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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loyola (U.S. 2020/0361400).
Examiner’s note concerning claims 2-3 are directed to a product-by-process claim wherein the process relied upon is “an additive manufacturing technique and use of different resolutions”. This limitation is not given any patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met and therefore it has been held that if the product defined in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made from a different process. See In re Thorpe, 77 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As for Claim 1, Loyola a vehicular assembly for forming a connection with an opening (302 or 304) in a primary component (300) of a vehicle, the vehicular assembly comprising: a secondary component (200, see also para [0026 and 0029]) of the vehicle having a first surface (surface opposite of 208) and a second surface (208); and an integrated fastener (202 or 204) extending from the second surface of the secondary component (see Fig. 2) and configured to attach the secondary component adjacent to the primary component (see para [0026]), wherein the secondary component and the integrated fastener are formed integrally as a single, unitary structure (see para [0029]), and wherein the integrated fastener comprises a clip assembly with one or more retention features (232 or 206) extending outwardly from the integrated fastener at an end opposite the secondary component (see Fig. 2).
2. (Original) The vehicular assembly of claim 1, wherein the secondary component and the integrated fastener are fabricated using an additive manufacturing technique (see Examiner’s Note and para [0029]).
3. (Original) The vehicular assembly of claim 2, wherein the secondary component and the integrated fastener are fabricated at different resolutions (see Examiner’s Note and para [0029]).
4. (Original) The vehicular assembly of claim 1, wherein the clip assembly is a W- type fastener (see Fig 2 and para [0031]).
5. (Original) The vehicular assembly of claim 1, wherein the clip assembly is a push pin fastener (see Fig. 2 and para [0031]).
6. (Original) The vehicular assembly of claim 1, wherein the clip assembly is a pin fastener (see Fig. 2 and para [0031]).
7. (Original) The vehicular assembly of claim 1, wherein the clip assembly is coupled to the secondary component via a shank (226).
8. (Original) The vehicular assembly of claim 7, further comprising a seal (218) configured to surround the shank between the secondary component and the primary component.
9. (Original) The vehicular assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more retention features is configured to engage the primary component via a catch (catch formed by structure 234 and 240).
10. (Original) The vehicular assembly of claim 9, wherein each of the one or more retention features includes a return arm (armed 232) resiliently connected to the clip assembly and configured to deflect as the clip assembly is passed through the opening (see para [0034]).
As for Claim 20, Loyola discloses vehicular assembly for forming a connection with a structural component of a vehicle having an opening, the vehicular assembly comprising:
a trim component (200) of the vehicle having a first surface (surface opposite of surface 208) and a second surface (208); and an integrated fastener (204 or 202) extending from the second surface and configured to attach the trim component adjacent to the structural component of the vehicle (see para [0026]), wherein the trim component and the integrated fastener are formed integrally as a single, unitary structure (see para [0029]), and
wherein the integrated fastener comprises a clip assembly with one or more retention features (232 or 206) extending outwardly from the integrated fastener at an end opposite the trim component (see Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: It appears the prior art fails to disclose and/or make obvious “wherein the three retention features are spaced about the central longitudinal axis from one another by 120 degrees.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Andrews U.S. 2012/0257924
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M UPCHURCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7957. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-3PM EST M-F.
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.
/DAVID M UPCHURCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677