DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits addressing the disclosure provided 09 July 2024.
Claims 1-12 are pending and examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings dated 09 July 2024, are entered.
Matters with the Claims
While not an objection, it has been noted that reference characters are dispersed throughout the claims (e.g., Claims 2 and 8). Applicant is encouraged to either delete these references or add in reference characters as permitted by USPTO practice thought the remaining limitations for consistency.
Relevant Prior Art
The following art is cited against the claims:
Arisa Busquets (U.S. Publication 2014/0328645 A1)
Figge et al. (U.S. Publication 2008/0304907 A1), hereafter “Figge” and equivalent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arisa Busquets in view of Figge.
Below is a substantial reproduction of the examined claims addressing all limitations with the examiner’s comments in bold italics.
Claim 1: Arisa Busquets discloses A tolerance compensation assembly (Figs. 11-14), comprising:
a nut assembly comprising:
a mounting nut (Fig. 12) comprising a mounting nut barrel portion (see Annotated Figures from Aria Busquets below) and a nut connecting portion (12) connected to the mounting nut barrel portion (as shown), the mounting nut barrel portion having an internal thread (as shown); and
an adjusting nut (Fig. 11) having an external thread (8), the adjusting nut being configured to be at least partially received in the mounting nut barrel portion (as shown in Figs. 13 and 14), and the adjusting nut being rotatable relative to the mounting nut by means of thread fit so as to move relative to the mounting nut along an axial direction of the nut assembly (as per the function); and
Arisa Busquets does not specifically disclose the limitations directed to the holder, however, the configuration of the mounting nut clearly shows it is to be mounted. Figge discloses a mounting system that includes a holder (Fig. 7(A): “A”) having a mounting channel (30) and a holder connecting portion (33), the holder connecting portion being configured to fit with the nut connecting portion (which would equate to 12 of Arisa Busquets) such that the mounting nut is capable of being held in the mounting channel (as would occur), and the holder connecting portion and the nut connecting portion being at least partially disposed within the mounting channel (as the holder connecting portion is part of the mounting channel, which meets the limitation). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the holder in Figge with the assembly in Arisa Busquets, as the assembly is designed to be used with a holder, and the holder in Figge has the adequately shaped portion to receive the assembly in Arisa Busquets.
[rest of page intentionally left blank]
[AltContent: textbox (protrusion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (flange)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (barrel)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
638
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 11-14 from Ariza Busquets
Claim 2: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The tolerance compensation assembly of claim 1, wherein
the holder comprises a flat plate-shaped mounting portion (Figge: “A” - portion surrounding the perimeter of 30 and 33), the mounting portion having a first side and a second side disposed opposite each other (defining the thickness), the mounting channel running through the first side and the second side (as shown), and the holder connecting portion and the nut connecting portion being disposed within the mounting channel (as rendered obvious) (211).
Claim 3: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The tolerance compensation assembly of claim 1,
wherein the mounting nut further comprises a mounting nut flange portion (see Annotated Figs. Above) extending outwards from one end of the mounting nut barrel portion (as shown) along a radial direction of the nut assembly (as shown), the nut connecting portion being connected to the mounting nut flange portion (as shown) and extending towards the other end of the mounting nut barrel portion (as shown, portion containing distal end of 12) along the axial direction of the nut assembly (as shown).
Claim 4: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The tolerance compensation assembly of claim 2, wherein
the nut connecting portion comprises at least one leg (as shown) having a proximal end connected to one side of the mounting nut (as shown in 12); and
the holder connecting portion comprises at least one receiving portion (edge forming 33 of “A”) having a proximal end connected to an inside wall of the mounting channel (it is the inside wall which meets the claimed limitation), the at least one receiving portion being elastic (as per its function), and a distal end of the at least one leg being connected to a distal end of the at least one receiving portion by means of a snap-fit structure (via distal end of 12).
Claim 7: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The tolerance compensation assembly of claim 3, wherein
the mounting nut flange portion is in an anti-rotation shape (as shown), the first side of the holder has a recess (33), the shape of the recess fitting with the shape of the mounting nut flange portion (as rendered obvious), and the mounting nut flange portion being capable of entering the recess to limit the rotation of the mounting nut relative to the holder (as rendered obvious).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 and 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brautigam (U.S. Publication 2018/0172043 A1)
Figge et al. (U.S. Publication 2008/0038090 A1)
Ortega Dona (U.S. Publication 2015/0377266 A1)
Gagliardi et al. (U.S. Patent 11,566,649 B2)
Wilke et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0208661 A1)
Lamoureux (U.S. Publication 2020/0191184 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-0430 Eastern.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571.272.6928. 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.
/WILLIAM V GILBERT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights