DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites an assembly structure, being characterized in that, the assembly structure comprises…. The phrase being characterized in that does not appear to add any meaningful limitation to the preamble or the claim in general. Yet the canons of claim construction require that any feature must be interpreted in such a manner that it is narrower that the absence of the feature. Yet this phrase has no apparent narrowing effect. This language must therefore either be clarified or removed from the claim. For purposes of examination, the feature has been ignored.
Claim 4 recites a series of limitation further narrowing claim 1, with the term or separating the limitations. It is unclear if claim 4 has four or five distinct limitations. Claim 4 recites the assembly portion passes through the installation portion and is assembled with the setup portion, or is for the first body and the second body to be combined with each other. It is unclear if the phrase or is for is beginning a new fifth alternate limitation, or is merely providing a second alternate definition of what the assembly portion is for. For purposes of examination the latter interpretation has been used.
Also, the various alternate limitations of claim 4 are not self-contained and do not make sense without limitations presented earlier in the claim. For example, claim 4 recites that the first body is provided with an insert portion and a setup portion or… the second body passes through the insert portion and corresponds the installation portion with the setup portion. The term or means that claim 4 is either reciting that the first limitation is true or that the second limitation is true. This requires that the second limitation be self-contained and make sense without the presence of the first limitation. Yet the second limitation recites the second body passes through the insert portion. The insert portion in question is defined by the first limitation as being part of the first body. If is unclear if the second limitation requires that the insert portion also be part of the first body. The remainder of the claim set is replete with similar issues, including (but possible not limited to) claims 5-11 & 15-29. These claims needs to be rewritten and the various alternate options either clarified or the word or replaced with ‘and’ throughout. For purposes of examination, these dependent claims will be considered anticipated if any limitation of the various alternatives is taught by the prior art. In the interest of clarity, examiner has largely tried to use the first limitation in each such dependent claim.
All other claims are rejected based on their dependence.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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)(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.
(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 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. D481,851 to Greaige.
Claim 1 recites an assembly structure having a first body; a second body, and an assembly portion, combining the first body and the second body. Applicant’s specification shows an embodiment in which this structure is a rivet-like connector. But claim 1, as written, is far broader. The term assembly structure is neither a term of art nor explicitly defined by applicant’s specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term is any structure that can either be used in assembling something or is, itself, assembled into a combined assembly. Under this second interpretation, claim 1 is anticipated by a wide variety of commonplace items, including the child seat belt of Greaige.
Figure 2 from Geaige is reproduced below with labeling arrows added. The thick dotted arrow points to a first body While the thin dotted arrow points to a second body. The two solid arrows (thick and thin) collectively create an assembly portion that connects and combines the two bodies. Additionally, one of ordinary skill would infer from the figures: 1) the belt elements are made from plastic, 2) the prongs are designed to elastically deflect inward and then snap back outward into place when locked, 3) the two straps extending from the first body indicate the belt is looped within the first body buckle, to allow the belt length to be altered. MPEP 2144.01 states that references teach inferences which one of ordinary skill would reasonably draw from the reference. Such implicit disclosures are not inherencies (nor subject to the same standard). Compare MPEP 2144.01 to 2141.02(V).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the figures shows that the first body is provided with an insert portion, namely the region into which the prongs are inserted. The figure further shows the second body passes through the insert portion and partially emerges from the side regions.
Claim 3 recites the assembly portion comprises an insert portion and a press portion. The thick solid arrow points to a press portion that is inserted into the insert portion identified by the thin solid arrow. The press portion is designed to be pressed inward by a user to unlock the buckle. As such, the figures shows that the insert portion is disposed at the first body, the press portion is disposed at the second body, and the second body passes through the insert portion.
Claim 4 recites (1) the first body is provided with an insert portion and a setup portion, or (2) the second body is provided with an installation portion, or (3) the second body passes through the insert portion and corresponds the installation portion with the setup portion, or (4) the assembly portion passes through the installation portion and is assembled with the setup portion, or is for the first body and the second body to be combined with each other. The numbers and underline emphasis have been added by the examiner. They illustrate that claim 4 is reciting four alternate further limitations to claim 1. Claim 4 is anticipate if any of the four limitations is taught by the prior art. Because of the excessive number of such alternate limitations in future claims, claim 4 will be the only time this Office Action lists out all of the alternate limitations. For the remainder of the claim set, only the first limitation will be presented and anticipated. Regarding the first limitation of claim 4, figure 2 of Greaige shows that the first body has both an insert portion as discussed above and a setup portion in the form of the region where the strap loops, allowing the length of the strap to be altered. This is a setup function to control the belt length.
Regarding claim 5, the first body and the second body are combined with each other by connecting portions to buckle the belt. Regarding claim 6, the assembly portion is an elastic body because the prongs are designed to elastically bend inward to fit through the opening and then return back into place in a locked position.
