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) 1-6 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 § 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 5-6 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 5 sets forth “the deformable wall part of the clearance portion”, however, the “deformable wall part” set forth in Claim 1 is not clearly defined as an element “of the clearance portion” and is only set forth as “configured to deform into the clearance portion”. Clarification of the structural relationships is required to fully understand the apparatus.
Claim 6 is rejected as depending upon a rejected claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dole, U.S. Patent 8,297,137.
Regarding Claim 1¸ Dole teaches:
A male lock portion (22) which is formed in a first structural body (2);
a female lock portion (40/42/43) which is formed in a second structural body (8), the female lock portion defining an insertion port (40) into which the male lock portion is insertable;
a clearance portion (see below) which is formed adjacent to the female lock portion in the second structural body and including an open end (see below), wherein the female lock portion includes a deformable wall part (43) configured to deform into the clearance portion when the male lock portion is inserted into the insertion port and contacts the deformable wall part of the female lock portion (Col 5, Lns35-40); and
a restriction portion (53/53’) which is formed in the second structural body between the insertion port of the female lock portion and the open end of the clearance portion in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which the male lock portion is inserted into the insertion port, the restriction portion configured to restricts insertion of the male lock portion into the open end of the clearance portion (see Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Dole teaches:
The restriction portion is partially formed so as to obstruct a center portion of the open end of the clearance portion (see below, see Fig. 4, element 54).
Regarding Claim 3, Dole teaches:
The restriction portion is partially formed so as to obstruct a center portion of the open end of the clearance portion (see below, see Fig. 4, element 54).
Regarding Claim 4, Dole teaches:
The restriction portion is partially formed so as to obstruct a center portion of the open end of the clearance portion (see below, see Fig. 4, element 54).
PNG
media_image2.png
415
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, insofar as the claim is understood, Dole teaches:
The restriction portion includes a first straight portion (53), a second straight portion
(53’), and a bent portion (see below), the first straight portion extending from the deformable wall part of the clearance portion (see 50 which is an element of the deformable wall portion), the second straight portion extending from a wall portion of the clearance portion (see below) on the side opposite to the deformable wall part, the bent portion being provided between the first straight portion and the second straight portion (see below), and
in a state where the first structural body and the second structural body are assembled, the restriction portion is formed as a belt-shaped portion bent at the bent portion so as to protrude towards a side on which the first structural body is located relative to the second structural body, thereby obstructing the open end (see Figs. 2-4, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
439
407
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, insofar as the claim is understood, Dole teaches:
The first straight section (53) has an inclined surface inclined toward the insertion port, and in a direction in which the female lock portion and the clearance portion adjoin one another (see Figs. 2-4), a length of the first straight portion is longer than the length of the second straight portion (53’, Fig. 3).
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