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 6/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive because the specific problem being solved of “engagement between two connector components using an elastic buckle structure” which is clearly contemplated by the prior art of record and, indeed, Harper ‘738. Examiner notes that the Remarks cite “the annular step provides great retention force” and “the radial protrusions further reduce the radial unlocking force required to unlock the elastic buckle”. These are the same problems solved by the prior art of Harper because the retention force (axial) is provided by the abutment arrangement set forth in Figs. 6-7 while rotation of the device causes a cam interaction (elements 20) which eliminates the abutment and therefore reduces the axial force required to remove the device and reduces the radial force by removing elements 26 from openings 28 (through the camming action). Therefore, the problem contemplated by the prior art is the same as that of applicant’s specific problem and the obviousness to try rationale is indeed applicable. Furthermore, Applicant has not provided any objective evidence of nonobviousness (see MPEP 716.01(a)) but merely alleges that his problem is specific. As stated in MPEP 716.19(a), “where a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the failure to provide rebuttal evidence is dispositive” and mere allegation does not meet the standard of rebuttal evidence.
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) 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper, U.S. Patent 3,631,738 in view of Rotolo, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0284760.
Regarding Claim 1, Harper teaches:
An engagement hole (see below) formed therein and adapted to engage with an elastic
buckle of another connector component, the engagement hole comprises a first aperture portion and a second aperture portion coaxial with the first aperture portion, an inner diameter of the first aperture portion is smaller than that of the second aperture portion… (see below);
a pair of radial protrusions (20) are formed on an inner peripheral 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).
Harper does not teach:
A pair of radial protrusion are formed on an inner peripheral surface of the second aperture portion.
An annular step within the engagement hole.
Rotolo teaches:
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 the radial protrusions formed on an inner peripheral surface of the second aperture portion because the second aperture portion is further removed the fulcrum where arms 18 join the central portion of the body and this create greater leverage on the elastic arms which would reduce the radial force required for removal. And, a reversal of parts is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and Applicant has provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure and the specific problem alleged to be solved is also contemplated by the prior art (see Response to Arguments above), In re Gazda. I would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide harper with the annular step as taught by Rotolo because that would reduce the likelihood of accidental outward splaying of the buckle elements (18).
PNG
media_image1.png
415
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Harpe-Rotolo teaches
Wherein the annular step is formed on the inner surface of the engagement hole (see Harper-Rotolo combination as set forth above).
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, Harper, in the instant combination 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, Harper, in the instant combination 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, Harper, in the instant combination 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, a first aperture portion and the second aperture portion formed in the first and second sides of the connector component, respectively (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
344
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Harper, in the instant combination 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).
Regarding Claim 9, Harper, in the instant combination teaches:
The pair of radial protrusions are opposite to each other in a radial direction of the second aperture portion (see Harper, Figs. 7-8).
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_image3.png
309
941
media_image3.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 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_image4.png
344
539
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, 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.
Regarding Claim 16, Harper, in the instant combination, teaches 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
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