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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments appear to buttress the previous interpretation of the prior art by the Examiner.
As an initial matter, Examiner points to the drawing selection below to clarify what constitutes the “at least one cutting rib” of Knapp ‘020. The ribs are clearly differentiated from elements 6 (they are on different radii) and the ribs are separated from one another by elements 7.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is abundantly clear that the structures pointed out above can be interpreted as “ribs”. Applicant’s own arguments state “each of these recesses 7 has a clearing edge which, as the fitting half penetrates, peels material from the inside of the groove”; this sentence describes “cutting”. The “clearing edge” which “peels” is, in fact, performing the function of “cutting”. Therefore, the ribs (which share the edge described above with the recesses) can be interpreted as “cutting ribs”. Taken together, the cutting ribs form the “end face”.
Knapp further teaches “two parallel lateral sides” and “at least one laterally projecting cutting edge” (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner further traverses Applicant’s arguments that it would not have been obvious to modify Knapp with a cutting rib which is triangular and facing radially away. Applicant’s device is clearly used in wood applications. Wood, as is well known in the art, changes shape as it dries. This causes shrinking. Therefore, a groove which was cut and made suitable for the insertion of Applicant’s device would be expected to dry and out and as the wood contracts the groove would therefore become larger. Thus, providing a radially extending rib would allow the device to maintain the proper orientation when inserted into a larger groove by cutting into the lower surface of the groove. Proper orientation is clearly vital for the apparatus to join with its mating half. It is motivating to provide the cutting rib in this orientation because the apparatus must be controlled in all directions, similar to pitch, roll and yaw.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp ‘020 in view of Park, KR 20190067549.
A section with an end face (see below) which is arcuately convex in longitudinal direction and two parallel lateral sides (see below) for insertion into the groove, wherein each lateral side is provided with at least one laterally projecting cutting edge (see elements 6) which is arcuate in a manner concentric to the end face (Fig. 1), wherein the end face is provided with at least one cutting rib arcuately extending in longitudinal direction (see below, see Response to Arguments).
Knapp ‘020 does not teach:
The at least one cutting rib having a cross-section in a form of a triangle, which triangle has a vertex pointing radially away from the end face and, opposite said vertex, a base which does not extend beyond said two parallel lateral sides.
Park teaches a cutting rib (112a) with a triangular cross-section and a bevel at its end (see below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the cutting rib of Knapp with the geometry as taught by Park because the triangle cross-section and beveled edge would provide an improved cutting surface into medium into which the device is inserted and having vertex extend radially with a base no wider than the parallel lateral sides because the laterally projecting cutting edges already extend beyond the lateral sides to engage the medium.
PNG
media_image3.png
411
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
440
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
473
360
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2¸ in the instant combination, Park teaches the ends of the butting being beveled (see above).
Regarding Claim 3, Knapp teaches the cutting rib being the same size or smaller than the face (elements 7 reduce the area) while Park teaches the cutting rib being shorter than the face on which it is positioned and being positioned centrally (this is inherent). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the cutting rib positioned centrally and shorter than the end face because the central position would prevent torque on the element and the shorter length reduce the initial insertion resistance of the device.
Regarding Claim 4, see rejection of Claim 3 above which teaches centrally positioned rib limitations.
Regarding Claim 5, Knapp is silent with regard to the limitations of the claim.
Park teaches two parallel cutting ribs being symmetrically off center (see drawing selection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed provide two parallel cutting ribs because that would improve the fastening between the fitting and the substrate to which it is connected while still preventing torque on the device (because of the symmetrical distribution).
Regarding Claim 7, in the instant combination, Knapp teaches:
The cutting edges each have a cross-section in the form of a sawtooth, the sawtooth side of which facing away from the end face is normal to the respective lateral side (see 6, see fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, in the instant combination, Knapp teaches:
The cutting edges each have a cross-section in the form of a rectangle with a laterally attached triangle (see below).
PNG
media_image6.png
303
402
media_image6.png
Greyscale
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for inserting into…the groove base“, and a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1].
Regarding Claim 9, in the instant combination, Knapp teaches a projecting tab facing away from the section with the end face (see element 3).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for insertion into a pocket of another fitting“, and a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1].
Regarding Claim 10, in the instant combination, Knapp teaches:
The fitting is provided on a side of the fitting facing away from said section with at least one slot-like pocket (see below).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for sliding in…of another fitting“, and a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1].
PNG
media_image7.png
474
316
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, in the instant combination, Knapp teaches:
The fitting is provided on a side of the fitting facing away form said section with latching means (see element 3 which is a latching means, see above).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for latching to another fitting complementary thereto“, and a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1].
Regarding Claim 12, in the instant combination, Knapp teaches:
The latching means are resilient latching hooks (see element 3, see above).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for latching to another fitting complementary thereto“, and a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1].
Regarding Claim 13, in the instant combination, Knapp teaches:
The latching means are an undercut recess (see element 3, see above).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for latching to another fitting complementary thereto“, and a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1].
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation “web” can be met by a variety of structures within the fastening arts and element 3 is interpreted to meet this limitation by the point of latching hook (see above) which is provided in the recess (see above).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for insertion between…the other fitting“, and a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1].
Regarding Claim 15, in the instant combination, Knapp teaches:
A connector…comprising two fittings according to claim 1 (see fig. 4).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the above claim contains the claim language “for two components” and “configured to be screwed hooked or latched together“, and a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim because the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2114 [R-1].
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.
/MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights