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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sliding rail must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 9 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 9, it is unclear how the sliding rails would work as the specification does not describe them enough to visualize how the first and second parts would interact with the sliding rails.
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.
Claims 7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2021/0127810 by Ho embodiment 1 (Here forth “Ho-1”) in view of US Publication 2016/0025119 by Russell-Clarke (Here forth “Clarke”) and Chinese Publication CN100355377 by Yoshihiro (Here forth “Yoshihiro”).
Regarding claim 7, Ho-1 discloses a device for locking and/or fixing a handbag or backpack strap (Fig A of Ho-1), comprising:
a first part including a first [Not taught: steel] block (Fig A of Ho-1) having defined therein a mortise (Fig A of Ho-1) [Not taught: of at least 3 mm depth], the first part including a first contact surface (Fig A of Ho-1); a second part including a second [Not taught: steel] block (Fig A of Ho-1) and a magnetic tenon extending from the second steel block (Fig A of Ho-1) and configured to be closely received in the mortise (Fig A of Ho-1) to form a mechanical and magnetic connection between the first part and the second part (Fig A of Ho-1, first and second blocks are magnetically connected and are part of the first and second parts), the second part including a second contact surface configured to engage the first contact surface of the first part with no void or non-contact surface between the first and second contact surfaces when the first part is connected to the second part by the magnetic tenon (Fig A of Ho-1, there is no void surface between the first and second contact surface when they are brought together); wherein [Not taught: the magnetic tenon is formed from a neodymium-based permanent magnet material with a lead-free brass concentration of less than 100 ppm]; and a strap fixed to one of the first and second parts (Fig A of Ho-1, the strap if fixed to the second block).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig B- Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Ho
Ho-1 does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation A: first and second blocks are made of steel
Limitation B: mortise depth of at least 3mm and is formed from a neodymium magnet
Limitation C: magnet has lead-free brass concentration of less than 100 ppm
Clarke discloses a similar device for fixing a handbag strap that teaches Limitation A, first and second blocks are made of steel (Para 135 of Clarke, the blocks can be made of steel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ho-1 in view of Clarke before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the connecting blocks of Ho-1 to have the blocks be made of steel, as taught by Clarke, to advantageously use a ferrous material as it attracts magnets, further aiding in securing the blocks together.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container taught by having the material be steel instead of the magnetic material of the blocks taught by Ho-1. Such a modification involves only a difference in recitation of relative material of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative material would not perform differently than the prior art device. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.07). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed material.
Yoshihiro discloses a similar mortise connector that teaches Limitation B, mortise of at least 3 mm depth (Page 25 Para 5 of Yoshihiro, mortise height/depth can be 5-10 mm); the magnetic tenon is formed from a neodymium-based permanent magnet material (Page 25 Para 4 of Yoshihiro) with a lead-free brass concentration of less than 100 ppm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ho-1 as modified in view of Yoshihiro before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the mortise be at least 3mm in depth, as taught by Yoshihiro, to advantageously secure the mortise and tenon so they do not separate as easily.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach Limitation C, to modify the magnet tenon neodymium material to have a led-free brass concentration of less than 100 ppm. Such a modification involves only a difference in recitation of relative material of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative material would not perform differently than the prior art device. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.07). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed material.
Regarding claim 9, Ho-1 further comprising:
at least one sliding rail providing alignment of the first and second steel blocks with each other (Fig A of Ho-1, Rail 54 provides alignment of the first and second blocks).
Regarding claim 10,Ho-1 further discloses wherein:
the second steel block further includes a bore including a spring partly supporting the tenon so that when the tenon is not facing the mortise the tenon is inside the second steel block and when the tenon is facing the mortise the tenon is inside the mortise (Fig A of Ho-1).
Regarding claim 11, Ho-1 further discloses, further comprising:
at least one pusher configured to push the tenon out of the mortise for magnetically and mechanically decoupling the first and second steel blocks (Fig A of Ho-1, pusher 50 aids in pushing the tenon out of the mortise when external force is applied).
Regarding claim 12, Ho-1 further discloses, further comprising:
a handbag or backpack having an upper plane, wherein the one of the first and second parts to which the strap is not affixed is fixed to a center of the upper plane of the handbag or backpack (Fig 6 of Ho-1, first block 15 is located at the center of the upper plane which is the wall 11 in the y direction).
Regarding claim 13, Ho-1 further discloses wherein:
the device is capable of supporting a mass (Fig A of Ho-1, the magnetic blocks are capable of holding a certain mass) [Not taught: of at most 50 kg].
Ho as modified does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation D: can support at most 50kg
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wallet to teach Limitation D, taught by the modified Tucker by having the device support at most 50kg. The presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Ho-1 discloses wherein:
the device is capable of supporting a mass (Fig A of Ho-1, the magnetic blocks are capable of holding a certain mass) [Not taught: of at most 25 kg].
Ho-1 as modified does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation E: can support at most 25kg
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wallet to teach Limitation E, taught by the modified Tucker by having the device support at most 25kg. The presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, Ho-1 further discloses wherein:
the device is capable of supporting a mass (Fig A of Mo, the magnetic blocks are capable of holding a certain mass) [Not taught: of at most 16 kg].
Ho-1 as modified does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation F: can support at most 16kg
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wallet to teach Limitation F, taught by the modified Tucker by having the device support at most 16kg. The presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process (see MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho-1, Russell-Clarke, Yoshihiro in view of Chinese Publication CN117095935 by Zheng (Her forth “Zheng”).
Regarding claim 8, Ho-1 does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation G: blocks are treated by polish and covered by electrodeposition with a layer of metal
Limitation H: layer of metal is nickel-free
Limitation I: layer of metal is of at least 0.2 microns thickness
Yoshihiro further disclose a similar magnet fastener that teaches Limitation G, the first and second steel blocks are treated by polishing and are covered by electrodeposition with a layer of [Not taught: nickel-free] metal of at least [Not taught: 0.2 microns thickness] (Page 36 Para 6 of Yoshiro, the steel blocks of the metal fastener has Bromide Con electrodeposition. Bromide Con has metals).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ho-1 as modified in view of Yoshihiro before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the blocks of the modified Ho-1 to be electrodeposited with a layer of metal, as taught by Yoshihiro, to advantageously add a layer of protection for the magnets.
Zheng discloses a similar magnet that teaches Limitation H, the electrodeposited layer is a nickel free metal (Page 17 Para 10 of Zheng, the electrodeposited layer can be zinc).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ho as modified in view of Zheng before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the blocks of the modified Ho-1 to be electrodeposited with a layer of zinc metal, as taught by Yoshihiro, to advantageously add a layer of protection for the magnets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach Limitation I, to modify the metal layer electrodeposited on the magnetized area to be 0.2 microns in depth. Such a modification involves only a difference in recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed dimensions.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho-1, Russell-Clarke, Yoshihiro in view of US Publication 2021/0127810 by Ho embodiment 2 (Here forth “Ho-2”).
Regarding claim 16, Ho-1 as modified does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation J: first steel block includes a first notch and a first shoulder; second steel block includes a second notch and a second shoulder, the first notch engaging the second shoulder and the first shoulder engaging the second notch when the first part is connected to the second part by the magnetic tenon.
Ho-2 disclose a similar device that teaches Limitation J, the first contact surface of the first steel block includes a first notch and a first shoulder (Fig B of Ho-2), and the second contact surface of the second steel block includes a second notch and a second shoulder (Fig B of Ho-2), the first notch engaging the second shoulder and the first shoulder engaging the second notch when the first part is connected to the second part by the magnetic tenon (Fig B of Ho-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container taught by Ho-2 by providing the shape as being one that is shaped with first and second notches and shoulders rather than that of Ho-1. Such a modification involves only a change in shape which provides no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed shape.
PNG
media_image2.png
463
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
456
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig B- Examiner Annotated Fig 5 of Ho-2
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733