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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 3, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the colon in line 7 should be replaced with a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “configured to engaged” in line 3 should be replaced with -- configured to engage --. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 5, 6, 15, and 16 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.
Regarding claim 5, amended claim 1 introduces “a flange of the nut insert” (line 15) and claim 5 again recites “a flange” in line 2. It is unclear whether the flange of claim 5 is the flange of claim 1 or an additional flange. For purpose of examination, the flange of claim 5 is considered the same flange of claim 1. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and therefore is also rejected under this section.
Regarding claim 15, the preamble introduces “a nut insert having a bore” (lines 2-3), and the body recites “a flange of a nut insert” (line 12). It is unclear whether the body refers to the nut insert of the preamble or to a second nut insert. For purpose of examination, the two are interpreted as the same nut insert. Clarification and appropriate correction are required. Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and therefore is also rejected under this section.
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, 3-9, 12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagnon, US 5,713,707 in view of Kreider, US 3,145,753.
Regarding claim 1, Gagnon discloses a modular retainer assembly [for attaching a first component having a first opening relative to a second component having a second opening], the modular retainer assembly comprising: a retainer clip (10), wherein the retainer clip comprises a first planar portion (22) and a second planar portion (20) that are resiliently connected via a bend (26) to define a channel (between 20 and 22; figure 2), a nut base plate (24) **stamped from** (formed from the same metal sheet as 22) and resiliently connected to the first planar portion (22) and bent to extend into an interior of the channel between the first planar portion (22) and the second planar portion (20) such that the nut base plate (24) is positioned between and substantially parallel to the first planar portion (22) and the second planar portion (20).
**Examiner notes that even though a product-by-process claim is limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Gagnon does not explicitly disclose a nut insert comprising a bore configured to engage a shank of a fastener; the retainer clip (10) comprising a nut recess that is configured to receive and retain the nut insert; and a tongue resiliently coupled to the first planar portion and configured to apply a spring force to a flange of the nut insert to press the flange against the nut base plate, thereby securing at least a portion of the nut insert between the tongue and the nut base plate. Gagnon’s threaded barrel 42 is integrally formed on third leg 24.
Kreider teaches a clip nut assembly comprising: a nut insert (B) comprising a bore (internally threaded passage 16 of nut 12) configured to engage a shank (17) of a fastener (E); the retainer clip (yoke A) comprising a nut recess (between A and 20; figure 3) configured to receive and retain the nut insert (B); a tongue (19) resiliently coupled to the clip (joined to guide 24 by arch 25 of S-configuration adding resiliency to the yoke A); the tongue (19) configured to apply a spring force (light yielding pressure through wings 22) to a flange (floating jaw or nut plate 11, from which nut 12 projects) of the nut insert (B) to press the flange (11), thereby securing at least a portion (12) of the nut insert (B) beneath the tongue (19).
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 Gagnon’s retainer clip to replace the threaded barrel (42 of the nut base plate 24) with a separately nut insert (B) as taught by Kreider, in order to keep the nut centered at all times on the same axis with respect to the clip base, and always perpendicular to the base, regardless of the size of panel on which it is installed. The modification is also a simple substitution of one known means of carrying a nut in a sheet metal U-shaped clip for another.
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 retainer assembly, 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 retainer assembly taught by the combination of Gagnon and Kreider, 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 3, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1. Gagnon further discloses [wherein the channel is configured to receive and to secure the first component (50) and the second component between the nut base plate (24) and the second planar portion (20)].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1. Kreider further teaches wherein the retainer clip comprises one or more anti-rotation features (guide 24, received in notch 27 and positioned between retainer lugs 28 of tail 26 of the nut insert; figures 1-2) [configured to provide resistance to torque during assembly of the nut insert with the shank of the fastener].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the anti-rotation features as further taught by Kreider in order to hold the nut insert against rotation.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1. Kreider further teaches wherein the nut insert (B) comprises a collar (collar feature of the nut 12, cylindrical sleeve form) and a flange (11), wherein the collar defines the bore (within the cylindrical sleeve, defining the threads 16).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 5. Kreider further teaches wherein the tongue (19) comprises a tongue opening (21) formed in the tongue (19) which receives a portion of the collar (12) therethrough.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1. Gagnon further discloses wherein the nut base plate (24) is resiliently connected to the first planar portion (22) via a second bend (34).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1. Gagnon further discloses wherein the retainer clip comprises a guide lip (front edge 28 of 20, slightly upward angled; figure 2) positioned adjacent an opening (36) to the channel [that is configured to guide the first component or the second component into the channel and between the nut base plate and the second planar portion].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1. Kreider further teaches wherein the bore (16) is threaded.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1. Gagnon further discloses wherein the nut base plate (24) and the second planar portion (20) collectively define a fastener passage (40 and the bore of Kreider through the plate 24) [to receive the shank therethrough].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 12. The combination does not expressly teach wherein the retainer clip comprises a panel tab formed at the fastener passage and configured extending inwardly to at least partially encircle the shank when assembled. Kreider further teaches a retainer clip (A) comprising a panel tab (18) formed at the fastener passage (15). The panel tab extends inwardly, from jaw 10 toward the opposing arm and into aperture 13 of work sheet C to at least partially encircle the shank when assembled.
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 planar portion (20) of Gagnon at aperture 40 to include a panel tab as taught by Kreider in order to hold the clip in register with the opening of the panel received in the channel.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Gagnon discloses a retainer clip [for attaching a first component having a first opening relative to a second component having a second opening using a nut insert having a bore configured to engaged a shank of a fastener], the retainer clip comprising: a first planar portion (22) and a second planar portion (20) that are resiliently connected via a bend (26) to define a channel (figure 2), a nut base plate (24) **stamped from** the first planar portion (22) and bent to extend into an interior of the channel (see figure 2) between the first planar portion (22) and the second planar portion (20), the nut base plate (24) being positioned between and substantially parallel to the first planar portion (22) and the second planar portion (20).
Gagnon does not explicitly disclose a tongue resiliently coupled to the first planar portion (22) [and configured to apply a spring force to press a flange of a nut insert against the nut base plate, thereby securing at least a portion of the nut insert between the tongue and the nut base plate], [wherein the nut base plate and the tongue are configured to receive and retain the nut insert].
Kreider teaches a tongue (19) resiliently coupled to the clip (via arch 25) and [configured to apply a spring force to press a flange of a nut insert against the nut base plate, thereby securing at least a portion of the nut insert between the tongue and the nut base plate, wherein the nut base plate and the tongue are configured to receive and retain the nut insert]. 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 Gagnon as taught by Kreider for the reasons set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 15. Gagnon further discloses wherein the channel [is configured to receive and to secure the first component and the second component between the nut base plate and the second planar portion].
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1. Kreider further teaches wherein the retainer clip comprises one or more anti-rotation features (guide 24, received in notch 27 and positioned between retainer lugs 28 of tail 26 of the nut insert; figures 1-2) [configured to provide resistance to torque during assembly of the nut insert with the shank of the fastener]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the anti-rotation features as further taught by Kreider in order to hold the nut insert against rotation.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1. Kreider further teaches wherein the tongue (19) comprises a tongue opening (21) formed in the tongue (19) which receives a portion of the collar (12) therethrough.
Regarding claim 19, Gagnon discloses a modular retainer assembly [for attaching a first component having a first opening relative to a second component having a second opening], the modular retainer assembly comprising: a stamped-metal retainer clip (10) wherein the stamped-metal retainer clip comprises a first planar portion (22) and a second planar portion (20) that are resiliently connected via a bend (26) to define a channel, a nut base plate (24) resiliently connected to **stamped from** the first planar portion (22) and extending bent to extend into an interior of the channel between the first planar portion (22) and the second planar portion (20), the nut base plate (24) being positioned between and substantially parallel to the first planar portion (22) and the second planar portion (20).
Gagnon does not explicitly disclose a nut insert comprising a collar and a flange, wherein the collar defines a bore [that is configured to engaged engage a shank of a fastener]; a nut recess that is configured to receive and retain the nut insert, and a tongue resiliently coupled to the first planar portion and configured to secure at least a portion of the nut insert between the tongue and the nut base plate, wherein the tongue comprises a tongue opening formed in the tongue configured to receive a portion of the collar therethrough, and wherein the tongue is configured to apply a spring force to the flange to press the flange against the nut base plate.
Kreider teaches a nut insert (B) comprising a collar (12, cylindrical sleeve form) and a flange (11), wherein the collar (12) defines a bore (threaded passage 16) [that is configured to engaged engage a shank of a fastener]; a stamped metal retainer clip (A) comprising a nut recess (beneath loop 20; figure 3) that is configured to receive and retain the nut insert (B), and a tongue (19) resiliently coupled to the clip (via 25), wherein the tongue (19) comprises a tongue opening (21) formed in the tongue (19) configured to receive a portion of the collar (12) therethrough, and wherein the tongue is configured to apply a spring force (via wings 22) to the flange (11) to press the flange.
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 Gagnon as taught by Kreider for the reasons set forth for claim 1 (keep the nut centered and perpendicular to the base regardless of panel thickness). In the modified clip, the flange (11) seats on the nut base plate (24), and the collar (12) extends through the tongue opening (21) while the tongue presses the flange against the nut base plate.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 19. Kreider further teaches wherein the retainer clip comprises one or more anti-rotation features (guide 24, received in notch 27 and positioned between retainer lugs 28 of tail 26 of the nut insert; figures 1-2) [configured to provide resistance to torque during assembly of the nut insert with the shank of the fastener]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the anti-rotation features as further taught by Kreider in order to hold the nut insert against rotation.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagnon, US 5,713,707 in view of Kreider, US 3,145,753 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al., US 2022/0065284.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1. Gagnon further discloses wherein the retainer clip is a stamped-metal component (formed from metal sheet such as steel). The combination does not expressly teach wherein the nut insert is fabricated using a synthetic or semi- synthetic polymer. Li teaches a nut assembly (111) formed separately from a stamped metal clip (102), wherein the nut assembly may be integrally formed of a plastic material by an injection molding process (paragraph [0051]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the nut insert of the combination from a polymer as taught by Li, in order to reduce the weight and cost of the nut insert.
Further, it is noted that it is known in the art to utilize plastic material as a substitute for metal in the mechanical art since the technology of plastic components has matured in the industrial market and the mechanical properties of plastic have been improved to be as strong and advantageous as metallic components. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the nut insert (of the combination) formed of plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known (commercially available) material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1. The combination does not expressly teach wherein the nut base plate comprises one or more anti-rotation features positioned at a perimeter of the nut recess to retain and mitigate rotation of the fastener relative to the nut base plate. Li teaches a clip portion (301) supporting a nut plate (203) and comprising one or more anti-rotation features (315, 316) positioned at a perimeter of the nut recess, on opposite sides of nut 111 [to retain and mitigate rotation of the fastener relative to the nut base plate]. The lugs cooperate with limiting parts 411-414 to limit rotation of the nut assembly (see figure 4B).
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 nut base plate of the combination to include anti-rotation features at the perimeter of the nut recess as taught by Lin in order to prevent the nut insert from rotating relative to the clip during tightening of the fastener (Li paragraph [0042]).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagnon, US 5,713,707 in view of Kreider, US 3,145,753 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rausch, US 7,896,596.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the combination of Gagnon and Kreider teaches the modular retainer assembly of claim 1 except for wherein the bore is not threaded (claim 10) and wherein the bore is configured to accommodate a shank that is thread-forming (claim 11).
Rausch teaches a nut part (4) comprising a bore (7) that is not threaded and that is configured to accommodate a shank that is thread-forming. A self-tapping bolt (21) cuts its own thread into hole 7, with preformed threads identified only as an alternative (figure 8).
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 bore of the nut insert of the combination of Gagnon and Kreider to be unthreaded as taught by Rausch in order to permit use of a self-tapping fastener that cuts its own thread, eliminating the thread-forming on the nut insert.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Li is relied upon only for the dependent limitations of claims 2 and 13.
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that Gagnon’s ‘nut base plate’ 24 flexes on strips 34, and its rear edge 30 is upwardly angled. An integral barrel on that plate (24) therefore does not by itself maintain such an orientation (centered at all times on the same axis with respect to the clip base, and always perpendicular to the base, regardless of the size of panel).
The amended limitations are now addressed with new references. Applicant has disagreed with the prior consideration of intended uses in the claim limitations. As rejected, the functional recitations of positively recited elements have been given patentable weight and are mapped in the rejections above. Only recitations directed to elements that are not positively claimed remain set in brackets [] as intended use. Those elements are the first and second components, the fastener and its shank, and in claim 15, the nut insert.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights