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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 6, 8, 12 - 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mouillon et al., US 2021/0262510.
Regarding claim 1, Mouillon discloses a fastener, comprising: a main body (3) comprising a supporting beam (32); a retaining member (2) configured to connect with the supporting beam (32) and comprising a pair of retaining arms (22) on a first side and a second side of the supporting beam (32) respectively, the pair of retaining arms (22) being configured to deflect toward the supporting beam (32) [to enable the retaining member (2) to be inserted into a mounting hole of a mounting part, and the pair of retaining arms (22) configured to abut against a sidewall in the mounting hole to retain the fastener in the mounting hole]; wherein the main body (3) is made of a first material (plastic), and the retaining member (2) is made of a second material (metal) that is more wear-resistant than the first material.
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 fastener, 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 fastening device disclosed by Mouillon (US 2021/0262510) or the fastening device taught by the combination of Mouillon and Klein (US 2016/0114738), 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, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 1, wherein: the first material is a thermoplastic material (plastic), and the second material is a metal material (metal).
Regarding claim 3, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 2, wherein: the retaining member (2) is detachably mounted on the main body (3).
Regarding claim 4, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 1, wherein: each of the pair of retaining arms (22) comprises an upper portion (proximal to a planar head 21 of the member 2) and a lower portion (distal to the planar head 21) connected to each other (see figure 2), lower portions of the pair of retaining arms (22) being connected to each other (figure 2) and extending along a direction away from each other (extending upward and away from each other), and upper portions of the pair of retaining arms (22) extending along a direction toward each other (see figure 2); wherein outer surfaces of the upper portions form contact portions abutting against the hole (of element 4; see figures 6A - 6C).
Regarding claim 5, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 3, wherein: the retaining member (2) comprises at least one pair of deflectable connecting legs (28), the at least one pair of the connecting legs (28) being provided between the pair of retaining arms (22) and connected to the pair of retaining arms (22) respectively, the at least one pair of connecting legs (28) extending at an angle relative to the supporting beam (32) and configured to resiliently clamp the supporting beam (32) therebetween to connect the retaining member (2) with the supporting beam (32).
Regarding claim 6, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 5, wherein: the supporting beam (32) comprises a pair of ribs (36), the at least one pair of the deflectable connecting legs (28) cooperating with the pair of ribs (36) to at least prevent movement of the retaining member (2) with respect to the supporting beam (32) in a direction from an upper portion to the lower portion of each of the pair of the retaining arms (22).
Regarding claim 8, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 3, wherein: the supporting beam (32) has a third side and a fourth side opposite to the third side (the sides adjoining pieces 33), the third side and the fourth side being on the two ends of the first side and the second side, respectively, and having flanges (34) extending beyond outer surfaces of the first side and the second side (see figure 5), the flanges (34) are configured to limit the retaining member (2) therebetween (figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 1, [wherein the mounting hole is a square hole].
Regarding claim 13, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 1, wherein the main body (3) further comprises a skirt (31).
Regarding claim 14, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 13, wherein the main body (3) further comprises a sealing lip (311) at a distal end of the skirt (31) and covering an edge (see figure 3) of the distal end of the skirt (31).
Regarding claim 15, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 14, wherein the sealing lip (311) comprises an elastic material (plastic) [and is configured to form a seal between the fastener and the mounting part].
Regarding claim 16, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 15, wherein the sealing lip (311) is **overmolded** over the skirt (31).
**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).
Regarding claim 17, Mouillon discloses a fastener, comprising: a main body (3) comprising a supporting beam (32); and a retaining member (2) configured to connect with the supporting beam (32) and comprising a pair of retaining arms (22) on a first side and a second side of the supporting beam (32) respectively, the pair of retaining arms (22) being configured to deflect toward the supporting beam (32) [to enable the retaining member (2) to be inserted into a mounting hole of a mounting part, and the pair of retaining arms configured to abut against a sidewall in the mounting hole to retain the fastener in the mounting hole], wherein the main body (3) is made of a first material (plastic), and the retaining member (2) is made of a second material (metal) that is more wear-resistant than the first material (inherent feature), wherein each of the pair of retaining arms (22) comprises an upper portion (proximal to 21) and a lower portion (distal from 21) connected to each other (figure 2), lower portions of the pair of retaining arms (22) being connected to each other (figure 2) and extending along a direction away from each other (figure 2), and upper portions of the pair of retaining arms (22) extending along a direction toward each other (figure 2), wherein outer surfaces of the upper portions (close to 21) form contact portions abutting against the sidewall (see figures 6A - 6C) in the mounting hole (41), wherein the main body (3) further comprises a skirt (31), and wherein the main body (3) further comprises a sealing lip (311) at a distal end of the skirt (31) and covering an edge (see figure 3) of the distal end of the skirt (3).
Regarding claim 20, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 17, wherein: the first material is a thermoplastic material (plastic), and the second material is a metal material (metal).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouillon et al., US 2021/0262510 in view of Bidlake et al., US 2019/0048911.
Regarding claim 7, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 5 except for wherein: the at least one pair of deflectable connecting legs (28) comprises a pair of first connecting legs and a pair of second connecting legs; wherein the pair of first connecting legs are connected to upper ends of the pair of retaining arms, respectively, and extend obliquely toward each other along a direction toward lower ends of the pair of the retaining arms; wherein the pair of second connecting legs are connected to the lower ends of the pair of retaining arms, respectively, and extend obliquely toward each other in a direction toward the upper ends of the pair of the retaining arms; and wherein the pair of first connecting legs comprise abutting portions capable of contacting the supporting beam, the pair of second connecting legs comprise abutting portions capable of contacting the supporting beam, and the abutting portions of the pair of second connecting legs are spaced apart from the abutting portions of the pair of first connecting legs.
Bidlake teaches a retaining member (100) comprising a pair of retaining arms (104) and a pair of deflectable connecting legs (128) between the retaining arms (104) wherein the at least one pair of deflectable connecting legs (128) comprises a pair of first connecting legs (120) and a pair of second connecting legs (128); wherein the pair of first connecting legs (120) are connected to upper ends of the pair of retaining arms (104), respectively, and extend obliquely toward each other (figure 5) along a direction toward lower ends of the pair of the retaining arms (104); wherein the pair of second connecting legs (128) are connected to the lower ends of the pair of retaining arms (104), respectively, and extend obliquely toward each other (figure 5) in a direction toward the upper ends of the pair of the retaining arms (104); and wherein the pair of first connecting legs (120) comprise abutting portions (122, 124) capable of contacting the supporting beam (200), the pair of second connecting legs (128) comprise abutting portions (end segments of each connecting leg 128) capable of contacting the supporting beam (200), and the abutting portions of the pair of second connecting legs (128) are spaced apart (figure 5) from the abutting portions of the pair of first connecting legs (120).
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 retaining member of Mouillon to include two pairs of connecting legs as taught by Bidlake in order to provide additional grip on the supporting beam to avoid slippage.
Claim(s) 9 - 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouillon et al., US 2021/0262510 in view of Klein et al., US 2016/0114738.
Regarding claim 9, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 3, wherein: the main body (3) further comprises a base, the base including a head (31).
Mouillon does not explicitly disclose the main body (3) comprises a neck, a body and the neck being provided between the head and the body, the size of the neck being smaller than the size of the head and the size of the body, and the neck being movable into a groove of a component to be connected.
Klein teaches a fastener with a main body, wherein the main body comprises a neck (5), a body (4) and the neck being provided between the head (6) and the body (4), the size of the neck (5) being smaller than the size of the head (6) and the size of the body (4), [and the neck (5) being movable into a groove (9) of a component (7) to be connected]. 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 main body (3) of Mouillon to include a neck as taught by Klein in order to provide a portion of the fastener to slide into a groove of a component to be connected.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mouillon and Klein teaches the fastener of claim 9. Klein further teaches wherein: the neck (5) is provided with an outer profile (with elements 8) having an anti-rotation shape (see figure 1), [such that when the neck (5) enters into the groove (9) of the component to be connected, the neck prevents the rotation of the fastener with respect to the component to be connected].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mouillon and Klein teaches the fastener of claim 10. Klein further teaches wherein: an outer contour of the neck (5) is of a long circle shape (see figure 1).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouillon, US 2021/0262510 in view of Smith, US 2013/0340216.
Regarding claim 18, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 17 except for wherein the sealing lip comprises an elastic material [and is configured to form a seal between the fastener and the mounting part].
Smith teaches a fastener wherein the sealing lip (54) is made of an elastic material (the lip is “a molded elastic body”) [and is configured to form a seal between the fastener and the mounting part]. 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 sealing lip of Mouillon to comprise an elastic material as taught by Smith in order to provide a moderate sealing for the fastener.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mouillon and Smith teaches the fastener of claim 18. Mouillon further discloses wherein the sealing lip (311) is **overmolded** over the skirt (31).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to require a mounting part as an intended use of the claimed fastener; the amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection as set forth above. In response to applicant's argument that “the pair of retaining arms configured to abut against a sidewall in the mounting hole to retain the fastener in the mounting hole”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is further noted that claim 17 has recited the mounting hole to be a positive structural limitation of the claimed invention and the opening (41) of Mouillon reads on the hole feature wherein its sidewall is abutted by the contact portions as rejected 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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