Averick but he was 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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on September 22, 2025. Claims 1 and 22 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claims 13 and 32 were previously withdrawn. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous provisional rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, in light of copending application 15/106,221, is maintained.
Claims 22-26, 29-31 and 33, as filed August 12, 2024, were considered allowable as claim 22 was written in independent form. However, the amendment applied to claims 1 and 22 incur 112 rejections. Please see the action below.
Claims 1-2,8-14,16-18,22-26, 29-33 and 70-73 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to the claims filed on September 22, 2025.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are considered sufficient to overcome the rejection of the U.S.C. 35 102 rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Madsen (US Patent No. 3351116).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed September 22, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims being unsustainable due to amendment, based upon the U.S.C. 35 102 rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Madsen (US Patent No. 3351116), have been fully considered.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the contended features and descriptions, amended in the presently filed claims were not recited in the previously rejected claims.
Resultant of the amendments, a new rejection is set forth in this action. Specifically, Madsen in view of a teaching for making a top surface of a washing configured for engaging a work piece “smooth and low friction”. Please see the new rejection set forth in the present action, applying Madsen in view of Dzus (US Patent No. 3600018).
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 1-2,8-14,16-18,22-26, 29-33 and 70-73 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 terms “smooth” and “low friction” in claims 1 and 22 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are 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. The application fails to provide what value of coefficient of friction constitutes “smooth” and “low friction.”
As claims 2,8-14, 16-18, and 70-73 depend on claim 1, and 23-26 and 29-33 and depend upon claim 22, they are similarly rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-12, 16, and 70-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Madsen (US Patent No. 3351116) and Dzus (US Patent No. 3600018).
Regarding claim 1, Madsen discloses a reaction washer (15, Figs 3-6, below, 1:70-2:7) capable of receiving counter torque generated due to tightening or loosening of a threaded fastener 10 (Examiner indicating the fastener is not positively recited) including:
a top surface (see annotated fig. 3) on which the threaded fastener turns freely (the fastener can turn to an extent without obstruction due to flat surface of the top surface until locked in place by protrusions 19 or until washer 15 can no longer rotate due to tightening of a bolt or nut)
col. 2 lines 20-24: As described above one will note that when the bead 12 o bolt 10 is placed adjacent the rectangular opening 18 the head 12 is allowed to rotate slightly until the side wall of hexagonal head 12 are substantially parallel with portions of the protrusions 19.
PNG
media_image1.png
261
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an outer edge (outer peripheral edge, Figs 3-4) having a geometric shape that allows for rotational coupling with a power tool,
a threadless center bore 20 (2:30-43), and
a flat bottom surface (Figs 5-6, below) having friction coefficient increasing treatment means (scored grooves 21, Fig 4, 2:37-43) disposed about an outer peripheral portion of the flat bottom surface and extending inwardly toward, but not near, the center bore to a width less than a total width of the flat bottom surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
343
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
171
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Madsen fails to explicitly disclose that the top surface is “smooth and low-friction”. Dzus, which discloses an automobile hood latching arrangement that includes a washer situated between work surfaces. Dzus teaches:
Col. 1 lines 44-46: Pad or washer 36 adheres to hood 13 and presents a smooth surface to spring 12 to facilitate ease of rotation of housing 10 when coupling and uncoupling the latch.
Dzsus is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it discloses a washer and is concerned with the same problem of engaging surfaces for locking purposes. Madsen also discloses a locking washer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Madsen and provide a smooth surface as taught by Dzus to facilitate “ease of rotation” during the coupling/uncoupling process of engaging the washer with workpiece elements (col. 1 lines 44-46).
Regarding claim 2, Madsen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses that the friction coefficient increasing treatment means are selectively biased towards the outer edge (scored grooves are disposed (biased) closer to outer edge than inner edge, Fig 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
343
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Madsen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses an effective friction radius of the washer (outermost radius of 15) as being greater than an effective friction radius of the threaded fastener 10 (Figs 5-6, above; and capable of being greater than an effective friction radius of any threaded fastener, depending on a particular size thereof, since the fastener is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 9, Madsen discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses that the washer outer edge extends substantially beyond an outer edge of the threaded fastener (as described above, Figs 5-6).
Regarding claim 10, Madsen discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses that the washer is capable of receiving a reaction abutment force, received by outer edge, the force capable of being of larger magnitude than an action torque received by an outer edge of the threaded fastener (because the device of Madsen meets the previous structural limitations of the claims).
