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.
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) 1-19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidlake et al. (US 2019/0048911).
Regarding claim 1, Bidlake et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a pair of sides (108 on right side of Fig. 1 as shown below) joined at a head portion (106), wherein the sides form a clip opening at a foot portion (116) at an opposite end of the head portion;
at least two projections (108 on left side of Fig. 1 as shown below) are configured to engage a slot in a chassis and to secure the fastener clip to the chassis;
the at least two projections having a top portion and a bottom portion (Fig. 1 shows wherein a wider bottom portion at 140 and a narrower portion top portion), wherein the at least two projections are attached to the head portion along the top portion of each of the projections, on opposite sides of the clip;
where the at least two projections are attached to the foot portion along the width of the bottom portion of each projection, on opposite sides of the clip, such that the projection is affixed to the side (Fig. 1 as shown);
wherein the bottom portion has a width more than a width of the top portion on the at least two projections (Fig. 1 as shown); and
wherein a bend along the width of the bottom portions of the projections engage the chassis to secure the clip to the slot (Fig. 9 as shown).
Bidlake et al. fails to disclose wherein the bottom portion has a width more than twice the width of the top portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to more than double the width to achieve an optimal surface area to grip the sides of the slot while still providing sufficient pliability in the top portion since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
PNG
media_image1.png
962
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bidlake et al. further disclose including one or more pairs of barbs (124) coupled to the pair of sides, wherein the barbs are configured to dig into a blade, wherein the blade is configured to be coupled to a panel, wherein the fastener clip is configured to be secured over the blade based at least upon the barbs being configured to dig into the blade upon the fastener clip being pushed over the blade.
Regarding claim 3, Bidlake et al. further disclose wherein as the clip is inserted such that the projections engage the slot of the chassis, the head portion and the barbs spring to allow the sides to compress toward each other; and as the bend passes the slot the head portion springs the sides outwardly until the bottom portion of the projection engages the slot when the clip is in an engaged position (the device profile of Fig. 5 would perform in this claimed manner).
Regarding claim 4, Bidlake et al. further disclose wherein the projections do not substantially bend (Fig. 1 shows wherein in operation the bending of the clip is not intended to occur at the projections but instead to be experienced towards the head portion).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Bidlake et al. further discloses wherein each of the projections is tapered from a narrow width at the top portion to a wide width at the bottom portion (Fig. 1 as shown).
Regarding claim 6, Bidlake et al. further discloses a stretch web (118) formed such that as the bend is formed, material from the stretch web is displaced to form the bend.
Regarding claim 7, Bidlake et al. further disclose wherein as the clip is inserted into the slot of the chassis, the head portion springs to allow the sides to compress toward each other (Figs. 8-9 as shown).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Bidlake et al. further discloses wherein the fastener clip is configured to couple the chassis to the panel based at least upon the fastener being configured to be secured to a blade and to the slot in the chassis (Fig. 8 as shown).
Regarding claim 9, Bidlake et al. further disclose wherein a blade comprises one or more flanges that are configured to add rigidity to the blade, and wherein the flanges are configured to guide the clip onto the blade (the clip as claimed can be used with a blade as described herein).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Bidlake et al. further disclose wherein the projections are configured to move substantially with the sides of the clip (Fig. 4 as shown).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Bidlake et al. further disclose wherein the barbs have bent tips such that as the projections engage the slot of the chassis, the bent barbs are configured to bend in response to the clip being inserted into the slot and to then bend back to original positions of the bent barbs (Figs. 4 and 4 as shown).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Bidlake et al. further disclose wherein the head portion further comprising a channel whereas the channel engages the blade to engage a top portion of the blade to maintain spring engagement (Figs. 5, 8 and 9 as shown).
Regarding claim 13, Bidlake et al. disclose an apparatus comprising:
a chassis (202) comprising a slot (210);
a panel comprising a blade (200);
a fastener clip comprising:
a pair of sides (108 on right side of Fig. 1 as shown above) joined at a head portion (106), wherein the sides form a clip opening at a foot portion (116) at an opposite end of the head portion;
one or more pairs of barbs (124) coupled to the pair of sides, wherein the barbs are configured to dig into the blade, wherein the blade is configured to be coupled to the panel, wherein the fastener clip is configured to be secured over the blade based at least upon the barbs being configured to dig into the blade upon the fastener clip being pushed over the blade (Fig. 9 as shown);
at least two projections (108 on left side of Fig. 1 as shown above) are configured to engage a slot in a chassis and to secure the fastener clip to the chassis;
the at least two projections having a top portion and a bottom portion (Fig. 1 shows wherein a wider bottom portion at 140 and a narrower portion top portion), wherein the at least two projections are attached to the head portion along the top portion of each of the projections, on opposite sides of the clip;
where the at least two projections are attached to the foot portion along the width of the bottom portion of each projection, on opposite sides of the clip, such that the projection is affixed to the side (Fig. 1 as shown);
wherein the bottom portion has a width more than a width of the top portion on the at least two projections (Fig. 1 as shown); and
wherein a bend along the width of the bottom portions of the projections engage the chassis to secure the clip to the slot (Fig. 9 as shown).
Bidlake et al. fails to disclose wherein the bottom portion has a width more than double the width of the top portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention double the width to achieve an optimal surface area to grip the sides of the slot while still providing sufficient pliability in the top portion since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Bidlake et al. further disclose wherein as the clip is inserted such that the projections engage the slot of the chassis, the head portion and the barbs spring to allow the sides to compress toward each other (Figs. 6-9 as shown).
Regarding claim 21, Bidlake et all further discloses wherein:
as the clip is inserted such that the projections engage the slot of the chassis, the head portion and the barbs spring to allow the sides to compress toward each other; and
as the bend passes the slot the head portion springs the sides outwardly until the bottom portion of the projection engages the slot when the clip is in an engaged position (Figs. 6-9 as shown).
Regarding claim 22, Bidlake further discloses wherein the at least two projections extend outwardly beyond the pair of sides (The projections as shown above in Fig. 1 extend on the left side of the clip beyond an extension of the sides towards the same left side.).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidlake et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Komeno et al. (US 2015/0026933).
Regarding claim 20, Bidlake et al. disclose the invention except for wherein the blade comprises one or more flanges that are configured to add rigidity to the blade, and wherein the flanges are configured to guide the clip onto the blade.
Komeno et al teach a blade with flanges (22b).
From this teaching of Komeno, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to include flanges to aid in the overall rigidity of the flange to ensure consistent relative spacing between attached panels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued against the manner Examiner has assigned the sides and projections in the prior art of Bidlake. As previously indicated, but now further shown in the annotated Figured above, Bidlake is above demonstrated to have the sides and projections on opposed sides of the clip. While the pair of sides and projections are assigned to equivalent structures, their distinct assignment is shown above as each is a distinct structure meeting the claim language requirements as to number, function and attachment.
Applicant further argues regarding the width of the bottom portion of the projection is double the width of the top portion. As noted above, Bidlake already shows an increased width. Setting that width to be more than double would be an obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art. Providing a specific citation of “more than twice” appears to be unnecessary when an increased width is already provided in the prior art.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant alleges Examiner acknowledging neither Bidlake nor Komeno teach flanges. However, the Office Action instead only states Bidlake fails to disclose flanges. Komeno is provided as a teaching reference to modify Bidlake to include structural rigidifying flanges. Applicant’s remarks regarding the thickness of the clip vs the blade are not understood. The blade of Komeno would appear to still operate if the blade is scaled to the clip of Bidlake regardless of Applicant’s comments about thickness. However, only the flanges are being introduced from Komeno and Applicant’s remarks appear to be irrelevant at this point.
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 MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677