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, see Remarks, filed 3/26/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under Harper ‘738 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Harper ‘738.
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 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harper, U.S. Patent 3,631,738.
Regarding Claim 1, Harper teaches:
an engagement hole (see below) formed therein and adapted to engage with an elastic
buckle of another connector component;
a pair of radial protrusions (20) are formed on an inner surface of the engagement hole, the connector component rotatable around the elastic buckle inserted into the engagement hole between an assembly position (Fig. 1) and a disassembly position (Fig. 2), wherein the connector component is adapted such that:
with the connector component is in the assembly position, the elastic buckle is not radially pressed by the radial protrusion and a radial interference amount between the elastic buckle and the engagement hole is equal to a predetermined interference amount (see Figs. 1, 3); and
with the connector component is in the disassembly position, the elastic buckle is radially pressed by the radial protrusion, and the radial interference amount between the elastic buckle and the engagement hole is less than the predetermined interference amount reducing an unlocking force required to unlock the elastic buckle (see Figs. 2, 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, see Harper, in the instant combination, first connector component (16) and second connector component (12) and see rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13, see Harper, in the instant combination, a pair of elastic buckle halves (18, 18).
Regarding Claim 14, see Harper, in the instant combination, see elastic arm protrusion and locking protrusion below.
PNG
media_image2.png
344
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, see 112 rejection above, in the instant combination, see Harper, fig. 1, see above, see rejections of Claims 2-4 above and note Harper as modified by Rotolo to feature “an annular step” as in Claim 2.
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) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper ‘738 as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Rotolo, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0284760.
Regarding Claim 2, Harper teaches a corner which may constitute a step, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein an annular step is formed on the inner surface of the engagement hole
Rotolo teaches a similar device with an annular step (51) formed on an inner surface (53) of an engagement hole (47) with a pair of radial protrusions (49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Harper with an annular step as taught by Rotolo because that would reduce the likelihood of accidental outward splaying of the buckle elements (18).
Regarding Claim 3, Harper, in the instant combination, teaches:
wherein the step surface of the annular step is perpendicular to the axis of the engagement hole (see 51 of Rotolo).
Regarding Claim 4, Harper, in the instant combination, teaches:
wherein the step surface of the annular step is adapted to interfere with a locking protrusion on the elastic buckle to maintain the elastic buckle in the engagement hole (see Rotolo 51, see Harper 18, 19).
Regarding Claim 5, in the instant combination, Harper teaches:
wherein when the connector component is in the assembly position, the radial interference amount between the step surface of the annular step and the locking protrusion of the elastic buckle is equal to the predetermined interference amount (see fig. 1, note rejections above).
Regarding Claim 6, in the instant combination, Harper teaches:
wherein when the connector component is in the assembly position, the radial interference amount between the step surface of the annular step and the locking protrusion of the elastic buckle is equal to the predetermined interference amount (see fig. 2, note rejections above).
Regarding Claim 7, in the instant combination, Harper teaches:
wherein the connector component has a first side and a second side (see below) opposite to each other in an axial direction of the engagement hole, the engagement hole comprises a first aperture portion and a second aperture portion formed in the first and second sides of the connector component, respectively (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
344
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, in the instant combination, Harper teaches:
wherein the first aperture portion is coaxial with the second aperture portion and an inner diameter of the first aperture portion is smaller than that of the second aperture portion to form the annular step within the engagement hole (see above).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper-Rotolo.
Regarding Claim 9, Harper teaches the pair of radial protrusions on the inner peripheral surface
of the first aperture. Harper does not teach the pair of radial protrusions on the inner peripheral surface of the second aperture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Harper with the aperture diameters reversed such that the radial protrusions would be on the inner peripheral surface of the second aperture (the larger diameter aperture) because the Harper device is employed in panel mounting (see element 10) which is known to require a wide variety of devices and appliances provided on panels in a wide variety of positions and geometries and having a device such as Harper with the modified geometry proposed by the Examiner would permit the appliances devices to be applied in situations where the application would favor the reversed geometry. Furthermore, A reversal of parts is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Gazda.
Regarding Claim 10, Harper, in the instant combination, teaches:
wherein the radial protrusion extends along the axial direction of the engagement hole from the second side of the connector component to the step surface of the annular step (see drawing selections below which teach the radial protrusion meeting these limitations).
PNG
media_image4.png
309
941
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11¸ Harper, in the instant combination, teaches:
wherein the radial protrusion protrudes along a radial direction of the engagement hole from the inner peripheral surface of the second aperture portion to a position close to the inner peripheral surface of the first aperture portion (see figs. 3-4, element 20).
Regarding Claim 16, see 112 rejection above, insofar as the claim is understood, Harper is interpreted to teach these limitations. As best the Examiner can tell, the locking protrusion is claimed to have two semi-circular sectors of equivalent arcs connected by radial rays. Harper is interpreted to teach roughly this shape (see figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the precise shape which is claimed because a change in shape is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Dailey.
Regarding Claim 17, Harper, in the instant combination, teaches:
wherein when the first connector component is rotated around the elastic buckle between the assembly position and the disassembly position, the radial protrusion slides along the arc-shaped outer peripheral surface of the locking protrusion (see figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 18, Harper, in the instant combination, teaches:
the locking protrusion also has a flat inner side surface (see element 18 in fig. 1), and
the flat inner side surfaces of the pair of locking protrusions face each other;
with the first connector component is in the assembly position, the radial protrusion is close to a side edge where the arc-shaped outer peripheral surface intersects with the flat inner side surface (Fig. 1);
with the first connector component is in the disassembly position, the radial protrusion is located in a circumferential middle location of the arc-shaped outer peripheral surface (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Harper, in the instant combination, teaches the limitations of these claims in the rejections of Claims 5-6 above.
Regarding Claim 20, Harper, in the instant combination, teaches:
wherein the predetermined interference amount is equal to the difference between the maximum radial size of the locking protrusion on the elastic buckle and the inner diameter of the first aperture portion of the engagement hole (see figs. 3-4).
Conclusion
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