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 Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 – 6 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
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 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusaka et al. (JP 2010-45844).
Regarding claim 1, in Figure 14, Kusaka discloses an assembly comprising: a first member (2a); and a second member (2b) attached to the first member; a substrate (10a) accommodated in a space formed between the first member and the second member; and a cable (24) attached to the substrate (cable 24 is attached to device 10a; pg. 3, 4th paragraph), wherein a contact region (area where members 2a and 2b contact) where the first member and the second member are in contact with each other includes a first contact region (area where members 2a and 2b contact), and the first contact region has surfaces facing each other (Figure 14), each of the surfaces inclined with respect to a reference surface perpendicular to a direction (x-direction) in which the first member and the second member face each other (Figure 14). Kusaka does not specifically disclose the surfaces of the ends of members 2a and 2b being inclined.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide for the surfaces of the ends of members 2a and 2b to be inclined, since more than a mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability (See Span-Deck Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc. (CA 8, 1982) 215 USPQ 835), in which it was held that, change in form of any element of prior patent must result in more than useful natural phenomenon that man has accumulated through common knowledge; even though use of new device greatly improves field and provides great utility, and commercial success is enjoyed because of long-felt need, these features cannot sustain patentability where involved is only extended application of obvious attributes from prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Kusaka discloses wherein the contact region includes the first contact region and a second contact region, the second contact region is adjacent to the first contact region, and is located closer to a tip end than the first contact region, and the second contact region is parallel to the reference surface, or is inclined at an angle different from that of the first contact region with respect to the reference surface (Figure 14).
Regarding claim 3, Kusaka discloses wherein a width of the second contact region is smaller than a width of the first contact region (Figure 14).
Regarding claim 4, Kusaka discloses wherein an inclination angle of the first contact region with respect to the reference surface is larger than an inclination angle of the second contact region with respect to the reference surface (Figure 14).
Regarding claim 5, Kusaka discloses wherein one of the first member and the second member is a cover, an other of the first member and the second member is a holding portion, the cover includes one of a hooking portion and a hooked portion hooked to the hooking portion, and the holding portion includes the other of the hooking portion and the hooked portion (Figure 14).
Regarding claim 6, Kusaka discloses wherein the cover includes a rib configured to press one surface of the substrate, and a claw portion configured to press another surface of the substrate via the holding portion (Figure 14).
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 TREMESHA W BURNS whose telephone number is (571)270-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
TREMESHA W. BURNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
/TREMESHA W BURNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights