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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 20, 2026 has been entered.
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 12 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the mounting hole" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) coupled to the supporting beam (32), the retaining member (2) comprising a pair of retaining arms (22), a pair of tail portions (the upper region of each arm 22 at which the arm is secured to the planar head 21 via 24 and from which the tab 28 branches inwardly), and a pair of connecting legs (28), wherein each of the retaining arms (22) extends from a respective one of the tail portions on a first side and a second side of the supporting beam (32), respectively (the arms 22 depend from their secured upper ends on opposite sides of the beam 32), wherein each of the connecting legs (28) extends inwardly from a respective one of the tail portions (from the upright members 22; each leg 28 projects inwardly into the inner cavity to cooperate with a blocking zone 36), and wherein the main body (3) is formed from a first material (plastic), and the retaining member (2) is formed from 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 and a lower portion connected to each other (see figure 2; each arm 22 defines a V shape with the bend defining the upper and lower portions), 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 a sidewall (edges of openings 41) in a mounting hole (41; 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) comprising limiting surfaces (upward slant surface of the ramp element of 36) which face the main body (3) and are perpendicular to a distal end (facing the limiting surface; figure 7) of the connecting legs (28), 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).
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, as best understood, Mouillon discloses the fastener of claim 1, wherein the mounting hole (41) is a square hole (figure 6A).
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 (cylindrical pin portion of the pin 3) comprising a supporting beam (32); and a retaining member (2) coupled to the supporting beam (32), the retaining member (2) comprising a pair of retaining arms (22) extending from respective tail portions (upper regions of the arms 22) on a first side and a second side of the supporting beam (32) respectively, wherein the pair of retaining arms (22) are configured to deflect toward the supporting beam (32) [to facilitate insertion of the retaining member (2) into a mounting hole of a mounting part, and to abut against a sidewall of the mounting hole to retain the fastener therein], wherein the main body (of 3) is formed from a first material (plastic), and the retaining member (2) is formed from a second material (metal) that is more wear-resistant than the first material (inherent feature); wherein the supporting beam (32) comprises a pair of ribs (36) having limiting surfaces (a distal surface that the ramp surfaces converge to in figures 4 and 7) that are parallel (in the vertical direction) to the main body (of 3) 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), the lower portions of the pair of retaining arms (22) being connected to each other (figure 2) and extending away from each other (figure 2), and the upper portions of the pair of retaining arms (22) extending toward each other (figure 2), wherein outer surfaces of the upper portions (close to 21) define contact portions configured to abut against the sidewall (see figures 6A - 6C) of the mounting hole (41), wherein the main body (of 3) further comprises a skirt (31), and wherein the main body (3) further comprises a sealing lip (311) disposed 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 April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Mouillon’s ‘connecting legs’ 28 extend from members 22 rather than from tail portions as required by the claims. The argument is found not persuasive in view of the rejection of the amended claim 1 above wherein the tail portions have been considered the upper regions of the ‘arms’ 22. Further, the connecting legs 28 extends inwardly from a respective one of the tail portions (from the upright members 22; each leg 28 projects inwardly into the inner cavity to cooperate with a blocking zone 36).
Regarding claim 17, Applicant has argued that blocking zones 36, which correspond to the claimed ribs, do not include limiting surfaces that are parallel to the main body (3) of Mouillon. The argument is found not persuasive in view of the rejection of the amended claim 17 above. The main body has been further considered the cylindrical body portion of the pin 3 of Mouillon wherein the outermost/distal surfaces of the ‘ribs’ 36 are parallel with in the vertical direction of the clip.
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. For example, Hansen (US 6,796,006) discloses a U-shaped metal clip with a pair of legs receiving a blade fastener; Benedetti (US 7,186,051) discloses a clip comprising two materials for a metal/plastic insert panel fastener; and Diez Herrera (US 9,080,588) discloses a metal clip with legs gripping a plastic retaining shank and flexible wings retained in a panel hole.
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