Claim 7 recites at least two second bodies are further comprised, each of the second bodies is combined at the first body by an assembly portion. This is taught because there are three prongs, and each may be defined to be a second body with the distal locking region being the assembly portion. Claim 8 recites that first body or the second body is disposed at a fixing body. The term fixing body is not defined, nor is it a term of art. Figure 1 shows the belt is placed around a car seat. Car seats need to be affixed to the seats. Thus, the car seat may be considered a fixing body.
Claim 9 recites an elastic component is provided between the second body and the assembly portion. For purposes of claim 9, examiner defines the elastic component to be the thinner portion of the prong while the triangular distal portion is the assembly portion. The thinner portion is also elastic plastic. Regarding claim 10, the region of the first body behind the open side regions may reasonably be defied to be a block portion as it is rectangular and ‘blocky.’ Claim 11 recites the first body and the assembly portion are combined into a module disposed at the second body. When the buckle of Greaige is snapped up, the first body and the assembly portion become connected and abut the second body.
Claim 12 recites the first body and the second body are combined into a module by the assembly portion. The buckle does combine the two bodies into a single module, and as discussed in the rejection of claim 8, this module is disposed at a fixing body in the form of the car seat. Regarding claim 13, figure 1 of Greaige shows the assembly portion is…horizontally assembled at the first body. This language is duplicated by the first feature of claim 15 (addressed here out of order) and is anticipated for the same reason. Claim 13 then further recites a shockproof space…is defined between the first body, the second body or the assembly portion by an elastic component. The elastic buckle prongs lock into place to prevent movement of the entire belt and therefore create a shockproof space, insofar as the buckle will not move in the locked position. This language is duplicated by claim 14, which is anticipated for the same reasons. Claim 16 recites the first body or the second body is provided with an anti-rotation portion. The prongs prevent rotation when inserted into the opposite buckle and thus meet this feature. Regarding claim 17, figure 2 shows the assembly portion is an extension structure of the first body and is for mutually…assembling with an extension structure of the second body. Regarding claim 18, figure 2 shows he first body has a head and a neck for being engagingly connected at an object. Specifically, the narrower region is the neck with the flared distal end being the head.
Claim 19 recites the first body is formed of a…plastic material. This is the second limitation of claim 19 (rather than the first as has previously been the case). The buckle of Greaige would be inferred to be plastic as earlier indicated. Regarding claim 20, the assembly portion is…pressed at the first body or the second body for assembly, specifically the outer prongs attached to the second body get pressed inward to fit through the slot of the first body. This further teaches that a width of the assembly portion is greater than that of an insert portion of the first body so as to interfere with, squeeze or abut against a material for assembly.
Claim 21 recites that the assembly portion passes through the first body and enters the second body for expansion connection and assembly. For purposes of this claim, the thin solid arrow region is defined to be the first body the region behind it with the open sides is deemed to be the second body and the assembly portion is defined to be only the prongs pointed to by the thicker solid arrow.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, the figure above shows the assembly portion has an engaging portion specifically the prongs for engagingly connecting with an object. Claim 23 recites that the assembly portion has an engaging portion for being driven by movement of the first body. If the first body is moved towards and over the prongs they become driven inward temporarily. Claim 23 further recites the assembly portion is for being engagingly connected with an engaged object or be disengaged from the engaged object. Figure 1 shows the belt is for locking a car seat in place.
Claim 24 recites at least one first body, two second bodies and three assembly portions combined with each other are comprised. Examiner defines both the back region pointed to by the thin dotted arrow and the central prong to be second bodies. The two outer prongs and the region pointed to by the thin solid arrow are defined as assembly portions (making three total elements). Regarding claim 25, the figure above shows the second body has a stop portion for limiting a position of the first body in the form of the front flat surface of the region with the thin dotted arrow that the opposing buckle element impinges upon during connection.
Claim 26 recites that the first body has a rotating portion or a moving portion. The belt may be defined as a moving portion and is defined to also be an element of the first body. Claim 27 recites that the assembly structure is for being assembled at a heat dissipater. This is an intended use of the structure. The belt buckle of Greaige can be assembled anywhere, including at a heat dissipator. Also, the buckle is designed for use in a car. Cards have heat dissipators (i.e. radiators) in the engine. The buckle is in close enough proximity to be considered at this location. Claim 28 recites the second body has an elastic component which is for abutting against the first body to reduce a height of the first body. The second body has elastic prongs that lock into place with the first body around a car seat. They are locked tightly enough to hold the belt in place vertically around the car seat and not allow vertical movement of the belt. Finally, claim 29 recites the first body and the second body or the assembly portion have an elastic component…in between. This is interpreted to mean there must be an elastic component between the first body and either of the second body or the assembly portion. In this case, the elastic prongs exist between the first and second bodies.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
Prosecution Insights