15] wherein the position-limiting member comprises a position-limiting head post(24) and a position-limiting head(28), the position-limiting head post and the position-limiting head are integrally formed by bending; the position-limiting head is bent towards a direction of the elastic member to form a position-limiting end(end at 30); the guiding opening is defined between the free end of the elastic member and the position-limiting end of the position-limiting head; and an end of the position-limiting head post away from the position-limiting head is assembled on the bracket body(fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson(US3659319) in view of Harsch et al(US20220312647).
[claim 16] Erickson teaches a system with at least one bracket, the at least one bracket comprising a bracket body(10); an elastic member(16,20), wherein a fixed end of the elastic member is assembled on the bracket body(fig 1); and a position-limiting member(24,28), wherein a fixed end of the position-limiting member is assembled on the bracket body(fig 1); wherein the position-limiting member, the elastic member, and the bracket body enclose and define a position-limiting space(central space in fig 1); an end of the elastic member away from the fixed end of the elastic member is a free end(at 22); an end of the position-limiting member away from the fixed end of the position-limiting member is a position-limiting end(at 30); and a guiding opening(32) is defined between the free end of the elastic member and the position-limiting end of the position-limiting member, and the guiding opening is communicated with the position-limiting space ; and wherein the guiding opening has a size being adjusted by changing a degree of deformation of the free end of the elastic member(C2 L13-19), wherein the elastic member comprises an elastic plate post(16) and an elastic plate(20), and the elastic plate and the elastic plate post are integrally formed by bending; wherein the position-limiting member comprises a position-limiting head post(24) and a position-limiting head(28), the position-limiting head post and the position-limiting head are integrally formed by bending, and the elastic plate and the position-limiting head are bent towards each other(fig 1); wherein back bending sides of the elastic plate post and the elastic plate are provided with a first chamfer(A in annotated fig 1 above) and a second chamfer(B in annotated figure 1 above), respectively; a side of the position-limiting head adjacent to the guiding opening is provided with a fourth chamfer(D in annotated fig 1 above), a first flat surface(30a) and a fifth chamfer(E in annotated fig 1 above), the first flat surface is between the fourth chamfer and the fifth chamfer; a side of the elastic plate adjacent to the position-limiting head is provided with an eighth chamfer(H in annotated fig 1 above), the elastic plate is further provided with a second flat surface(20a) between the second chamfer and the eighth chamfer, wherein the fourth chamfer is adjacently connected with the fifth chamfer(D and E located adjacent each other as seen in figure 1 above) via the first flat surface, and the first flat surface and the second flat surface are extended inclinedly downward at an acute angle therebetween(Erickson teaches that the first and second flat surfaces are “generally parallel”(C1 L73-75) which would include arrangements within a few degrees of parallel, placing the first and second flat surfaces at an acute angle to each other, and further in figure 3, Erickson shows the clip in a flexed state, which would angle the first second flat surface towards the first flat surface, creating an acute angled between the two surfaces), and the position-limiting member and the elastic member are assembled in a groove channel(between walls 14a,14b) of the bracket body. Erickson however does not provide specific or relative chamfer radii for the second, fourth, fifth or eighth chamfers, or that they are the same, or that the bracket is a part of a cell contact system assembly, comprising a cell contact system body, where the bracket body is disposed on the cell contact system body. With regards to the chamfer radii, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the second, fourth, fifth and eighth chamfers have the same chamfer radius, as one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation would be able to select any desired chamfer radii without affecting the overall functionality of the device. With regards to the cell contact system body, Harsch teaches a similar system, comprising a cell contact system assembly(fig 1) with wires(7) supported by a bracket(seen in fig 1) disposed on the cell contact system body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the bracket of Ericskon with the cell contact system assembly of Harsch as this would provide a means for removably supporting the wires of the cell contact system assembly.
[claim 17] wherein the free end of the elastic member abuts against the position-limiting end of the position-limiting member in the case that the free end of the elastic member is elastically deformed towards the direction away from the position-limiting space(fig 1, when free end at 22 is deflected away from the position-limiting space, it would come into contact with the position-limiting end).
[claim 18] wherein the elastic member and/or the position-limiting member is provided with at least one bending portion(bend between 16 and 20, and bend between 24 and 28), so that the elastic member and the position-limiting member are bent towards each other to define the guiding opening(fig 1).
[claim 19] wherein an end of the elastic plate post away from the elastic plate and an end of the position-limiting head post away from the position-limiting head are both assembled on the bracket body , and the elastic plate post is a fixed end of the elastic plate(fig 1); and wherein the guiding opening is defined between a free end of the elastic plate and a position-limiting end of the position-limiting head, and projections of the free end of the elastic plate and the position-limiting end of the position-limiting head on the bracket body at least partially overlap with each other(as seen in figure 1, position-limiting end overlaps the free end of the elastic plate).
[claim 20] wherein a distance between the first chamfer and the position-limiting head is greater than a distance between the second chamfer and the position-limiting head(fig 1);.
Erickson however does not detail what the specific chamfer radius is for A or B, or that the chamfer radius of the first chamfer is less than a chamfer radius of the second chamfer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the first and second chamfers with different relative chamfer radii such that the chamfer radius of the first chamfer was less than the chamfer radius of the second chamfer, as a matter of simple design choice, as one of ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation would be able to select any desired chamfer radii without affecting the overall functionality of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First applicant argues that Erickson does not teach that the first and second flat surfaces(20a,30a) form an acute angle relative one another. The examiner disagrees, as noted above, Erickson teaches that the first and second flat surfaces are “generally parallel”(C1 L73-75) which would include arrangements within a few degrees of parallel, placing the first and second flat surfaces at an acute angle to each other, and further in figure 3, Erickson shows the clip in a flexed state, which would angle the first second flat surface towards the first flat surface, creating an acute angled between the two surfaces.
With regards to the chamfer radii all being the same applicant argues that it would take extensive experimentation to arrive at the claimed arrangement. Any attempt to optime the arrangement to find the optimal radii for all chamfers would be necessity involve some experimentation, it would not involve undue experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to find a single chamfer radius that would work for all chamfers, as a matter of routine optimization.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights