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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner thanks applicant for cancelling claim 9, this reduces issues.
Examiner notes that claim 20 has not changed to “radial direction”, and therefore the indefiniteness rejection is maintained.
Applicant adds the term “bridging surface” which is between the angled contact surface 178 and the catch feature 184. Examiner notes that this is clearly shown in the drawings and agreed with the annotated figure 3 as presented in applicant’s remarks 9/2/2025. However, the drawings of record (7/8/2025) and the specification (3/28/2024 or the entered amendment of 7/8/2025) do not mention “bridging surface”. Therefore, the drawings and specification are objected to.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Regarding claim 20, applicant claims that the “catch feature” extends parallel to the axial direction. Based on the orientation arrows in figure 3, and the structure as claimed in claim 18 as being “protrudes along a radial direction”, examiner assumes this is a typo. Examiner assumes applicant means “radial direction”, since the widest part of the stud has a width that is parallel to the radial direction, based on the orientation arrows in figure 3.
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) 1-8, 12-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2020/0217515 Wantland in view of 9009969 Choi.
PNG
media_image1.png
473
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wantland discloses a door assembly for an appliance (abstract), the door assembly comprising:
a door 204 comprising an outer door panel 210;
a mounting stud 266 extending from the outer door panel along an axial direction, the mounting stud defining an angled contact surface (annotated) and a catch protrusion (having diameter in dotted line in annotated fig. 3) that protrudes along a radial direction from an end of the angled contact surface, wherein the angled contact surface defines a maximum contact diameter at the end of the angled contact surface (adjacent the catch protrusion) and the catch protrusion defines a maximum catch diameter (dotted line in figure 3 above), the maximum catch diameter (of the catch protrusion) being greater than the maximum contact diameter (of the angled contact surface; all surfaces of the angled contact surface is less in diameter than the catch protrusion, as shown in figure 3);
a handle tube 236 defining a threaded aperture (figure 3); and
a threaded fastener (set screw, annotated) that passes through the threaded aperture and engages the angled contact surface to secure the handle tube to the door.
Wantland discloses that the angled contact surface directly abuts the catch protrusion maximum diameter. Wantland does not disclose the use of a bridging surface between the maximum diameter and the angled contact surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Choi figure 3 discloses a mounting stud having a stud diameter at 43a, an angled contact surface 43c, with a catch protrusion having the stud’s maximum diameter at part 43b. Choi also discloses a bridging surface (indicated in annotated figure 3) is defined between the angled contact surface 43c and the catch protrusion 43b, wherein a bridging angle (perpendicular) of the bridging surface is greater than a contact angle of the angled contact surface (as shown in figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a bridging surface of a mounting stud of Choi, to the known mounting stud of Wantland, as having two perpendicular surfaces on either side of the perpendicular set screw of mounting studs (such as Wantland and Choi) are old and well known. Examiner notes that mounting studs with set screws are old and well known to have perpendicular surfaces on either side of where the set screw abuts the mounting stud, is taught in previously cited references Aycock, Robinson, Scheuer, Hardt, as well as currently cited references Briles and Choi. Examiner contends that having perpendicular surfaces, or near perpendicular surfaces, on either side of the area abutting the perpendicular set screw, is an equivalent structure to the mounting set screws such as Wantland, which omits the bridging surface/second perpendicular set screw. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b).
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. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Wantland discloses the door assembly of claim 1, wherein the angled contact surface defines a contact angle (in the same manner as applicant’s angle 180) measured relative to the axial direction, wherein the contact angle is about 20 degrees, as shown in figure 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, Wantland discloses the door assembly of claim 1, wherein the mounting stud further defines a reverse chamfer (as annotated) on a distal end of the mounting stud.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Wantland discloses the door assembly of claim 4, wherein the reverse chamfer defines a chamfer angle measured relative to the axial direction (in the same manner as applicant’s angle 190), wherein the chamfer angle is about 45 degrees.
Regarding claim 7, Wantland discloses the door assembly of claim 1, wherein the catch protrusion defines a contact width (identical to applicant’s disclosed measurement 187) and the threaded fastener (set screw, annotated) defines a screw diameter, the width of measurement 187 as shown above, has a similar relationship with the diameter of the set screw as shown by applicant. This relationship shows that the catch feature’s 184 contact width is greater than the diameter of the set screw in applicant’s on own figures 4 and 5, and Wantland meets that relationship in figure 3, examiner assumes that claim 7’s structure is met in Wantland.
Regarding claim 8 Wantland discloses the door assembly of claim 1, wherein the threaded fastener (set screw) is fully recessed within the handle tube 236 when handle tube is properly installed (figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Wantland discloses the door assembly of claim 1, wherein the threaded fastener is a set screw (as shown in figure 3) and the threaded aperture is threaded for receipt of the set screw (as shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Wantland discloses a mounting stud for mounting a handle to an appliance door (abstract of Wantland), the mounting stud comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
473
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a stud body defining an axial direction and a radial direction;
a threaded portion (annotated) defined on a first end of the stud body, the threaded portion being configured for receipt within the appliance door (in door 204);
a reverse chamfer (annotated) defined at a second end of the stud body, wherein a stud diameter decreases along the reverse chamfer toward the second end of the stud body (has a similar angle to applicant’s disclosure); and
an angled contact surface (annotated) defined between the threaded portion and the reverse chamfer, wherein the stud diameter increases along the angled contact surface toward the second end of the stud body, wherein the angled contact surface defines a maximum contact diameter at the end of the angled contact surface (adjacent the catch protrusion, but less than the catch protrusion); and
a catch protrusion (annotated above) that protrudes along a radial direction (having the diameter in dotted line above) between the angled contact surface and the reverse chamfer, wherein the catch protrusion defines a maximum catch diameter (in dotted line above), the maximum catch diameter being greater than the maximum contact diameter (as required in Wantland figure 3).
Wantland discloses that the angled contact surface directly abuts the catch protrusion maximum diameter. Wantland does not disclose the use of a bridging surface between the maximum diameter and the angled contact surface.
Choi figure 3 discloses a mounting stud having a stud diameter at 43a, an angled contact surface 43c, with a catch protrusion having the stud’s maximum diameter at part 43b. Choi also discloses a bridging surface (indicated in annotated figure 3) is defined between the angled contact surface 43c and the catch protrusion 43b, wherein a bridging angle (perpendicular) of the bridging surface is greater than a contact angle of the angled contact surface (as shown in figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a bridging surface of a mounting stud of Choi, to the known mounting stud of Wantland, as having two perpendicular surfaces on either side of the perpendicular set screw of mounting studs (such as Wantland and Choi) are old and well known. Examiner notes that mounting studs with set screws are old and well known to have perpendicular surfaces on either side of where the set screw abuts the mounting stud, is taught in previously cited references Aycock, Robinson, Scheuer, Hardt, as well as currently cited references Briles and Choi. Examiner contends that having perpendicular surfaces, or near perpendicular surfaces, on either side of the area abutting the perpendicular set screw, is an equivalent structure to the mounting set screws such as Wantland, which omits the bridging surface/second perpendicular set screw. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”. A change of shape is considered a matter of choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (b).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Wantland discloses the mounting stud of claim 13, wherein the angled contact surface defines a contact angle (same as applicant’s angle 180) measured relative to the axial direction, wherein the contact angle is about 20 degrees.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Wantland discloses the mounting stud of claim 13, wherein the reverse chamfer defines a chamfer angle (same as applicant’s angle 190) measured relative to the axial direction, wherein the chamfer angle is about 45 degrees.
Regarding claim 19, Wantland discloses the mounting stud of claim 13, wherein the catch protrusion defines a contact width (as indicated above) and a threaded fastener (set screw) defines a screw diameter, in the same manner shown by applicant above. The width has a similar relationship with the diameter of the set screw as shown by applicant. This relationship shows that the catch feature’s 184 contact width is greater than the diameter of the set screw in applicant’s on own figures 4 and 5, and Wantland meets that relationship in figure 3, examiner assumes that claim 7’s structure is met in Wantland.
Regarding claim 20, please see 112b rejection above. Wantland discloses the mounting stud of claim 19, wherein the catch protrusion meets all of applicant’s structural requirements, and extends perpendicular to the axial direction, which meets applicant’s disclosure. Examiner notes that examiner has assumed that applicant has made a typo in claim 20, so that the catch feature extends perpendicular to the axial direction, OR parallel to the radial direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677