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 Objections
In lines 6-7 of claim 1, “wherein a fastening groove connecting an open end and a closed end to have at least one bend” is idiomatically incorrect and unclear. To improve clarity, “end to have” is suggested to be changed to -end so as to have-.
In line 3 of claim 9, “an open end and a closed end to have at least one” is idiomatically incorrect and unclear. To improve clarity, “end to have” is suggested to be changed to -end so as to have-.
In line 6 of claim 16, “end to have” has been read as -end so as to have- to improve clarity/idiomatic incorrectness.
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 1-20 are 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.
The term “near” in claims 1, 9 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is considered “near” is subjective. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will have different opinions on how distant structures can be before no longer being near. For the purposes of examination, “near” has been read as -at-. Claims 7-9 and 15-16 also recite “near” and are likewise indefinite. They have been interpreted in the same way.
Claim 3 recites “the electronic device comprising: wherein…” The limitation is missing a structure/noun between “comprising” and “wherein.” Also, “a pressing portion having an opening…and formed at one end” is idiomatically incorrect. For the purposes of examination and to improve clarity, claim 3 has been read as -The electronic device of claim 1, is -.
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.
Claims 1, 6-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagnoux (US 6176612) in view of Lee (KR 20210014999).
Regarding claim 1, Chagnoux discloses (Figs. 1, 4-6) a device, comprising: a housing (2) having a pair of lugs (2e), whose inner surfaces face each other (Fig. 1), provided on two opposite sides to be substantially symmetrical (Fig. 1); and a strap (1) configured to be fitted to the pair of lugs provided in the housing to be mounted or detachable (Figs. 4-6), wherein a fastening groove (2a) connecting an open end (opening of 2a) and a closed end (end of 2a) to have at least one bend (Fig. 4) is formed to face the inner surfaces of each of the pair of lugs (Fig. 1), wherein a fastening pin (4a-4d) is provided near one end (4) of the strap to move along the fastening groove when the strap is mounted to or detached from the pair of lugs (Figs. 4-6), and wherein one end portion (4) of the strap provided with the fastening pin corresponds to an end (4) facing the housing when mounted to the housing (Figs. 4-6), of two opposite ends provided on the strap (Fig. 4: left/right ends of strap 1).
Chagnoux does not show the device being electronic.
Lee teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1) comprising a housing (10) and a strap (20) mounted to the device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made Chagnoux’s device electronic, as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because an electronic device can operate faster and more accurately.
Regarding claim 9, Chagnoux discloses (Figs. 1, 4-6) a fastening device for fastening a strap (1) in a device, wherein a fastening groove (2a) is formed in inner surfaces of lugs (2e) provided to face each other on two opposite sides (Fig. 1) of a housing (2) to connect an open end (opening of 2a) and a closed end (end of 2a) to have at least one bend (Fig. 4), wherein a fastening pin (4a-4d) or a pressing portion (4) is provided near a first end of the strap (Fig. 1) to move along the fastening groove when the strap is mounted to or detached from the lugs (Figs. 4-6), and wherein the first end of the strap provided with the pressing portion or the fastening pin corresponds to an end facing the housing when mounted to the housing (Fig. 1), of two opposite ends provided in the strap (Fig. 4: left/right ends of strap 1).
Chagnoux does not show the device being electronic.
Lee teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1) comprising a housing (10) and a strap (20) mounted to the device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made Chagnoux’s device electronic, as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because an electronic device can operate faster and more accurately.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Chagnoux discloses (Figs. 4-6) the electronic/fastening device of claims 1 and 9, wherein the fastening groove (2a) includes a pin hole (closed end of 2a) configured so that the fastening pin is seated on the closed end. The pins 4a-4d sit at the closed end(Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Chagnoux discloses (Fig. 4) the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the fastening groove is configured to have a first depth near the at least one bend (from the bend to the closed end) and a second depth at the open end (from the open end to the bend).
Chagnoux does not show the first depth being less than the second depth.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a first depth being less than a second depth requires only a change in relative dimension.
Accordingly, the first depth being less than the second depth, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the depths of Chagnoux. The courts have held that a change in relative dimensions without any criticality is within the level of skill in the art, so the relative depths claimed by Applicant is nothing more than a desired size that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 and MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 8, Chagnoux discloses (Fig. 4) the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the fastening groove is configured to have a first depth of the closed end (from the bend to the closed end) and a second depth near the at least one bend (from the open end to the bend).
Chagnoux does not show the first depth being greater than the second depth.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a first depth being less than a second depth requires only a change in relative dimension.
Accordingly, the first depth being less than the second depth, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the depths of Chagnoux. The courts have held that a change in relative dimensions without any criticality is within the level of skill in the art, so the relative depths claimed by Applicant is nothing more than a desired size that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 and MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagnoux in view of Lee as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Maire et al. (US 20190324403).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Chagnoux in view of Lee discloses the electronic/fastening device of claims 1 and 9, respectively.
The combination of Chagnoux and Lee does not show the fastening pin having a structure having elasticity against pressing in two opposite directions.
Maire teaches (Figs. 4-6) a fastening pin (30) having a structure (34, 38) having elasticity (from 40) against pressing in two opposite directions. Figs. 5-6 show the structures being elastically compressed in two opposite directions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Chagnoux’s pins for Maire’s fastening pin structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as a known and equivalent solution for predictable mounting a strap to a housing.
Claims 3-5, 11-13, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagnoux in view of Lee as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Okamura (JP 2018108468).
Regarding claim 16, Chagnoux discloses (Figs. 1, 4-6) a device, comprising: a housing (2) having a pair of lugs (2e), whose inner surfaces face each other (Fig. 1), provided on two opposite sides to be substantially symmetrical (Fig. 1); a strap (1) configured to be fitted to the pair of lugs provided in the housing to be mounted or detachable (Figs. 4-6); a fastening groove (2a) connecting an open end (open end of 2a) and a closed end (end of 2a) to have at least one bend (Fig. 4), formed to face the inner surfaces of each of the pair of lugs (Fig. 1); a fastening pin (4a-4d) provided near one end (4) of the strap to move along the fastening groove when the strap is mounted to or detached from the pair of lugs (Figs. 4-6); a pressing portion (4) formed in a side surface facing the housing when mounted to the housing, and formed at one end (4) of the strap provided with the fastening pin (Fig. 1); wherein one end portion of the strap provided with the fastening pin corresponds to an end facing the housing when mounted to the housing (Fig. 1), of two opposite ends provided on the strap (Fig. 4: left/right ends of strap 1).
Chagnoux does not show the device being electronic.
Lee teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1) comprising a housing (10) and a strap (20) mounted to the device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made Chagnoux’s device electronic, as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because an electronic device can operate faster and more accurately.
The combination of Chagnoux and Lee does not show the pressing portion having an opening.
Okamura teaches (Figs. 5-6) a pressing portion (8) having an opening (10a) formed in a side surface facing a housing (1), when mounted to the housing (Fig. 6) being formed at one end of a strap (7, Fig. 6) provided with a fastening pin (11 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Okamura’s pressing portion with Chagnoux’s end of the strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to create a strap that can be easily manufactured via injection molding and attached to a housing ([0023] of Okamura’s translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 11 Chagnoux in view of Lee discloses the electronic/fastening device of claims 1 and 9, respectively.
The combination of Chagnoux and Lee does not show a pressing portion having an opening formed in a side surface facing the housing when mounted to the housing and being formed at one end of the strap provided with the fastening pin.
Okamura teaches (Figs. 5-6) a pressing portion (8) having an opening (10a) formed in a side surface facing a housing (1) when mounted to the housing (Fig. 6) and being formed at one end of a strap (7, Fig. 6) provided with a fastening pin (11 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Okamura’s pressing portion with Chagnoux’s end of the strap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to create a strap that can be easily manufactured via injection molding (([0023] of Okamura).
Regarding claims 4-5, 12-13, and 19, Chagnoux in view of Lee and Okamura discloses (Fig. 5, Okamura) the electronic device of claims 3, 11, and 16, wherein the pressing portion is formed of resin ([0015] of Okamura) and has an upper portion (portion above 10a) and a lower portion (portion below 10a).
The combination of Chagnoux, Lee, and Okamura does not show a hardness and thickness of the upper portion of the opening being less than/smaller than a hardness and thickness of the lower portion of the opening so that the opening is deformed by pressure applied to an upper end of the strap mounted to the housing.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that making a portion of resin thinner makes the portion less hard as well, because the thinner portion becomes easier to flex. As such, one would recognize that two portions of a same material having different hardness/thickness requires only a relative difference in dimension.
Accordingly, the hardness and thickness of the upper portion being less than/smaller than the hardness/thickness of the lower portion, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the upper/lower potions disclosed by Okamura. The courts have held that a change in relative dimensions without any criticality is within the level of skill in the art, so the particular shape claimed by Applicant is nothing more than a desired size that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 and MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 17, Chagnoux discloses the electronic device of claim 16, wherein the fastening groove has a non-constant depth. Fig. 4 shows that the depth of 2a is rounded and curved, and therefore not constant.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagnoux in view of Lee and Okamura as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Maire et al. (US 20190324403).
Regarding claim 20, Chagnoux in view of Lee and Okamura discloses the electronic/fastening device of claim 16.
The combination of Chagnoux, Lee, and Maire does not show the fastening pin having a structure having elasticity against pressing in two opposite directions.
Maire teaches (Figs. 4-6) a fastening pin (30) having a structure (34, 38) having elasticity (from 40) against pressing in two opposite directions. Figs. 5-6 show the structures being elastically compressed in two opposite directions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Chagnoux’s pins for Maire’s fastening pin structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution as a known and equivalent solution for predictable mounting a strap to a housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 15, the prior art does not show a fastening groove is configured to have a first depth near at least one bend that is less than a second depth at an open end and to have a third depth at a closed end that is greater than the second depth, in combination with the other limitations.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not show a fastening groove including a depth that decreases from an open end to at least one bend and that increases from the at least one bend to a closed end, in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Von Allmen (US 20180011448) discloses (Figs. 2-3) a fastening groove (3) with a first depth and a second depth less than the first depth so that a pin (30) can slide into the groove and then be blocked by the second depth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is (571)272-1191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:30-5:30 PT.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571)272-2009. 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 DANIEL HWANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights