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 with respect to claim(s) 1-12 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7-10 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leidig, U.S. Patent 12,110,917.
Regarding Claim 1, Leidig teaches:
A latch (1) rotatable between an engaged position (fig. 9) and a disengaged position (fig.
7, 8), wherein the latch is biased towards the engaged position (fig. 6, elements 38-40), the latch comprising four gripping surfaces (7, 7, 48, 48) arranged in two opposing pairs, the two opposing pairs arranged perpendicular to one another (see fig. 2); and
an insertion nose (6) that is stationary relative to the latch; and
at least one stop (18) arranged in opposition to the gripping surfaces.
Regarding Claim 7, Leidig teaches:
Wherein the torsion clip further comprises an insertion nose (3).
Regarding Claim 8, Leidig teaches:
Wherein the torsion clip comprises a keyway (44) operable to move the latch between the engaged position and a disengaged position.
Regarding Claim 9, Leidg teaches:
Wherein the keyway is located on the at least one stop (see 44 in fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Leidig teaches:
Wherein the latch comprises a trap (36, 40) arranged to overpower or disengage the bias of the latch.
Regarding Claim 13, Leidig teaches:
A latch (1) rotatable between an engaged position (fig. 9) and a disengaged position (fig.
7, 8), wherein the latch is biased towards the engaged position (fig. 6, elements 38-40), the latch comprising four gripping surfaces (7, 7, 48, 48) arranged in two opposing pairs, the two opposing pairs arranged perpendicular to one another (see fig. 2); and
at least one stop (18) arranged in opposition to the gripping surfaces,
wherein the four gripping surfaces are configured to urge a substrate towards the stop (see substrate 31 and note that the claim only requires the substrate be urge in the direction of the stop).
Regarding Claim 14, Leidig teaches:
The torsion clip further comprises an insertion nose (6).
Regarding Claim 15, Leidig teaches:
Wherein the torsion clip comprises a keyway (44) operable to move the latch between the engaged position and a disengaged position.
Regarding Claim 16, Leidg teaches:
Wherein the keyway is located on the at least one stop (see 44 in fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Leidig teaches:
Wherein the keyway is operable to move the latch independently of the insertion nose (see figs. 7-9).
Regarding Claim 18, Leidig teaches:
Wherein the clip comprises at least one resilient skirt (15, Fig. 2) arranged at least partially on the at least one stop.
Regarding Claim 19, Leidig teaches:
Wherein at least one of the four gripping surface is ramped such that a ramp reaches a maximum height towards a center of the two opposing pairs (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Leidig teaches:
Wherein the latch comprises a ridge (see 38) configured to urge the latch towards the disengaged position when the passing through an aperture (see Col 9, Lns 4-21, note that element 38 resists the latch moving into engaged position and therefore meets the limitation as claimed).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leidig ‘917.
Regarding Claim 11, Leidig teaches:
Wherein the trap comprises a finger (28, 29) arranged on the at least one stop and a well (36, 43) arranged on the latch.
Leidig does not teach:
Wherein the trap comprises a well arranged on the at least one stop and a finger arranged on the latch.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Leidig with the locations of the finger and trap reversed because applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed arrangement and there is no apparent advantage to the claimed arrangement and 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
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leidig ‘917 as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Angellotti, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0016088.
All the aspects of the instant invention are taught by the prior art, but for:
Further comprising a doghouse sized to capture and house the at least one stop.
Angellotti teaches:
A doghouse (12) sized to capture and house the at least one stop (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Leidig with the doghouse of Angellotti because that would protect the keyway from damage or accidental disengagement.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buillas, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0073089 in view of Barina, U.S. Patent 6,955,515.
Regarding Claim 1, Buillas teaches:
A latch (5) rotatable between an engaged position (fig. 8) and a disengaged position (fig.
7), wherein the latch is biased towards the engaged position (see element 14, figs. 14-16), the latch comprising four gripping surfaces (12/20, 51/32) arranged in two opposing pairs (see pair sets 12/20 and 51/32), the two opposing pairs arranged perpendicular to one another (figs. 2-3); and…
…at least one stop arranged in opposition to the gripping surfaces (see below).
Buillas does not teach:
An insertion nose that is stationary relative to the latch.
Barina teaches:
An insertion nose (116) that is stationary relative to a latch (108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Buillas with an insertion nose as taught by Barina because the insertion nose would protect the lathing/cam mechanism during insertion through the substrates or media.
PNG
media_image2.png
316
537
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Buillas teaches:
At least one resilient skirt (14) or resilient leg arranged in opposition to the gripping surfaces.
Regarding Claim 3, Buillas teaches:
The at least one resilient skirt or resilient leg is arranged at least partially on the at least one stop (see 14 and see drawing selection above).
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooki, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0124792 in view of Barina ‘515.
Regarding Claim 1, Ooki teaches:
a latch (2) rotatable between an engaged position (fig. 6) and a disengaged position (fig.
7), wherein the latch is biased towards the engaged position (see figs. 6-7, 14-15), the latch comprising four gripping surfaces (5, 5, 5, 5) arranged in two opposing pairs (see figs. 6-7), the two opposing pairs arranged perpendicular to one another; and…
…at least one stop (1) arranged in opposition to the gripping surfaces.
Ooki does not teach:
An insertion nose that is stationary relative to the latch.
Barina teaches:
An insertion nose (116) that is stationary relative to a latch (108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Ooki with an insertion nose as taught by Barina because the insertion nose would protect the lathing/cam mechanism during insertion through the substrates or media.
Regarding Claim 4, Ooki teaches:
Wherein at least one of the four gripping surfaces is ramped such that a ramp (see 5c) reaches a maximum height towards a center of the two opposing pairs (see figs. 14-15, note the perspective is inverted).
Regarding Claim 5, Ooki teaches:
Wherein each of the four gripping surfaces is ramped (see 5, 5, 5, 5, and 5c, 5c, 5c, 5c).
Regarding Claim 6, Ooki teaches:
Wherein the latch comprises a ridge (see 5b), wherein the ridge reaches a maximum height towards the four gripping surfaces (see figs. 14-15, note the perspective is inverted).
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