Regarding claim 11, Madsen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses that portions of the friction coefficient increasing means 21 are positioned beyond an effective friction radius of a nut or a bolt head about the bottom surface of the washer (Figs 5-6, above).
Regarding claim 12, Madsen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses that the bottom surface includes a smooth surface formed between the center bore to capable of accepting a bolt and the friction coefficient increasing treatments (Fig 4, smooth surface adjacent bore that is also radially inside of short grooves 21).
Regarding claim 16, Madsen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses that geometric shapes include either;
concave portions extending inwardly and convex portions extending outwardly which
are alternately and repeatedly provided in a radial direction around a central point of the
washer; or
[a] geometric shape including either triangle, curvilinear triangle, square, rectangle,
parallelogram, rhombus, trapezoid, trapezium, kite, pentagon, hexagon, heptagon,
octagon, nonagon, decagon, circle with outer projections, ellipse or oval (oval, Fig 4).
Regarding claim 70, Madsen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses wherein the friction coefficient increasing treatment means are discontinuously biased in areas towards the outer edge (individual grooves are not continuous with each other and are disposed, or biased, toward the outer edge).
Regarding claim 71, Madsen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses wherein the friction coefficient increasing treatment means are not located at or adjacent the radius of the center bore (Fig 4, as described above).
Regarding claim 72, Madsen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses wherein the friction coefficient increasing treatment means include either: roughenings; polygonal surfaces; splines; knurls; spikes; grooves; slots; protruding points or corners; or any combination thereof (grooves 21, Figs 3-6, above).
Claims 14 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen and Dzus, as applied to claims 1 and 8, and in further view of Neslon (US Patent No. 3724299).
Regarding claim 14, Madsen discloses the reaction washer according to claim 8, that has an outer edge.
Madsen fails to disclose that the outer edge of the washer “is parallel with an inner edge of an outer socket”.
However, Nelson teaches “An adjustable socket for use with any standard ratchet wrench, the device being adaptable…each of the adjustable sockets having three or more variable size settings (abstract).” The adjustable jaws (30) of Nelson create an inner edge of the socket, that would run parallel to the outer edge of the washer disclosed by Madsen.
PNG
media_image5.png
293
867
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Madsen and Nelson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of hand tools related to applying torques to fasteners and similar workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Madsen to incorporate the teachings of Nelson and provide an adjustable socket with an inner edge that is parallel to the washer’s outer edge, to create an engaging connection to transfer torque from the socket to the washer in order to secure it to a workpiece.
Regarding claim 73, Madsen discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses wherein the outer edge of the washer is shaped with a geometry capable of rotatably coupling with an inner edge of an outer socket inner edge which is shaped with a corresponding geometry.
Madsen fails to disclose that the outer edge of the washer “is shaped with a geometry to rotatably couple with an inner edge of an outer socket inner edge which is shaped with a corresponding geometry”.
However, Nelson teaches an adjustable socket (10) with jaws (30) that are shaped in a manner that can receive the washer disclosed by Madsen, that the inner edge of the socket has a corresponding geometry to the outer edge of the washer.
PNG
media_image6.png
293
895
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Madsen to incorporate the teachings of Nelson and provide an adjustable socket with an inner edge that has a corresponding shape to the washer’s outer edge, to create an engaging connection to transfer torque from the socket to the washer in order to secure it to a workpiece.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Dzus as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of Sullivan (2007/0086874), of record.
Regarding claims 17-18, Madsen discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as described above, but does not explicitly disclose the tapered bottom edge portion as particularly required by the claims. However, Sullivan also teaches a washer to be provided around a stud against a workpiece and teaches providing the reaction washer defining a flat bottom surface having tapered bottom edge portion around the surface (Fig 4C). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the tapered edge of the washer of Sullivan as a simple substitution for a known element to produce the predictable result of effective frictional engagement and fastener retention.
Allowable Subject Matter
For reasons which have been previously provided, claims 22-26 and 29-31, as presented in their August 12, 2024 filing are considered allowable.
However, the applicant has amended claim 22 to include limitations in consistent with the amended claim 1. These amendments are considered to incur 112b rejections. The claims 22-26 and 29-31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), set forth in this Office action.
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 JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723