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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ridged slot as stated in claims 26-27 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11, 13-14, 16, 21-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this case, “at least one portion of the two portions is at least partially flat to contact the head of the fastener” (claim 1) is not found in the original specification, implicitly or explicitly. Note that in the specification, “flat portion 22” is referring to the base that is in contact with the support surface (as correctly claimed in the original claim 1). “biased portion 24” is referring to the portion whose surface is “grooved and serrated” and adapted to contact the head of the fastener (see figs. 1-2). Thus, it cannot be understood exactly what portion of the retainer is defined as “partially flat” in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11, 13-14, 16, 21-23 and 25-27 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.
In claim 1, lines 9-10, it is not clear exactly what “at least partially flat” portion is referring to and how this portion is related to the two portions of the retainer.
Note that all other claims, depending from the rejected claim, are also considered vague and indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11, 21-23 and 25-27, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosman ‘300 (0,740,300) in view of Mo et al. ‘231 (US 9,638,231 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Mosman discloses the invention as claimed (e.g., figs. 4-5), including a kit comprising: a knob, pull, or handle; a fastener with a head and a shank (h) sized to fasten to the knob; and a retainer (i) for a cabinet, a drawer, a bin or furniture, to affix the knob onto a support surface (a). Mosman does not show the retainer as claimed. Instead, the retainer of Mosman has one portion (i) having a slot (j) to receive the shank of the fastener. Mo et al. teaches a detachable retainer assembly as claimed, comprising a retainer body (22) with two portions (28, 30) that are spaced apart from each other and at least one of the two portions is elastically deformable relative to the other portion (line 49 of col. 4-line 8 of col. 5) for compression upon installation between the support surface (18) and a head (“20”, fig. 3) of a fastener, wherein a slot (34, 42) is formed within the body and is sized to receive a shank of the fastener (shank 26, 24) such that the elastically deformable portion (28) is compressed to retain the fastener, and wherein at least one portion of the two portions (28) is at least partially flat (fig. 6) to contact the head of the fastener (enlarged end of pin 20, see fig. 2). Mo et al. states that the detachable retainer assembly can rapidly assemble and disassemble the object without additional tools and provide stable assembly reliability due to flexible design of the retainer (col. 6, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retainer of Mosman with the retainer taught by Mo et al. to rapidly assemble and disassemble the drawer knob without additional tools and to provide stable assembly reliability due to the flexible design of the retainer. Further, the retainer taught by Mo et al. shows that at least one of the two portions (28) has a higher coefficient of friction than the rest of the body (due to the constriction of sections 36, 38 and 40 of slot 34 to frictionally block the fastener 20; see col 4, lines 33-42).
As to claim 2, the two portions (28, 30) of the retainer taught by Mo et al. are angled away from each other (figs. 6-7).
As to claim 4, the body of the retainer comprises a tab (32) interconnected to one of the two portions (28).
As to claim 5, the retainer body (22) comprises an intermediate portion (“44”, figs. 6-7) interconnecting the spaced apart portions.
As to claim 6, the slot (34, 42) is formed through the intermediate portion and the two spaced apart portions (figs. 6-7).
As to claim 7, Mo et al. does not show the retainer body being formed from a sheet of spring steel alloy. Mo et la. Only mentions the retainer preferably made of metal material (col. 5, lines 13-14). However, the examiner takes Official Notice that forming a flexible retainer from a sheet of spring steel ally is known in the art (e.g., US 6,854,946 B2, Bauer). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the retainer from a sheet of spring steel alloy for its flexibility, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 8, the retainer body of Mo et al. has a common thickness (figs. 6-7).
As to claim 11, the retainer body taught by Mo et al. does not show at least one of the two portions being serrated. The examiner takes Official Notice that forming serrations on a retainer to enhance friction between the retainer and the head of a fastener is known in the art (e.g., US 6,854,946 B2 and 0,843,720). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form serrations on one of the portions to enhance friction between the retainer and the head of the fastener so that the position of the retainer would not move.
As to claim 21, the knob of Mosman is threaded; and the fastener (h) is threaded and in threaded engagement with the knob (fig. 4).
As to claim 22, Mosman is “pulls on cabinet-drawer”(lines 40-45); and the kit of claim 1 is installed to a support surface (“a cabinet or drawer front”, lines 101-102).
As to claim 23, Mosman does not state “a bin”. However, a drawer itself can be considered as a bin, meeting the claim. Further, Mosman teaches a plurality of the kits (lines 19-47) but does not specify whether the kits are stored in the bin. However, hardware kits (such as knobs, handles, hinges, bumpers etc.) kept in the bin or within any furniture storage enclosure before assembling is well known and common in the art. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to store the kits of claim 1 in the bin so that the kits can be conveniently obtained during assembling.
As to claim 25, Mosman shows a bin (i.e., a drawer) but not for a tiltable bin. However, both the bin and the tiltable bin are comparable structures that perform similar function, and therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the kit of Mosman and Mo et al. on a tiltable bin, to achieve the predictable result of pulling/pushing of the bin.
As to claims 26-27, the slot of the retainer taught by Mo et al. does not show the slot being ridged. The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art of fastener clips to form a ridged slot to receive the threads of a fastener to enhance positive engagement (e.g., US2011/0085875 A1, 3,894,377, 4,473,316, and 4,919,580). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the claimed invention to form the slot of Mo et al. with ridges to enhance a positive engagement between the retainer and the screw.
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosman ‘300 and Mo et al. ‘231 (US 9,638,231 B2) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 11, and 21-23 above, and further in view of Bozzo ‘807 (4,663,807).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Mosman and Mo et al. discloses the invention as claimed. However, the retainer of Mo et al. does not show the tab (32) being converging away from the slot and sized to receive a human finger or thumb. Instead, Mo et al. shows a flat tab. Bozzo teaches a retainer having a flat tab (32, 34) to receive a finger for applying pressure to the retainer. Bozzo also teaches that the tab (82, 84) can “concave outwardly” so that they may more comfortably be engaged by hand than the flat tabs (line 55 of col. 5-line 2 of col. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the tab of Mo et al. concave outwardly as taught by Bozzo, so that the tabs may more comfortably be engaged by the user’s fingers.
As to claim 14, the tab of Mo et al. (32) extends generally perpendicular to the at least partially flat portion (48).
As to claim 16, the tab of Mo et al. (32) has a uniform thickness common with a thickness of the body (figs. 6-7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (1) regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Mo et al. does not show “wherein at least one portion of the two portions is at least partially flat to contact the head of the fastener”. While it is unclear exactly what is defined as the flat portion (see 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above), the examiner would like to emphasize that Moe et al. shows both portions (30 and 28) being at least partially flat (see figs. 6-7) to contact either the support surface or the head of the fastener. Further, applicant argues that the constriction (frictional means) is not formed in the third part 48 of Mo et al.. Examiner agrees. However, the claim only states “one of the two retainer portions”. Mo et al. certainly meets the claim. (2) regarding claim 11, applicant argues that ”ridges”, “ribs” are not “serrated”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to Webster’s New World Dictionary (Third College Edition, 1988), serrate or serration can be sawlike notches, a single tooth or notch. “ridges” or “ribs” shown in the references (US 6,854,946 and US 0,843,720) undoubtedly meets the sawlike notches, a single tooth or notch. (3) applicant further argues that there is no reason to provide serrations since the constricted area of the slot already “avoid separation”. Examiner again respectfully disagrees. The serrations function to prevent movement of the fastener to rotate about its axis, by frictional contact of two surface. The construction area functions to prevent movement of the fastener in an axial direction, by frictional engagement of the slot wall into the threads of the fastener. Both constricted and serrated formations enhance positive engagement between the fastener and the retainer in different directions.
Conclusion
Note attached PTO-892.
All cited references show a fastener retainer including a serrated slot, to enhance friction between the fastener and the retainer.
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 CHUCK MAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00.
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.
/CHUCK Y MAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 CM
April 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights