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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the plurality of holes are provided in a variety of shapes” in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bader et al., US20080188116 (hereinafter, Bader).
Regarding claim 1, A device (320, see Fig. 5) for construction, the device comprising:
a body (see body of retainer device 320) having a channel (see central opening/channel of the device 320 in Fig. 5) extending through the body and at least one feature 325 in a wall (see cylindrical wall of device 320) of the body, the body having a top end (upper end of the device in Fig. 5) and a bottom end (lower end of the device in Fig. 5), and at least one notch 416 defined along a perimeter (see Fig. 5) of the top end of the body and configured to engage with a retention tab (device 320 is capable of being configured to receive a retention tab) to retain a fastener 310.
Regarding claim 2, Bader discloses the device of claim 1, the channel being a hollow central passage (see hollow central passage of device 320 in Fig. 5) extending through the body from the top end to the bottom end (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Bader discloses the device of claim 1, the body further comprising a seam 410 at an outer wall of the body (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Bader discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the seam extends from the top end of the body to the bottom end of the body (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Bader discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the seam is an indent (see Fig. 5 and para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, Bader discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the body is compressible radially by narrowing the width of the seam (see para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 8, As best understood, Bader discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the channel is configured to receive a fastener 310, the fastener having at least one tab extending from a minor diameter of the fastener configured to reside in the channel when installed in the channel (the Examiner interprets external threads of the bolt to be tabs, therefore at least one tab/thread is configured to reside in the channel upon installation.).
Regarding claim 9, Bader discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the seam is configured to receive a rib in a host (the Examiner interprets that the seam in the device is capable of being configured to receive a rib in a host).
Regarding claim 15, Bader discloses the limiter device of claim 4, wherein the cylindrical body (see Fig. 5) contains a vertical opening 410 that extends along the height of the limiter device (see Fig. 5).
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.
Claims 3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader in view of Booher et al., US20080157483 (hereinafter, Booher).
Regarding claim 3, Bader discloses the device of claim 1, the at least one feature comprising at least one opening 325, but fails to expressly teach that each opening extending into the channel.
However, Booher teaches similar limiter device 10 comprising opening 22 extending into a channel (see Figs. 1-2 & 4-5).
The Examiner interprets it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention for aperture in the device of Bader to be modified to through hole as taught by Booher so the through hole may serve multiple purposes, like engaging of compression tool as taught in Bader (see Bader para. [0031]) and/or distribution of plastic material into the holes for uniform holding power (see Booher para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 12, Bader discloses a device similar to a limiter device (320, see Fig. 5), comprising:
a cylindrical body (see cylindrical body of device 320), wherein the cylindrical body is defined by an outer surface and an inner surface (see Figs. 5-6 showing a hollow central passage formed by an outer surface and an inner surface) and wherein the cylindrical body contains a hollow central passage (see Figs. 5-6);
at least one notch 416 defined along a perimeter of a top end of the body (see notch formed in upper end along a perimeter of a top end in Fig. 5) and configured to engage with a retention tab (device 320 is capable of being configured to receive a retention tab) to retain a fastener 310.
Bader fails to expressly teach wherein a plurality of features that extend from the outer surface through to the inner surface.
However, Booher teaches similar limiter device 10 comprising opening 22 extending from outer surface to the inner surface (see Figs. 1-2 & 4-5).
The Examiner interprets it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention for aperture in the device of Bader to be modified to through hole as taught by Booher so the through hole may serve multiple purposes, like engaging of compression tool as taught in Bader (see Bader para. [0031]) and/or distribution of plastic material into the holes for uniform holding power (see Booher para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Bader in view of Booher teaches and/or make obvious of the limiter device of claim 12, wherein Booher further teaches the plurality of features comprise a plurality of holes 22.
Bader in view of Booher fails to teach wherein the plurality of holes are provided in variety of shapes.
It is the examiner’s position that changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of varieties of shapes. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the cut-outs from cylindrical shape to a V-shape, U-shape or rectangular-shape as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bader in view of Booher, in further view of Brower et al., US20210180641 (hereinafter, Brower).
Regarding claim 14, Bader in view of Booher teaches and/or make obvious of the limiter device of claim 12, Bader further teaches wherein each notch is comprised of two sides parallel to the height of the cylindrical body and one side perpendicular to the height of the cylindrical body (see notch 416 in “U” shape where bottom portion is perpendicular to the heigh of the cylindrical body and two sides are parallel to the height of the cylindrical body of device 320 in Fig. 5).
Bader in view of Booher fails to teach said plurality of features comprise a plurality of notches.
However, Brower teaches similar force-limiting element (5, see Fig. 3) having plurality of notches (13, see Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified a notch in Bader to plurality of notches as taught by Brower improved stability of limiter and for additional inflow openings into the interior of the limiter device (see para. [0016]).
Further, the Examiner interprets it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify device of Bader to have plurality of notches, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bader teaches a specific use of a rolled product to hold a buss plate and the bolt is not retained.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The retainer 320 is configured to receive bolt 310 and also functions as a limiter (see para. [0031]). Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth in claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that Bader fails to teach a cylindrical retainer with a detent or notch on the lead edge.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Fig. 5 in Bader clearly shows a notch 416 on the edge of the cylindrical retainer and is capable of such limitation as claimed above related to the notch and/or detent.
Regarding applicant’s argument on plastic material and the functions of the limiter, the examiner notes that structural limitations of the claims have been met and established above. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
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 DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights