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 office action is in reply to the Amendment filed on November 12, 2025. Claims 1, 15 and 23 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained. Claims 1, 2, 5-11 and 13-23 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14-17, 19 and 20 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (2017/0071640, i.e. the embodiment as described in the last sentence of paragraph 33 and as shown in Figures 1-4) in view of Goss (2018/0003241).
In reference to claim 1, May et al. disclose a fastener system (10) comprising:
a fastener (14) comprising a head (52), wherein a recess (56) is provided in the head and comprises a configuration of lobes (58) and flutes (60) having vertical sidewalls (see Figure 3), wherein the recess comprises a top (54, Figure 3); and
a non-deformable (i.e. because it can be made from “rigid materials”, see paragraph 21) bit (12) configured to contact a profile on the top of the recess along a plurality of continuous (note; the plurality of lines of contact extend continuously because there is no separation between any of the “one of the plurality of lines of contact” and any other of the “another one of the plurality of lines of contact” [see figure below]) lines of contact (see figure below and also see last line in paragraph 33 for disclosing that, “In some embodiments, the interference fit includes a pressure fit and/or friction fit. In some embodiments, arcuate surface 40a includes one or a plurality of interference points and/or surfaces.”) along both the lobes and the flutes of the recess of the fastener, wherein the plurality of lines of contact extend continuously along the lobes and the flutes of the recess (again note that the plurality of lines of contact extend continuously because there is no separation between any of the “one of the plurality of lines of contact” and any other of the “another one of the plurality of lines of contact” and because of the, “zero toggle driver interface”, see paragraph 34 and note; the definition of “toggle” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “to switch between two different options”). Thus, if there is zero toggle that means that there is zero switching or moving of the drive interface within the fastener. In other words, this means that there is no movement between the bit and the fastener (including its flutes and lobes) thereby providing the “engagement” (see last line in paragraph 34) of frictional adhesion (i.e. “interference fit”) between the bit and the fastener (see paragraph 34, 39 and Figures 1-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flat surfaces that form straight lines of contact)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
292
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
May et al. do not specifically disclosing that the plurality of lines of contact are;
a plurality of curvilinear lines of contact; and
wherein a profile of the bit is configured to contact a profile on the top of the recess along the plurality of curvilinear and continuous lines of contact.
May et al. do teach that engagement portion (22) is “configured to mate with a socket…of screw 14” (see paragraph 28) thereby suggesting that depending on the shape/profile of the recess/socket of the fastener, the engagement portion (22) would be formed with a similar shape/profile that allows it to “mate” or engage or contact a profile on the top of the recess with the recess/socket (see paragraphs 27 and 28). In addition, May et al. further teach that in “some embodiments” the interference fit or engagement between the bit and the fastener can include; “at least one interference point” (see Abstract), “a pressure fit and/or friction fit” (thereby suggesting complete engagement, see paragraph 33) or “a plurality of interference points and/or surfaces.” (see paragraph 33) thereby suggesting that the contact or engagement between the bit and the fastener can vary.
Furthermore, Goss teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a drive system (see Figures 23 and 24) including a fastener (i.e. at 10 and is shown on the left in Figures 23 and 24 below) and a bit (i.e. at 20 and is shown on the right in Figures 23 and 24 and note Figure 24 has mislabeled the bit with numeral “10”), wherein a profile of the bit (i.e. formed from walls 18 and the outer surface of lobes 12/14. The examiner also notes that the outer surface of lobes 12/14 are curved, see Figure 5 for clearly showing the curvature at the outer surface of “20”. Thus, in both of the embodiments of Figures 23 and 24, the outer surface of the lobes will include a curvilinear lines of contact) is configured to contact a profile on the top of the recess along a plurality of curvilinear and continuous lines of contact (see outline of the walls on the right in Figures 23 and 24 below), and wherein the walls can include a flat or straight surface (i.e. at 18, see Figure 23, paragraphs 33 and 45 and also note that flat or straight wall surfaces [18] are similar to the flat or straight wall surfaces [i.e. 44 and 44a] of May et al., see Figure 2) or the walls (i.e. at 18 in Figure 24) can be formed with a semi-circular surface (i.e. at 40, “convex circular”, paragraph 46) thereby teaching that these two surfaces (i.e. flat and curved) are equivalent to one another.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of curvilinear lines of contact )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of straight lines of contact )]
PNG
media_image3.png
630
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the straight or flat wall surfaces, of May et al., with the known technique of forming a bit with the curvilinear wall surfaces thereby forming the plurality of curvilinear and continuous lines of contact, as taught by Goss, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device including a bit that has a shape that more effectively corresponds the shape of the recess of the fastener (see paragraph 40) and/or that maximizes the surface contact pattern or area at typical bit-recess reaction (drive) torque values, thereby tending to minimize bit-recess surface contact stresses, coating damage, recess ream and premature bit fatigue failure (see paragraph 8).
