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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 sets forth “formed at both ends” in lines 2 and 5-6, but the structures referred to by these limitations appear to be laterally disposed rather than longitudinally.
Claim 5 sets forth “a narrowed protrusion is further formed on the rear surface of the base to narrow…” which is not understood.
The remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, U.S. Patent 12,201,192 in view of Prasitkittanai, U.S. Patent 11,412,820.
Regarding Claim 1, Gao teaches:
a plug member (see below) which includes support arms (see below) formed at both
ends in a forward direction of a base (see below), and a support part (see below) formed forward from the base between the two support arms (see below);
a socket member (see below) that includes support chambers (see below) formed at both ends where the support arms are inserted, a central chamber (see below) formed between the two support chambers and having an open front (see below), a retained part (see below, see 221) formed at the rear end of the central chamber…
a locking member (see below) which is rotatably mounted on the support part, and includes a hook part (311) formed at the front end thereof to be coupled to the retained part when the plug member and the socket member are coupled…
Gao does not teach:
a first magnet embedded inside the central chamber…a second magnet embedded in the center to correspond with the first magnet when the plug member and the socket member are coupled.
Prasitkittanai teaches:
A plug/socket assembly (fig. 1) including an element with a central chamber (10) with a first magnet (6) embedded inside the chamber and a locking member (8) a second magnet (5) embedded in the center to correspond with the first magnet when the plug and socket are coupled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Gao with a magnet system to engage the locking member rather than a spring (see Gao, 33) because the magnet system can effectively bias the locking member into engagement without losing effectiveness over time as a spring can through mechanical fatigue.
PNG
media_image1.png
704
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, see inclined guide part above in the annotated drawing selection.
Regarding Claim 3, see inclined guide protrusion above in the annotated drawing selection.
Regarding Claim 4, see Gao for slots 223 and coupling protrusions 126 which meet these limitations as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, insofar as the claim is understood (see 112 rejection above), see narrowed protrusions below.
PNG
media_image2.png
276
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, see drawing selection of Gao below for hinge grooves and see hinge (321) and connection parts (315).
PNG
media_image3.png
359
582
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, see partition (drawing selection above) and see fig. 1 which teach the limitations of this claim as set forth.
Regarding Claims 9-10, see Gao which teaches the cross bar (111) and strap bar (112) and note the connecting member (see 20, 21) on the socket which teaches a strap connector.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao-Prasitkittanai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tseng, U.S. Patent 11,533,970.
All the aspects of the instant invention are set forth above, but for a groove for connecting a
string at the front end of the locking member.
Tseng teaches a magnetic buckle with a locking member (30) with a groove (see 31, see fig. 9) for connecting a string (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the instant combination with the teachings of Tseng because that would permit easy unlocking and unbuckling of the device when user dexterity is compromised such as when a user’s hand is gloved.
Conclusion
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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677