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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 5, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,945,344. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application read on the reference claims of the ‘344 patent. For instance, claim 1 of the instant application reads on claims 1, 3, and 6 of the reference claims; claim 2 of the instant application reads on claim 1 of the reference claims; claim 3 of the instant application reads on claim 4 of the reference claims; and claim 4 of the instant application reads on claim 5 of the reference claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the semicolon in line 1 should be replaced with a colon, i.e., replace “comprising;” with -- comprising: --. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, US 2020/0383432 in view of Fiedler, US 2014/0339232.
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a connector (100j) [for joining two parts] comprising: a base part (10) having a flange (103) and a first magnetic element (7; embedded in a chamber 101); and a latch part (3) having a receptacle (the cavity of the latch part 3 shown receiving the base part 10) into which a portion of the base part (10) is received, a first slide (5) having a second magnetic element (8a) and a third magnetic element (8b), the first slide (5) being moveable between an engaging position (figure 75; 8a is aligned with 7) and a releasing position (figure 76; 8b is aligned with 7); a second slide (6) separate from and moveable relative to the first slide (5), the second slide (6) being slidably disposed on the latch part (3) and moveable between a latched position and an unlatched position; wherein movement of the first slide (5) between the engaging position and the releasing position causes movement of the second slide (6) between the latched position and the unlatched position (5 drives 6 by cooperation of structures 141 and 151); wherein the second slide (6) is mechanically coupled to the first slide (5; a driving cooperating structure 141 formed on the first slide 5 as a first inclined surface structure and a driven cooperating structure 151 formed on the second slide 6 as a second inclined surface structure); and wherein the second slide (6) is configured to engage the flange (103) of the base part (10) in the latched position (a locking structure 61 of the second slide 6 engaging the flange 103 and being biased into engagement therewith by a second resilient component 16).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose that the second slide (6) is mechanically coupled to the first slide (5) such that the second slide is constrained to move a lesser distance than the first slide, and wherein movement of the first slide between the engaging position and the releasing position is greater than movement of the second slide between the latched position and the unlatched position.
Fiedler teaches a connector in which the first slide (4), carrying the second magnetic element (32) and the third magnetic element (34), traverses a full lateral stroke along an opening direction Y to bring the third magnetic element (34) into a repelling alignment (magnetic) with the first magnetic element (22), while the catch element (41) is displaced only slightly between its latched and unlatched conditions, thus teaching that the travel required to realign the magnetic element exceeds the travel required to release the catch. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the inclined surface coupling (141, 151) of Cheng so that the second slide (6) is constrained to move a lesser distance than the first slide (5) as taught by Fiedler in order to reduce the displacement of the second slide against its second resilient component and thereby reduce the force required of the user to release the connector, providing the simple release operation.
Claim language set in brackets [] set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of the connector, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the magnetic closure device taught by the combination of Cheng (US 2021/0015217) and Fiedler (US 2014/0339232), is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cheng and Fiedler teaches the connector of claim 1, Cheng further discloses wherein the first and second slides (5 and 6) are resiliently biased toward the engaging and latched positions, respectively (first resilient component 13a disposed between 4 and the buckle component 3 and sheathed on guiding portion 42 biasing the slide 4 toward the engaging position; second resilient component 16 disposed between the slide 6 and the component 3 biasing the locking structure 61 into engagement with the locked structure 103).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cheng and Fiedler teaches the connector of claim 2, Cheng further discloses an actuator (4) configured to move the first slide (5) toward the releasing position (figure 76).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cheng and Fiedler teaches the connector of claim 3, Cheng further discloses wherein the first slide (5) includes a first resilient member (13a) and the second slide (6) includes a second resilient member (16), each resilient member (13a, 16) having a respective spring rate (each being an elastic spring).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose the spring rate of the first resilient member being greater than the spring rate of the second resilient member. However, Fiedler teaches that the spring rate of the first resilient member (35) being greater (the slide 4 has to be biased to travel a longer distance while the slide 41 has a minimal travel distance to engage and release) than the spring rate of the second resilient member (410). It is noted that a higher catch spring rate increases resistance to accidental release while a lower actuator spring rate minimizes the user effort required for intentional release.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resilient members of Cheng with the resilient members of Fiedler such that the spring rate of the first resilient member is greater than the spring rate of the second resilient member, in order to provide sufficient restoring force to return the first slide (5) over its longer stroke while minimizing the resistance force encountered when the second slide (6) is displaced by the base part (10) during connection.
Regarding claim 5, Cheng discloses a connector [for joining two parts], comprising: a base (10) having a flange (103); a post (projecting male portion of 10) extending from the base (10) and having a first magnetic element (7) disposed therein (in chamber 101); a latch part (3) having a receptacle (cavity of 3; see figure 17) into which a portion of the post may be received; a first slide (5) bi-directionally moveable along an axis (the sliding direction of 4), the first slide (5) having a second magnetic element (8a) and a third magnetic element (8b), the second magnetic element (8a) being magnetically attracted to the first magnetic element (7) in a closing configuration (figure 75), the third magnetic element (8b) being magnetically repulsive with the first magnetic element (7) in a repelling configuration (figure 76); and a second slide (6) separate from and moveable relative to the first slide (5), the second slide (6) being bi-directionally moveable to engage or release the flange (103); wherein the first slide (5) is moveable to selectively align the second magnetic element (8a) or the third magnetic element (8b) with the first magnetic element (7; figures 75-76); and wherein movement of the first slide (5) toward alignment of the third magnetic element (8b) with the first magnetic element (7) causes movement of the second slide (6) to release the flange (103; via driving cooperating structure 141 and driven cooperating structure 151); and wherein the second slide (6) is mechanically coupled to the first slide (5; via inclined surface structures 141, 151).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose that the second slide (6) is bi-directionally moveable along the axis along which the first slide (5) is moveable, and the second slide (6) is constrained to move a lesser distance than the first slide along the axis.
Fiedler teaches a connector wherein the first slide (4) and the second slide (41) are both moveable along the axis (Y direction), the second slide (41) being held at the first slide (4) and guided therewith in the guideway (31) of the latch part (3), and in which the displacement of the second slide (41) between its latched and unlatched conditions is slight relative to the full stroke of the first slide (4) along that axis. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second slide (6) of Cheng so that the second slide is bi-directionally moveable along the same axis as the first slide (5) and is constrained to move a lesser distance as taught by Fiedler in order to reduce the force required of the user to release the connector and thereby providing a simple release operation. It is noted that the modification requires only reorientation of the guide surfaces for the latch (6) and the inclined surface structures (141, 151) already present in Cheng; the cam release by which Cheng operates functions independent of the relative orientation of the latch (6) and the component (4).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cheng and Fiedler teaches the connector of claim 5, Cheng further discloses wherein the second slide (6) engages the flange (103) of the base (10) in the latched position (61 engaging 103).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose wherein the post further comprises a second flange and the second slide is bi-directionally moveable to simultaneously engage the flange and the second flange.
Fiedler teaches a connector wherein the base (20) has a flange (24) and the post (21) extending therefrom further comprises a second flange (210) and the second slide (41) is bi-directionally moveable (in the direction Y) to simultaneously engage the flange (24) and the second flange (210). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the post of Cheng such that the post further comprises a second flange and the second slide is bi-directionally moveable to engage the flanges as taught by Fiedler in order to provide two simultaneously engaged retention interfaces between the base (10) and the latch part (3) and thereby increase the resistance of the connector to separation under load.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cheng and Fiedler teaches the connector of claim 6, Cheng further discloses wherein the first slide (5) is resiliently biased (via first resilient component 13a) to align the first and second magnetic elements (7, 8a; figure 75) and the second slide (6) is resiliently biased (via second resilient component 16) to engage the flanges (24, 210 of Fiedler).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Cheng and Fiedler teaches the connector of claim 7, Cheng further discloses an actuator (4) configured to selectively move the first and second slides (5, 6).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cheng and Fiedler teaches the connector of claim 7, Cheng further discloses wherein the first slide (5) is resiliently biased (via first resilient component 13a) and the second slide (6) is resiliently biased (via second resilient component 16). Cheng does not explicitly disclose wherein the first slide resilient bias is greater than the second slide resilient bias. However, Fiedler teaches that the spring rate of the first resilient member (35) being greater (the slide 4 has to be biased to travel a longer distance while the slide 41 has a minimal travel distance to engage and release) than the spring rate of the second resilient member (410). It is noted that a higher catch spring rate increases resistance to accidental release while a lower actuator spring rate minimizes the user effort required for intentional release.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resilient members of Cheng with the resilient members of Fiedler such that the spring rate of the first resilient member is greater than the spring rate of the second resilient member, in order to provide sufficient restoring force to return the first slide (5) over its longer stroke while minimizing the resistance force encountered when the second slide (6) is displaced by the base part (10) during connection.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Cheng and Fiedler teaches the connector of claim 5, Cheng further discloses wherein the first slide (5) is displaced between closing and repelling configurations (figures 75-76) and the second slide (6) is displaced between the engaging and releasing positions (via inclined surface structures 141, 151).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose wherein displacement of the first slide between closing and repelling configurations is greater than displacement of the second slide between the engaging and releasing positions. Fiedler teaches that displacement of the first slide (4) between the closing configuration (figure 3B) and the repelling configuration (figure 3C) is greater than displacement of the second slide (41), the first slide (4) traversing a full lateral stroke along the opening direction (Y) while only a slight spreading of the second slide (41) occurs. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the displacement of the first slide relative to the second slide of Cheng with the teaching of Fiedler in order to reduce the displacement of the second slide against its second resilient component and thereby reduce the force required of the user to release the connector, providing the simple release operation.
Regarding claim 11, Cheng discloses a connector [for joining two parts] comprising: a base (10) having a first flange (103); a post (projecting male portion of 10) extending from the base (10) and having a first magnetic element (7) disposed therein (in chamber 101); a latch part (3) having a receptacle (cavity of 3; figure 17) into which the post (of 10) may be received; and a slide (5, 6) including a first portion (5) and a second portion (6), the slide having a second magnetic element (8a) and a third magnetic element (8b), the slide (5, 6) being bi-directionally moveable along an axis between a latched position (figure 75) and a released position (figure 76); wherein the second portion (6) is separate from and moveable relative to the first portion (5); wherein movement of the slide (5, 6) to the latched position (figure 75) aligns the second magnetic element (8a) in a magnetically attractive relation with the first magnetic element (7) and engages the flange (61 engages 103); wherein movement of the slide to the released position (figure 76) aligns the third magnetic element (8b) in a magnetically repulsive relation with the first magnetic element (7) and disengages the slide from the flange (via inclined surface structures 141, 151 driving the latch 6 out of engagement).
Cheng does not explicitly disclose that the post has a second flange, that movement of the slide engages and disengages the first and second flanges, and that the second portion (6) is mechanically coupled to the first portion (5) such that the second portion is constrained to move a lesser distance than the first portion during movement between the latched position and the released position.
Fiedler teaches a connector wherein the base (20) has a first flange (24) and the post (21) has a second flange (210), and wherein the second portion (41) is coupled to the first portion (4) such that the second portion (41) is constrained to move a lesser distance than the first portion (4) during movement between the latched position (figure 3B) and the released position (figure 3C), the first portion (4) traversing a full lateral stroke along the opening direction (Y) while only a slight spreading of the second portion (41) occurs. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cheng with the teach of Fiedler such that the post further comprises a second flange engaged and disengaged together with the first flange, such that the second portion (6) is mechanically coupled to the first portion (5) and constrained to move a lesser distance than the first portion (5) during movement between the latched and released positions, in order to provide two simultaneously engaged retention interfaces increasing the resistance of the connector to separation under load, and in order to reduce the force required of the user to release the connector.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cheng and Fiedler teaches the connector of claim 11, Cheng further discloses wherein the slide (5, 6) is resiliently biased toward the latched position (first resilient component 13a biasing the operating component 4 that is connected to 5 toward the position of figure 75; second resilient component 16 biasing the structure 61 of the second portion 6 into engagement with the flange 103).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cheng and Fiedler teaches the connector of claim 12, Cheng further discloses an actuator (4) configured to move the slide (5, 6) toward the release position (figure 76).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Cheng and Fiedler teaches the connector of claim 13, Cheng further discloses wherein the slide further comprises a catch portion (a catch component of 6) and a magnetic portion (a magnetic portion of 5), the catch portion (of 6) being moveable in relation to the magnetic portion (of 5) and configured to engage the first flange (103) and the second flange (210 of Fiedler), the second and third magnetic elements (8a, 8b) being disposed in the magnetic portion (of 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for similar art cited.
Kasai (US 4,542,563) teaches a release slider (14) that drives a separate blocking element (16) through a ramped surface (68), such that the driven blocking element travels a lesser distance than the slider.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWLAND DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 7:00 PT.
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.
/R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