In reference to claims 5 and 19, Goss discloses that each line of contact is curvilinear (paragraph 46 and Figures 5 and 24).
In reference to claims 6 and 20, May et al. disclose that each line of contact extends not only across an end (i.e. an inner end of lobes 58) of one of the lobes but also across and along a side (i.e. at a left side and/or a right side) of said one of the lobes going toward adjacent flutes (60, see Figure 4).
In reference to claim 8, May et al. disclose that the recess of the fastener comprises six lobes and six flutes (see Figure 3). The examiner also notes that while May et al. includes additional lobes and flutes, it must be noted that May et al. still disclose the invention as claimed. The fact that it discloses additional structure (i.e. additional lobes and flutes) not claimed is irrelevant.
In reference to claim 9, May et al. disclose that the recess of the fastener comprises five lobes and five flutes (see Figure 3). The examiner also notes that while May et al. includes additional lobes and flutes, it must be noted that May et al. still disclose the invention as claimed. The fact that it discloses additional structure (i.e. additional lobes and flutes) not claimed is irrelevant.
In reference to claim 14, modified May et al. disclose that the bit is configured to contact the top of the recess along the plurality of lines of contact along both the lobes and the flutes of the recess of the fastener (see Figure 4), wherein each line of contact is curvilinear (as previously taught by Goss), and wherein each line of contact extends not only across an end (i.e. an inner end of lobes 58 of modified May et al.) of one of the lobes but also across and along a side (i.e. at a left side and/or a right side of modified May et al.) of said one of the lobes going toward adjacent flutes (60, see Figure 4).
In reference to claim 15, May et al. disclose a fastener system (10) comprising:
a fastener (14) comprising a head (52), wherein a recess (56) is provided in the head and comprises a configuration of lobes (58) and flutes (60) having vertical sidewalls (see Figure 3), wherein the recess comprises a top (54, Figure 3); and
a non-deformable (i.e. because it can be made from “rigid materials”, see paragraph 21) bit (12) configured to contact a profile on the top of the recess along a plurality of continuous (note; the plurality of lines of contact extend continuously because there is no separation between any of the “one of the plurality of lines of contact” and any other of the “another one of the plurality of lines of contact” [see figure below]) lines of contact (see figure below and also see last line in paragraph 33 for disclosing that, “In some embodiments, the interference fit includes a pressure fit and/or friction fit. In some embodiments, arcuate surface 40a includes one or a plurality of interference points and/or surfaces.”) along both the lobes and the flutes of the recess of the fastener, wherein the plurality of lines of contact extend continuously along the lobes and the flutes of the recess (again note that the plurality of lines of contact extend continuously because there is no separation between any of the “one of the plurality of lines of contact” and any other of the “another one of the plurality of lines of contact” and because of the, “zero toggle driver interface”, see paragraph 34 and note; the definition of “toggle” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “to switch between two different options”). Thus, if there is zero toggle that means that there is zero switching or moving of the drive interface within the fastener. In other words, this means that there is no movement between the bit and the fastener (including its flutes and lobes) thereby providing the “engagement” (see last line in paragraph 34) of frictional adhesion (i.e. “interference fit”) between the bit and the fastener (see paragraph 34, 39 and Figures 1-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
296
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
May et al. do not specifically disclosing that the plurality of lines of contact are;
a plurality of curvilinear lines of contact;
wherein a profile of the bit is configured to contact a profile on the top of the recess along the plurality of curvilinear and continuous lines of contact.
