DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the term “is provided” is stated in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over TW’583 (TW 1748583 cited by applicant).
With respect to claim 1, TW’583 discloses a fastening device (Figs. 1-2), comprising: a back plate 13; a rear cover 111, arranged on the back plate and having a protruding portion 112; and an elastic piece 12, arranged between the back plate and the rear cover, wherein the elastic piece has a first opening, and the protruding portion passes through the first opening, and the first opening is a tooth-shaped structure (Figs. 1B, 1C). However, TW’583 fails to explicitly teach “tooth-shaped” as claimed. It appears to be a tooth-shaped opening in Figs. 1B, 1C, and would also be considered an obvious design choice.
With respect to claim 2, TW’583 teaches wherein the elastic piece further has a second opening and a third opening, and the second opening and the third opening are respectively located on two sides of the first opening. See 111 and 131.
With respect to claim 3, TW’583 teaches further comprising: a plurality of fixing members 2, arranged on the elastic piece, and passing through the second opening and the third opening to fix the elastic piece on the back plate.
With respect to claim 4, TW’583 teaches wherein the plurality of fixing members comprise a plurality of screws or a plurality of bolts (Fig. 1A).
With respect to claim 5, although TW’583 is silent as to wherein the elastic piece has a thickness ranging from 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to provide for a thickness as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here 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).
With respect to claim 6, TW’583 teaches wherein top view shapes of the second opening and the third opening are both circular (Figs. 1B, 1C).
With respect to claim 7, TW’583 teaches wherein the back plate has a plurality of hooks and a plurality of positioning posts, and the elastic piece further has a plurality of fourth openings and a plurality of fifth openings, the second opening and the third opening of the elastic piece are engaged and fixed with the plurality of positioning posts of the back plate, and the fourth openings and the fifth openings of the elastic piece are engaged and fixed with the plurality of hooks of the back plate (Figs. 1B, 1C, 2A).
With respect to claim 8, TW’583 teaches wherein the elastic piece is fixed on the backboard through structural engagement (Figs. 1B, 1C, 2A).
With respect to claim 9, TW’583 teaches wherein the plurality of hooks and the plurality of positioning posts are respectively arranged on different surfaces of the back plate (Figs. 1B, 1C, 2A).
With respect to claim 10, TW’583 teaches wherein the plurality of hooks and the plurality of positioning posts are arranged by perpendicular to each other. See Figs. 1A-1C.
With respect to claim 11, although TW’583 is silent as to wherein the tooth-shaped structure comprises a plurality of protrusions, and a number of the plurality of protrusions is between 5 and 10 as claimed. See Figs. 1B, 1C. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to provide for a number of protrusions as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here 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).
With respect to claim 12, although TW’583 is silent as to wherein each of the protrusions of the tooth-shaped structure has a length, and the length is between 1.5 mm and 2.0 mm as claimed, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to provide for a length as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here 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).
With respect to claim 13, TW’583 teaches wherein he protruding portion has a thickness, and the first opening has a minimum width, and the thickness is greater than the minimum width. Can be drawn from Figs. 1B, 1C.
With respect to claim 14, although TW’583 is silent as to wherein the thickness and the minimum width have a difference range of 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm as claimed, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to provide for a difference range as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here 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).
With respect to claim 15, TW’583 teaches wherein the protruding portion has a top surface, and the top surface is a beveled or rounded structure (Figs. 1B, 1C).
With respect to claim 16, TW’583 teaches wherein the protruding portion is screwed or integrally formed on the rear cover (Figs. 1B, 1C).
With respect to claim 17, TW’583 teaches wherein a shape of the protruding portion comprises a cylinder, a square column, a triangular column or an elliptical column (Figs. 1B, 1C). With regard to the various shapes of the Markush group recited in the claim, the Examiner would like to note that the shapes of the Markush group are being considered as obvious variants, and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to employ such alternative shapes in the device of TW’583, as based on design choice.
With respect to claim 18, TW’583 teaches wherein the back plate has two fitting grooves, and the elastic piece further has two fitting portions, and the two fitting portions of the elastic piece are respectively fitted and fixed with the two fitting grooves of the back plate (Figs. 1B. 1C).
With respect to claim 19, TW’583 teaches wherein the elastic piece is fixed on the back plate through structural fitting Figs. 1B. 1C. 2A).
With respect to claim 20, although TW’583 is silent as to wherein the elastic piece is fixed on the back plate by thermal melting as claimed. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any known manner to fix the two parts together, as based on design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. TW 495588 teaches a damper device in which the projecting length of a damper body can be easily adjusted and set to a desired length with high work efficiency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKIYA W BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-7039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 5712724137. 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.
/ZAKIYA W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 6/22/2026
Prosecution Insights