DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. Claims 1-3, as originally filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 provision of “more second soft grooves”, “more noise prevention protrusions” and an embodiment with one bead on the support arm or elastic arm must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently the figures only show an embodiment with a singular soft groove positioned between the first soft grooves. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7 the phrase “the two” should be replaced by --the pair--.
In claim 1, lines 9 and 10 the terms “two” should be replaced by --the--.
In claim 1, line 19, the numeral “123” should be enclosed in parentheses.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3 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.
The preamble of claim 1 appears to establish the claim is for a vehicle module clip. However, lines 4, 6 and 20 appear to have positive recitations of the first member and coupling hole suggesting the claim is drawn to the combination of structures. Whether the claims are for the combination or not, the language should be consistent.
In claim 1, line 8, its unclear how the term “cut” affects the structure of the claimed guides.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "both edges" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 2, it is unclear what direction the “outward direction of the base” is indicative of.
Claim 3 inherits the deficiencies of claim 1 above.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (US 2013/0202350) in view of Kwon (US 2016/0115987).
Regarding claim 1, Kwon et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a base (110) fastened to the first member using the screw; and
a pair of hooks (120) that are bent from portions of both edges of the base and fitted into and assembled with the coupling hole,
wherein the base includes guides (112) positioned between the two hooks and cut to protrude to face each other,
the guides are formed such that a distance between two guides facing each other decreases as a distance from the base to the two guides increases (Fig. 3 as shown), and
the hooks includes a pair of facing support arms (121a) formed on both sides of the base to be obliquely bent toward each other, flanges (121b) that are bent from protruding ends of the support arms to face each other and maintain a predetermined distance therebetween, two pairs of elastic arms (122) which are formed by cutting central portions of the support arms to be unfolded outward from the flanges, steps (124) that are bent from end portions of the elastic arms to face each other and caught in the coupling hole, two first soft grooves (upper portion of the cuts used to form the elastic arms) formed in portions of the flanges in contact with the elastic arms.
Kwon et al. fails to disclose one or more second soft grooves formed in the flanges to be positioned between the two first soft grooves.
Kwon teaches grooves at a central portion of a bent portion of arms (300 as visible in Fig. 4).
From this teaching of Kwon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to include an additional soft groove to enhance flexible deformation of the arms to ease insertion of the clip within a coupling hole
Kwon et al. fails to explicitly disclose a width (W) and an angle (θ) between two elastic arms are in the range of 15.8 mm to 16.2 mm and the range of 48° and 52°, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a width and an angle between 15.8 and 16.2mm and 58 to 62° to sufficiently fit in coupling holes sized and as is common in the prior art to balance ease of insertion and secure fitting. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Kwon et al. further disclose wherein: one or more beads (126) are further formed on the support arms in an outward direction of the base; and one or more beads (127) are further formed on the elastic arms in the outward direction of the base.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon et al. further discloses wherein one or more noise prevention protrusions (125) are formed on facing surfaces of the flanges.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/515,336 in view of Kwon (US 2016/0115987). Claim 1 appears to be claim essentially the same subject matter except for the top end of the angle range being 62° instead of 52° and second soft grooves between the first soft grooves. Claims 2 and 3 from both applications are identical.
Kwon teaches an apparatus with grooves at a central portion of a bent portion of arms (300).
From this teaching of Kwon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to include an additional soft groove to enhance flexible deformation of the arms to ease insertion of the clip within a coupling hole.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
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