And, May et al. also lack,
an arc width of the lobe and an arc of the flute are equal at recess involute pitch radius of the recess, and
the involute pitch radius is a radius at which a height of the lobe from the involute pitch radius to circumscribed diameter of the recess is equal to a depth of the flute from the involute pitch radius to inscribed diameter of the recess.
May et al. do teach that engagement portion (22) is “configured to mate with a socket…of screw 14” (see paragraph 28) thereby suggesting that depending on the shape of the recess/socket of the fastener, the engagement portion (22) would be formed with a similar shape that allows it to “mate” or engage with the recess/socket (see paragraphs 27 and 28). In addition, May et al. further teach that in “some embodiments” the interference fit or engagement between the bit and the fastener can include; “at least one interference point” (see Abstract), “a pressure fit and/or friction fit” (thereby suggesting complete engagement, see paragraph 33) or “a plurality of interference points and/or surfaces.” (see paragraph 33) thereby suggesting that the contact or engagement between the bit and the fastener can vary.
However, Goss teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a drive system (see Figures 23 and 24) including a fastener (i.e. at 10 and is shown on the left in Figures 23 and 24 below) and a bit (i.e. at 20 and is shown on the right in Figures 23 and 24 and note Figure 24 has mislabeled the bit with numeral “10”), wherein a profile of the bit (i.e. formed from walls 18 and the outer surface of lobes 12/14. The examiner also notes that the outer surface of lobes 12/14 are curved, see Figure 5 for clearly showing the curvature at the outer surface of “20”. Thus, in both of the embodiments of Figures 23 and 24, the outer surface of the lobes will include a curvilinear lines of contact) is configured to contact a profile on the top of the recess along a plurality of curvilinear and continuous lines of contact (see outline of the walls on the right in Figures 23 and 24 below), and wherein the walls can include a flat or straight surface (i.e. at 18, see Figure 23, paragraphs 33 and 45 and also note that flat or straight wall surfaces [18] are similar to the flat or straight wall surfaces [i.e. 44 and 44a] of May et al., see Figure 2) or the walls (i.e. at 18 in Figure 24) can be formed with a semi-circular surface (i.e. at 40, “convex circular”, paragraph 46) thereby teaching that these two surfaces (i.e. flat and curved) are equivalent to one another.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of curvilinear lines of contact )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of straight lines of contact )]
PNG
media_image3.png
630
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the straight or flat wall surfaces, of May et al., with the known technique of forming a bit with the curvilinear wall surfaces thereby forming the plurality of curvilinear lines of contact, as taught by Goss, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device including a bit that has a shape that more effectively corresponds the shape of the recess of the fastener (see paragraph 40) and/or that maximizes the surface contact pattern or area at typical bit-recess reaction (drive) torque values, thereby tending to minimize bit-recess surface contact stresses, coating damage, recess ream and premature bit fatigue failure (see paragraph 8).
In addition, Goss also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a drive system (see Abstract, paragraphs 38-40 and Figures 1 and 8-9) comprising;
an arc width (Fb) of a lobe (Figure 9) and an arc (Eb) of a flute are equal at recess involute pitch radius (P) of the recess (paragraph 39), and
wherein the involute pitch radius is a radius at which a height (Fa) of the lobe from the involute pitch radius to circumscribed diameter (at A in Figure 1) of the recess is equal to a depth (Ea) of the flute from the involute pitch radius to inscribed diameter (at B in Figure 1) of the recess (note; Fa=0.0086 and Ea=0.0086 in paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the drive system, of May et al., with the known technique of providing a drive system having the arc width of a lobe and the arc of a flute being equal at recess involute pitch radius of the recess and wherein the involute pitch radius is a radius at which a height of the lobe from the involute pitch radius to circumscribed diameter of the recess is equal to a depth of the flute from the involute pitch radius to inscribed diameter of the recess, as taught by Goss, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile drive system having a blend radius that does not get washed away and which reduces the chance of chipping of a heading tool and increases the bit area at the lobes (see paragraph 38).
In reference to claim 16, May et al. disclose that the plurality of lines of contact of the non-deformable bit extend continuously along the lobes and the flutes of the recess (note; the plurality of lines of contact extend continuously because there is no separation between any of the “one of the plurality of lines of contact” and any other of the “another one of the plurality of lines of contact” [see figure on page 4 above] and because of the, “zero toggle driver interface”, see paragraph 34 and note; the definition of “toggle” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “to switch between two different options”). Thus, if there is zero toggle that means that there is zero switching or moving of the drive interface within the fastener. In other words, this means that there is no movement between the bit and the fastener (including its flutes and lobes) thereby providing the “engagement” (see last line in paragraph 34) of frictional adhesion (i.e. “interference fit”) between the bit and the fastener (see paragraph 34, 39 and Figure 4).
In reference to claim 17, May et al. disclose that the plurality of lines of contact of the non-deformable bit continuously (again note; the plurality of lines of contact extend continuously because there is no separation between any of the “one of the plurality of lines of contact” and any other of the “another one of the plurality of lines of contact” [see figure on page 4 above] and because of the, “zero toggle driver interface”, see paragraph 34 and note; the definition of “toggle” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “to switch between two different options”). Thus, if there is zero toggle that means that there is zero switching or moving of the drive interface within the fastener. In other words, this means that there is no movement between the bit and the fastener thereby providing the “engagement” (see last line in paragraph 34) between the vertical sidewalls of the lobes and the flutes of the recess to provide frictional adhesion (i.e. “interference fit”) between the bit and the fastener (see paragraph 34, 39 and Figure 4).
Claims 2, 13 and 18 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (2017/0071640) in view of Goss (2018/0003241) and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art2 (hereafter referred to as AAPA2, see pages 14-16 and Figures 7-8 and 14-15).
In reference to claims 2 and 18, May et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
a bit cutter which matches the configuration of the recess in the fastener, wherein the bit cutter comprises a taper and a profile, wherein the profile progresses along the taper.
However, AAPA2 teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a bit cutter (at 40b, see Figures 14 and 15) which matches the configuration of the recess in the fastener (see last paragraph on page 15 for disclosing that the, “bit cutter is used to form a profile on a bit where the bit cutter matches the configuration of a recess in a corresponding fastener…”), wherein the bit cutter comprises a taper and a profile, wherein the profile progresses along the taper (see last paragraph on page 15 for disclosing that, “The bit cutter profile preferably progresses along a taper…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of May et al., with the known technique of forming a profile on a bit by using a cutter in order to match a configuration of a fastener recess, wherein the cutter includes a taper and a profile that progresses along the taper, as taught by AAPA2, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a cutter which ensures that all the lobes and flutes of a bit are the same size and which match with all the lobes and flutes in a fastener recess thereby increasing the frictional adhesion or “stick fit” between the bit and the fastener thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation (see pages 14-16).
In reference to claim 13, AAPA2 discloses that a cross-sectional configuration diameter of bit (26b) changes along a tapered cutter path (see tapered flute and lobe portions on the end of bit 26b in Figure 15 [and in the figure below] and also see last paragraph on page 15 for disclosing that, “The bit cutter profile preferably progresses along a taper…”).
PNG
media_image5.png
255
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 7, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (2017/0071640) in view of Goss (2018/0003241) and Ross (2015/0104271).
In reference to claim 7, May et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
having the flutes of the recess being deeper than the lobes.
However, Ross teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a fastener (120) with flutes (136) of a recess (128) being deeper than lobes (134, see Paragraphs 45 and 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the flutes and lobes, of May et al., with the known technique of providing flutes of a recess that are deeper than the lobes, as taught by Ross, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile fastener having extra room for receiving a coating, such as zinc-flake coating thereby providing a fastener with more favorable tolerances (paragraph 69).
Claims 10, 11 and 21-23 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (2017/0071640) in view of Goss (2018/0003241) and Chang (2009/0129887).
In reference to claims 10 and 21, May et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
the recess of the fastener has a middle, and comprises a post at the middle of the recess which is configured to provide tamper-resistance.
However, Chang teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a drive system (Figure 3) including a fastener (1) having a recess (111) and a middle, and comprises a post (see figure below) at the middle of the recess which is configured to provide tamper-resistance (see paragraphs 3 and 19).
[AltContent: textbox (Post)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
272
354
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the fastener, of May et al., with the known technique of providing a tamper-resistance fastener having a post at the middle of the recess, as taught by Chang, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile fastener having improved theft protection that prevents unauthorized persons from gaining access to a piece of equipment or otherwise dissemble an object where such fasteners have been employed (paragraphs 3 and 19).
In reference to claims 11 and 22, Chang also discloses that a bit (2) comprises an end (211) having an opening (i.e. within 211, Figure 3), wherein the opening is configured to receive the post (see figure above) in the middle of the recess when the bit is engaged in the recess of the fastener (paragraph 19).
In reference to claim 23, May et al. disclose a fastener system (10) comprising:
a fastener (14) comprising a head (52), wherein a recess (56) is provided in the head and comprises a configuration of lobes (58) and flutes (60) having vertical sidewalls (see Figure 3), wherein the recess comprises a top (54, Figure 3); and
a non-deformable (i.e. because it can be made from “rigid materials”, see paragraph 21) bit (12) configured to contact a profile on the top of the recess along a plurality of continuous (note; the plurality of lines of contact extend continuously because there is no separation between any of the “one of the plurality of lines of contact” and any other of the “another one of the plurality of lines of contact” [see figure below]) lines of contact (see figure below and also see last line in paragraph 33 for disclosing that, “In some embodiments, the interference fit includes a pressure fit and/or friction fit. In some embodiments, arcuate surface 40a includes one or a plurality of interference points and/or surfaces.”) along both the lobes and the flutes of the recess of the fastener, wherein the plurality of lines of contact extend continuously along the lobes and the flutes of the recess (again note that the plurality of lines of contact extend continuously because there is no separation between any of the “one of the plurality of lines of contact” and any other of the “another one of the plurality of lines of contact” and because of the, “zero toggle driver interface”, see paragraph 34 and note; the definition of “toggle” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “to switch between two different options”). Thus, if there is zero toggle that means that there is zero switching or moving of the drive interface within the fastener. In other words, this means that there is no movement between the bit and the fastener (including its flutes and lobes) thereby providing the “engagement” (see last line in paragraph 34) of frictional adhesion (i.e. “interference fit”) between the bit and the fastener (see paragraph 34, 39 and Figures 1-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flat surfaces that form straight lines of contact)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
292
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
May et al. lack;
a plurality of curvilinear lines of contact;
wherein a profile of the bit is configured to contact a profile on the top of the recess along the plurality of curvilinear and continuous lines of contact;
an arc width of the lobe and an arc of the flute are equal at recess involute pitch radius of the recess;
the involute pitch radius is a radius at which a height of the lobe from the involute pitch radius to circumscribed diameter of the recess is equal to a depth of the flute from the involute pitch radius to inscribed diameter of the recess; and
the recess of the fastener has a middle, and comprises a post at the middle of the recess which is configured to provide tamper-resistance.
May et al. do teach that engagement portion (22) is “configured to mate with a socket…of screw 14” (see paragraph 28) thereby suggesting that depending on the shape/profile of the recess/socket of the fastener, the engagement portion (22) would be formed with a similar shape/profile that allows it to “mate” or engage or contact a profile on the top of the recess with the recess/socket (see paragraphs 27 and 28). In addition, May et al. further teach that in “some embodiments” the interference fit or engagement between the bit and the fastener can include; “at least one interference point” (see Abstract), “a pressure fit and/or friction fit” (thereby suggesting complete engagement, see paragraph 33) or “a plurality of interference points and/or surfaces.” (see paragraph 33) thereby suggesting that the contact or engagement between the bit and the fastener can vary.
However, Goss teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a drive system (see Figures 23 and 24) including a fastener (i.e. at 10 and is shown on the left in Figures 23 and 24 below) and a bit (i.e. at 20 and is shown on the right in Figures 23 and 24 and note Figure 24 has mislabeled the bit with numeral “10”), wherein a profile of the bit (i.e. formed from walls 18 and the outer surface of lobes 12/14. The examiner also notes that the outer surface of lobes 12/14 are curved, see Figure 5 for clearly showing the curvature at the outer surface of “20”. Thus, in both of the embodiments of Figures 23 and 24, the outer surface of the lobes will include a curvilinear lines of contact) is configured to contact a profile on the top of the recess along a plurality of curvilinear and continuous lines of contact (see outline of the walls on the right in Figures 23 and 24 below), and wherein the walls can include a flat or straight surface (i.e. at 18, see Figure 23, paragraphs 33 and 45 and also note that flat or straight wall surfaces [18] are similar to the flat or straight wall surfaces [i.e. 44 and 44a] of May et al., see Figure 2) or the walls (i.e. at 18 in Figure 24) can be formed with a semi-circular surface (i.e. at 40, “convex circular”, paragraph 46) thereby teaching that these two surfaces (i.e. flat and curved) are equivalent to one another.
PNG
media_image7.png
380
568
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the straight or flat wall surfaces, of May et al., with the known technique of forming a bit with the curvilinear wall surfaces thereby forming the plurality of curvilinear lines of contact, as taught by Goss, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device including a bit that has a shape that more effectively corresponds the shape of the recess of the fastener (see paragraph 40) and/or that maximizes the surface contact pattern or area at typical bit-recess reaction (drive) torque values, thereby tending to minimize bit-recess surface contact stresses, coating damage, recess ream and premature bit fatigue failure (see paragraph 8).
In addition, Goss also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a drive system (see Abstract, paragraphs 38-40 and Figures 1 and 8-9) comprising;
an arc width (Fb) of a lobe (Figure 9) and an arc (Eb) of a flute are equal at recess involute pitch radius (P) of the recess (paragraph 39), and
wherein the involute pitch radius is a radius at which a height (Fa) of the lobe from the involute pitch radius to circumscribed diameter (at A in Figure 1) of the recess is equal to a depth (Ea) of the flute from the involute pitch radius to inscribed diameter (at B in Figure 1) of the recess (note; Fa=0.0086 and Ea=0.0086 in paragraph 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the drive system, of May et al., with the known technique of providing a drive system having the arc width of a lobe and the arc of a flute being equal at recess involute pitch radius of the recess and wherein the involute pitch radius is a radius at which a height of the lobe from the involute pitch radius to circumscribed diameter of the recess is equal to a depth of the flute from the involute pitch radius to inscribed diameter of the recess, as taught by Goss, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile drive system having a blend radius that does not get washed away and which reduces the chance of chipping of a heading tool and increases the bit area at the lobes (see paragraph 38).
Finally, Chang teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a drive system (Figure 3) including a fastener (1) having a recess (111) and a middle, and comprises a post (see figure below) at the middle of the recess which is configured to provide tamper-resistance (see Paragraphs 3 and 19).
[AltContent: textbox (Post)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
272
354
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the fastener, of May et al., with the known technique of providing a tamper-resistance fastener having a post at the middle of the recess, as taught by Chang, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile fastener having improved theft protection that prevents unauthorized persons from gaining access to a piece of equipment or otherwise dissemble an object where such fasteners have been employed (paragraphs 3 and 19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, “The May reference focuses on "interference points" and "single point contact," not continuous curvilinear engagement as taught by Applicant. May illustrates flat or straight drive edges and localized contact regions, which differ from Applicant's claimed continuous curvilinear lines of contact across lobes and flutes. May uses a localized projection to create a single interference point along a trailing wall. This design is incompatible with the plural, continuous, curvilinear lines of contact formed across all lobes and flutes as disclosed by Applicant.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. May teach that engagement portion (22) is “configured to mate with a socket…of screw 14” (see paragraph 28) thereby suggesting that depending on the shape/profile of the recess/socket of the fastener, the engagement portion (22) would be formed with a similar shape/profile that allows it to “mate” or engage or contact a profile on the top of the recess with the recess/socket (see paragraphs 27 and 28), otherwise the device would work as intended., May also discloses that in “some embodiments” the interference fit or engagement between the bit and the fastener can include; “at least one interference point” (see Abstract), “a pressure fit and/or friction fit” (thereby suggesting complete engagement, see paragraph 33) or “a plurality of interference points and/or surfaces.” (see paragraph 33) thereby suggesting that the contact or engagement between the bit and the fastener can vary or be altered (which includes being altered with the engagement/profile, as previously taught by Goss, see rejection above).
Again, Goss teaches of providing various engagements between a bit and a fastener that includes a continuous curvilinear engagement between a bit and a fastener, as previously discussed in the rejection above thereby meeting the limitations of the claim.
Thus, the combination as a whole meet the limitations of the claims and since all of the structural limitations have been met, the examiner believes that the rejection is proper and thus is maintained.
Applicant also contends that, “Additionally, the May reference in paragraph [0034] emphasizes point contact for easy disengagement, which teaches away from continuous curvilinear engagement that increases frictional adhesion in Applicant's invention. The Examiner's reliance on May's disclosure of zero toggle" does not satisfy the claimed requirement for curvilinear and continuous lines of contact. As explained in May paragraphs [0033] and [0034], the "zero toggle" feature is achieved by introducing clearance on both sides of the driver and providing only a single localized interference point along the trailing wall of the recess. This mechanism prevents lateral wobble but does not create-nor suggest-the plurality of curvilinear, continuous contact lines recited in the present claims. May's anti-toggle design is therefore directed to stability, not to the claimed geometry of uninterrupted curved engagement across lobes and flutes at the top of the recess. Since May relies on a point-contact, clearance-based interface, it cannot be equated with or modified to produce Applicant's claimed multi-surface, profile-matched engagement. Goss likewise fails to disclose or suggest continuous curvilinear contact lines, and nothing in either reference provides a motivation-absent hindsight-to modify May's single-point interference structure into the claimed configuration. The present invention achieves synergistic benefits, including enhanced stick-fit, increased torque transfer, and reduced cam-out, that neither May nor Goss teaches or predicts. Accordingly, the combination of May and Goss fails to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 15 and 23, as amended, overcome the obviousness rejection and thus is in condition for allowance.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. As discussed above, May teaches the contact or engagement between the bit and the fastener can vary or be altered. Goss teaches various engagements between a bit and a fastener that includes a similar continuous curvilinear engagement between a bit and a fastener, as previously discussed in the rejection above thereby meeting the limitations of the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the examiner has provided clear motivation taken from the teaching reference (i.e. Goss) and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure (see following motivation in the rejection above disclosing, “a bit that has a shape that more effectively corresponds the shape of the recess of the fastener (see paragraph 40) and/or that maximizes the surface contact pattern or area at typical bit-recess reaction (drive) torque values, thereby tending to minimize bit-recess surface contact stresses, coating damage, recess ream and premature bit fatigue failure (see paragraph 8 of Goss).
Since, proper motivation has been provided and because all of the structural limitations have been met, the examiner believes that the rejection is proper and thus is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723