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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 14, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 13, “of” should be inserted after “along opposing ends” and before “the first region of the T-slot”.
In each of the remaining claims (claims 6, 14, and 19), the term “dome-shape” should be “dome-shaped”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 11, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senakiewich, II (7401995) in view of the well known prior art.
For claim 1, Senakiewich, II discloses a modular vehicle component fastening anchor (FIG.2) configured to engage a threaded fastener (40) and attach selectable components (28,30) to a vehicle comprising:
a head (42) configured to engage a mating component within a first region of a T-slot (10) defined by the mating component, the head having
(i) a central region defining a threaded orifice (opposite to threads 44) configured to receive the threaded fastener (40) and (ii) first and second flanged regions (48, FIG.8) extending outward in opposing directions from the central region to first and second opposing longitudinal end surfaces, respectively, and biased inward (implicit; Col 3, lines 9-13) toward the threaded orifice; and
wherein the first and second flanged regions are configured to shift outward from the threaded orifice in response to the threaded fastener engaging the threaded orifice such that
(a) the first and second opposing longitudinal end surfaces engage the mating component along opposing ends of the first region of the T-slot and
(b) the base surface engages the mating component within the first region of the T-slot transversely to the opposing ends of the first region of the T-slot.
PNG
media_image1.png
712
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Senakiewich, II further discloses a neck (boss 56,58) configured to engage the mating component within a second region of the T-slot, the neck (ii) partially defining the threaded orifice.
Senakiewich, II fails to disclose the neck as protruding from a base surface of the head along the central region thereof, a feature known from the well known prior art. The examiner takes official notice that the well known prior art is replete with examples showing T-nut fastening anchors having a head portion and, as a part of the head portion, a neck protruding therefrom; the neck engaging with a mating component of a T-slot (sometimes referred to as channel/track) (see for example, Linger (6733221) at shoulder section 20; Gogarty (5199836) at shank 30; or Oetlinger (D698235), not numbered).
PNG
media_image2.png
240
306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
261
333
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
160
231
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the neck of Senakiewich, II not as a part of the component (base (30)) but instead as a part of the head as a protrusion of a central region thereof as taught by the well known prior art as an obvious reversal of part, which has been held by the court to be an obvious modification. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). The combination maintains consistent sliding action along the T-slot and creates a more robust connection with the threaded fastener.
Applicant may seasonally challenge, for the official record in this application, this and any other statement of judicial notice in a timely manner in response to this office action. Please specify the exact statement to be challenged. Applicant is reminded, with respect to the specific challenge put forth, of the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 to disclose material which is pertinent to patentability including claim rejections challenged by applicant.
For claim 8, Senakiewich, II, as modified above, discloses a vehicle component securing T-nut (FIG.2) operable for securing selectable modular components (28,38) to a vehicle comprising:
a central region defining an orifice (near to 40) configured to receive a fastener (40);
a first protrusion (48) extending in a first direction from the central region; and
a second protrusion (48) extending in a second direction opposite to the first direction from the central region, wherein
(i) the first and second protrusions (48, FIG.8) are biased inward (implicit, Col 3, lns 9-13) toward the orifice and
(ii) the first and second protrusions (48) are configured to extend outward from the orifice in response to the fastener engaging the orifice such that
(a) distal ends of the first and second protrusions engage a mating component within a T-slot defined by the mating component and
(b) lower regions of the first and second protrusions engage the mating component within the T-slot transversely with respect to the distal ends of the first and second protrusions (FIG.8).
For claim 9, Senakiewich, II, as modified above, provides for a neck configured to engage the mating component within the T-slot, the neck protruding from the central region and partially defining the orifice.
For claim 15, Senakiewich, II, as modified above, discloses a vehicle component attaching anchor nut (FIG.2) configured to secure selectable components (28,38) to a vehicle comprising:
a head (42) configured to engage a head region of a T-slot (10, FIG.2 and 8), defining an orifice (near to 40), having first and second regions (48) biased (implicit, Col 3, lns 9-13) toward the orifice and extending in opposing directions from the orifice to first and second ends (FIG.8), respectively, and having base surfaces (48) positioned along the first and second regions transversely to the first and second ends,
wherein the first and second regions (48) are configured to extend away from the orifice in response to a fastener engaging the orifice such that the first and second ends engage the head region of the T-slot and
the base surfaces engage the head region of the T-slot transversely to the first and second ends; and
a shank (see neck 56,58 of Senakiewich, II modified with neck of the prior art) configured to engage a neck region of the T-slot, extending from the base surfaces, and partially defining the orifice.
For claim 7, the base surface is angled toward the neck in the opposing directions from the central region to first and second opposing longitudinal surfaces, and
the base surface is configured to engage the mating component (abuts the surface) within the first region to limit rotational movement of the fastening anchor.
For claim 11, the lower regions are angled toward the neck and are configured to engage the mating component (abuts the surface) within the T-slot to limit rotational movement of the T-nut.
For claim 20, the base surfaces are angled toward the neck in opposing directions from the orifice to the first and second ends and the base surfaces are configured to engage the T-slot (abuts the surface) within the head region to limit rotational movement of the anchor nut.
For claim 4, the head defines a footprint that is orthogonal to an axis of the threaded orifice, the neck is confined to the footprint along a first direction (see how neck 56 of Senakiewich, II fits within the footprint in FIG.3) that extends between the first and second opposing longitudinal end surfaces, and
the neck extends beyond the footprint (see FIGS. 2-3) along a second direction that is transverse to the first direction.
Claims 6, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senakiewich, II (7401995) as modified and applied above.
For claims 6, 14, and 19, Senakiewich, II, as modified above, discloses the head includes an external surface that is opposite to the base surface and the external surface is generally convex to facilitate distribution of applied force (see the convex shape in FIGS.2-8); the first and second protrusions (48) include uppers regions that are opposite to the lower regions and the upper regions are generally convex shaped to facilitate distribution of applied force; and the head includes an external surface that is opposite to the base surfaces and the external surface is convex to facilitate distribution of applied force.
Senakiewich, II, as modified, fails to provide the convex shape specifically being dome-shaped. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the convex shape of Senakiewich, II, as modified, to be dome-shaped as an obvious matter of design choice (evidence being within applicant’s own disclosure at [0083] ‘convex or dome-shape’ making the record clear that either alternative is suitable), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the component recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1396 supports a conclusion of obviousness under the reasoning of “obvious to try” by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, 10, 12-13, and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in this application is the inclusion of the specific notch; the specific neck/shank which flares radially outward; and the specific threaded orifice which tapers along an axis of the orifice, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
Prosecution Insights