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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutshall US6644902 (hereinafter, Cutshall) in view of Schneider et al., US20170292555 (hereinafter, Schneider), in further view of Hay US20130071203 (hereinafter, Hay).
Regarding claim 1, Cutshall teaches a system (see 10, in Figs. 1-11) for a vehicle comprising:
a first part 75 including a first aperture (see Figs. 14-15 as a reference); and
a compression limiter 12, the compression limiter including:
a body 16 defining a second aperture 18 that is coincident with the first aperture (see Figs. 14-15 as a reference);
a pair of fingers 20 ,22 extending from the body into the second aperture to a distal end configured to engage with a thread of a bolt 85 of a second part, the first part and the second part being configured to be secured to one another via the bolt passing through the first aperture and the second aperture (see Figs. 14-15 as a reference); and
a pair of slots (see Fig. 1) on either side of the pair of fingers configured to allow the pair of fingers to flex in response to a force exerted upon the pair of fingers (column 4, lines 1-8).
Cutshall fails to teach the compression limiter is disposed within the first aperture of the first part.
However, Schneider teaches an assembly unit 1 having a compression limiter 4 disposed (see para. [0043]) within the first aperture of the first part (2, see Fig. 10).
It is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention for the compression limiter of Cutshall to be disposed within the first aperture of the first part as taught by Schneider so the spring arms of the limiter are prevented from jutting out.
Further, Cutshall fails to expressly disclose a second part.
It is the Examiner’s position that second part maybe any parts of the vehicle that assembly in Cutshall is connecting the part 75 to.
However, Schneider teaches a holder 4 used with a screw 3 securing a first part 7 and a second part 8. Since, the Cutshall in view of Schneider teaches and/or make obvious of all the structural limitations, the examiner considers it obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have used the system to secure two parts as a knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine skill.
Cutshall in view of Schneider fails to teach wherein a compression limiter formed of a thermoplastic elastomer.
However, Hay teaches a fastener retention system having a retainer member (82, see Fig. 1) formed of a thermoplastic elastomer (see para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the compression limiter of Cutshall to be made of a thermoplastic elastomer as taught by Hay for its various properties, e.g. low compression yield.
In any event, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the compression limiter in Cutshall to be a thermoplastic elastomer, 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 engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4, Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay teaches and/or make obvious of the system of Claim 1, wherein Cutshall further teaches the bolt 85 is configured to receive one of a flange nut (see Fig. 14-15b as a reference) or a washer.
Regarding claim 5, Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay teaches and/or make obvious of the system of Claim 4, wherein Cutshall further teaches that the body of the compression limiter includes an upper surface (US, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) that is configured to engage with one of the flange nut 14 or the washer.
PNG
media_image1.png
306
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 6, Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay teaches and/or make obvious of the system of Claim 5, wherein Cutshall further teaches each of the pair of fingers 20, 22 includes an upper surface that is spaced below the upper surface (US, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1 above) of the body of the compression limiter (see column 4 lines 1-8 discussing tabs 20, 22 are angled spaced below the upper surface of the body).
Regarding claim 7, Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay teaches and/or make obvious of the system of Claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein when the pair of fingers are engaged with the thread of the bolt, the first part is at least temporarily secured to the second part.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that when the pair of fingers 20, 22 in Cutshall are engaged with the thread of the bolt 85, the first part is at least temporarily secured to the second part (see Figs. 15a-15b for the reference). Examiner considers it structural limitation where the system of Cutshall is capable of performing such action as shown in Schneider.
Regarding claim 8, A system for a vehicle comprising:
a first part including a first aperture; and
a compression limiter formed of a thermoplastic elastomer and disposed within the first aperture of the first part, the compression limiter
including:
a body defining a second aperture that is coincident with the first aperture;
a pair of fingers extending from the body into the second aperture to a distal end; and
a pair of slots on either side of the pair of fingers configured to allow the pair of fingers to flex in response to a force exerted upon the pair of fingers.
(Limitations in claim 8 above are similar to of claim 1, therefore Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay still teaches and/or make obvious of those limitations. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 1.)
Regarding claim 11, Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay teaches and/or make obvious of the system of Claim 8, wherein Cutshall further teaches the distal end of each of the pair of fingers 20, 22 is configured to engage with a thread of a bolt 85 of a second part, the first part and the second part being configured to be secured to one another via the bolt passing through the first aperture and the second aperture (see Figs. 14-15 as a reference).
Regarding claim 12, Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay teaches and/or make obvious of the system of Claim 11, wherein the bolt 85 is configured to receive one of a flange nut 64 or a washer.
Regarding claim 13, Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay teaches and/or make obvious of the system of Claim 12, wherein the body of the compression limiter includes an upper surface (US, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) that is configured to engage with one of the flange nut 14 or the washer.
Regarding claim 14, Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay teaches and/or make obvious of the system of Claim 13, wherein each of the pair of fingers 20, 22 includes an upper surface that is spaced below the upper surface of the body of the compression limiter (see column 4 lines 1-8 discussing tabs 20, 22 are angled spaced below the upper surface of the body).
Regarding claim 15, Cutshall teaches a compression limiter 12 of a first part (see 75 in Figs. 14-15b as a reference), the compression limiter being formed of a thermoplastic elastomer (refer to the rejection and rationale set forth in claim 1 above) and comprising:
a body 16 defining an aperture 18;
a pair of fingers 20, 22 extending from the body into the aperture to a distal end (see tip end of both fingers in Fig. 1) configured to engage with a thread of a bolt of a second part, the first part and the second part being configured to be secured to one another via the bolt passing through the aperture (see Figs. 14-15b as a reference showing the bolt passing through the apertures and capable of connecting two parts together); and
a pair of slots (see Fig. 1) on either side of the pair of fingers 20, 22 configured to allow the pair of fingers to flex in response to a force exerted upon the pair of fingers (column 4, lines 1-8).
Cutshall fails to expressly disclose a second part.
It is the Examiner’s position that second part maybe any parts of the vehicle that assembly in Cutshall is connecting the part 75 to.
However, Schneider teaches a holder 4 used with a screw 3 securing a first part 7 and a second part 8. Since, the Cutshall in view of Schneider teaches and/or make obvious of all the structural limitations, the examiner considers it obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have used the system to secure two parts as a knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine skill.
Regarding claim 18, Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay teaches and/or make obvious of the compression limiter of Claim 15, wherein Cutshall teaches the bolt (not shown in Figs. 1-8) is configured to receive one of a flange nut 14 or a washer.
Regarding claim 19, Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay teaches and/or make obvious of the compression limiter of Claim 18, wherein Cutshall further teaches the body of the compression limiter includes an upper surface (US, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) that is configured to engage with one of the flange nut 14 or the washer.
Regarding claim 20, Cutshall in view of Schneider, in further view of Hay teaches and/or make obvious of the compression limiter of Claim 15, wherein Cutshall further teaches each of the pair of fingers 20, 22 includes an upper surface that is spaced below the upper surface of the body of the compression limiter (see column 4 lines 1-8 discussing tabs 20, 22 are angled spaced below the upper surface of the body).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument regarding prior art failing to disclose a compression limiter formed of a thermoplastic limiter, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is obvious and common knowledge for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a well-known material on the basis of suitability for the intended use. Further, rejection and rationale has been set forth above based on newly found and existing prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights