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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sliding portion” (claim 1), “at least a portion of a front portion of the knob cover... configured to bend downward” (claim 4), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 4-10 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.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant first discloses that a portion of the front portion of the knob cover is bent downward and then separately discloses “a bent portion” to which the stopper comes into contact with. It is unclear if these are two different components being referred to in claim 4, or the same. In the written disclosure, Applicant discloses bent portions (14a, 14b) and a second catch portion (142) that is bent forward and a “front end portion of the knob cover 14 may be bent downward” however, this is not labeled in the drawings (front end portion, see drawing objection above). Applicant only further clarifies that this same front end portion comes into contact with stoppers (123). In Figures 6 and 7, Applicant shows stopper (123) coming into contact with fixing groove (144), and with second catch portion (142). Neither the fixing groove or second catch portion are discussed by the Applicant to synonymous to the front end portion of the knob cover. Therefore it is unclear what the front end portion of the knob cover that is bent downward is and how it comes into contact with the stoppers.
Claims 5-10 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno US 20080190157 (hereinafter referred to as Mizuno) and further in view of Singh et al. US 11359420 (hereinafter referred to as Singh).
Claim 1. Mizuno teaches a knob assembly comprising: an opening and closing knob (3,4) and in which a keyhole (1), into which a key (20) is inserted, is formed in one surface (surface of 4) of the opening and closing knob;
a knob cover (6) which slides forward (fig3a) or rearward (fig3c) to cover the one surface of the opening and closing knob; and
a stopper (8) which is formed on the one surface of the opening and closing knob to restrict movement of the knob cover when the knob cover moves fully rearward (fig3c), wherein the knob cover moves fully forward to cover the keyhole (fig3a).
Mizuno although teaches the opening and closing knob, Mizuno does not teach it opens or closes a glove box.
Singh teaches an opening and closing knob that opens and closes a glove box.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Mizuno on a glovebox, as taught by Singh, since the placement of the knob assembly is considered intended use and the knob assembly of Mizuno would remain functionally equivalent.
Claim 2. Mizuno in view of Singh further teaches the knob assembly of claim 1, wherein: guide portions (Mizuno 9A, 8B) are formed on both end portions of the opening and closing knob (Mizuno);
sliding portions (Mizuno 13A, 13B) having shapes (Mizuno concave shape, fig1) corresponding to the guide portions are formed on both end portions of the knob cover; and
the knob cover is configured to move so the sliding portions come into contact with the guide portions and then slide. (Mizuno fig 1-2d)
Claim 3. Mizuno in view of Singh further teaches the knob assembly of claim 2, wherein: at least a portion of each of the sliding portions formed on both end portions of the knob cover is bent inward to form a recessed groove (Mizuno, the sliding portions are concave/recessed grooves, see fig 1); and each guide portion of the opening and closing knob is received in the recessed groove, and the guide portion is in contact with the corresponding sliding portion. (Mizuno fig1-2d)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 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.
Regarding claim 4, Mizuno does not teach that the stopper, which has to protrude from each of both end portions of the operating and closing knob, comes into contact with a bent portion to restrict reward movement of the sliding portion. Mizuno’s stopper is not on both end portions of the knob and does not come into contact with a bent portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art is related to knob assemblies.
Related but not relied upon prior art: US 8584493, US 5893282, DE 19724573.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIA F. AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-1334. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Christine M. Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/F.F.A./
Examiner
Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights