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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 29, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 12, and 16-17 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 12, and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 2, 12, 16, and 17, lines 13, 3-4, 15, 20, and 5, respectively, Examiner suggests removing “tight” from “tight engagement” as “tight” appears to be relative terminology; for the purpose of examination, claims 1, 2, 12, 16, and 17 will be read as “engagement”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Offenbroich (EP0628734A1), hereinafter "Offenbroich", in view of Choy (US20030052460A1), hereinafter "Choy".
Regarding claim 1, Offenbroich teaches a connector system (see Fig 2), comprising:
a locking screw (see Fig 2, screw 3, hereinafter “3a”, Col 6, line 48 - Col 7, line 8, Examiner notes screw 3a arranged in the opposite base body 1 as a locking screw) comprising a screw thread (see Fig 2, Examiner notes screw 3a attached to nut 4 as comprising a screw thread);
a connector block (see Fig 2, central body 16, Examiner notes central body 16 having screw 3a inserted as a connector block) comprising a first bore hole (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a bore hole of central body 16 having screw 3a inserted as comprising a first bore hole) having a first axis (see Fig 2) and being sized and shaped (see Fig 2) to receive (see Fig 2) at least a portion (see Fig 2) of the locking screw (3a); and
a lock plate (see Fig 2, expansion body 5, Examiner notes expansion body 5 in which screw 3a is inserted as a lock plate) comprising a body (Fig 2, central area 9) having a length (see Fig 2), a first wing (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as a first wing) extending at a first wing angle (see Fig 2) from the body (9), and a second wing (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a lower spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as a second wing) extending at a second wing angle (see Fig 2) from the body (9), the lock plate (5) further comprising a first bend disposed at a junction (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper bend at the upper spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as comprising a first bend disposed at a junction) of the body (9) and the first wing (see Fig 2) and a second bend disposed at a junction (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a lower bend at the lower spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as a second bend disposed at a junction) of the body (9) and the second wing (see Fig 2), the lock plate (5) being configured to expand upon being drawn by the locking screw (3a) into tight engagement (see Fig 2, Col 4, line 44 - Col 5, line 23, Examiner notes as a result of the tensile force transmitted by the square nut 4 of the actuating means, the expansion body 5 expands so that the four expansion elements 2 are moved outwards as being configured to expand upon being drawn by the locking screw into tight engagement) with the connector block (16).
Offenbroich fails to teach the connector block having a second bore hole disposed separate from and adjacent to the first bore hole, the second bore hole having a second axis parallel to the first axis and a block thread configured to engage with a bolt thread of a bolt and the lock plate having a plate thread configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw.
However, Choy teaches it is known to provide the connector block (see Fig 3, Examiner notes securing member 304 having screw nut 309 as the connector block) having a second bore hole (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a bore hole of screw nut 309 as having a second bore hole) disposed separate (see Fig 3) from and adjacent (see Fig 3) to the first bore hole (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a bore hole of securing member 304 having screw 301 inserted as the first bore hole), the second bore hole (see Fig 3) having a second axis (see Fig 3) parallel (see Fig 3) to the first axis (see Fig 3) and a block thread (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a thread of screw nut 309 as having a block thread) configured to engage (see Fig 3, Paragraphs 0046-0048) with a bolt thread of a bolt (see Fig 3, Paragraphs 0046-0048, Examiner notes the described connector can be easily connected to a plate by a screw passing through the plate as configured to engage with a bolt thread of a bolt).
Therefore, as evidenced by Choy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the connector block having a second bore hole disposed separate from and adjacent to the first bore hole, the second bore hole having a second axis parallel to the first axis and a block thread configured to engage with a bolt thread of a bolt as taught by Choy to Offenbroich. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate attachment of other components, e.g. a plate (Choy, Paragraphs 0046-0048).
Offenbroich, in view of Choy fails to teach the lock plate having a plate thread configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw.
However, Offenbroich, in an alternate embodiment of Figs 4a-4c, teaches it is known to provide the lock plate (Fig 4c, expansion body 5) having a plate thread (Fig 4c, threaded hole 22) configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw (Col 7, line 13 - Col 8, line 4, Examiner notes the expansion body 5 makes the use of an additional nut for the clamping screw unnecessary as configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw).
Therefore, as evidenced by the alternate embodiment of Figs 4a-4c of Offenbroich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lock plate having a plate thread configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw as taught by the alternate embodiment of Figs 4a-4c of Offenbroich to modified Offenbroich. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate reducing part count, improve assembly or disassembly with less components, etc., i.e. makes the use of an additional nut for the clamping screw unnecessary (Offenbroich, Col 7, line 13 - Col 8, line 4).
Regarding claim 2, modified Offenbroich teaches the connector system (see Fig 1) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the lock plate (5) is configured to expand upon being drawn into tight engagement (see Fig 2, Col 4, line 44 - Col 5, line 23) with the connector block (16) by rotation (see Fig 2, Col 4, line 44 - Col 5, line 23, Examiner notes screw 3 is tightened as by rotation) of the locking screw (3a).
Regarding claim 4, modified Offenbroich teaches the connector system (see Fig 2) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein expanding the lock plate (5) increases (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27, Examiner notes this in turn leads to the angle of inclination w1 of the spreading elements 2 increasingly adapting to the predetermined angle of inclination w2 of the support surfaces 12 as wherein expanding the lock plate increases) the first (see Fig 2) and second wing angles (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Offenbroich teaches the connector system (see Fig 2) of claim 4 and further teaches wherein the connector block (16) further comprises a first chamfer (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper support surface 12 adjacent screw 3a as a first chamfer) operable to displace (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27) the first wing (see Fig 2) and a second chamfer (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a lower support surface 12 adjacent screw 3a as a second chamfer) operable to displace (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27) the second wing (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, modified Offenbroich teaches the connector system (see Fig 2) of claim 1 and further teaches comprising a structural member (Fig 2, tube 7, Examiner notes square tube 7 in which screw 3a extends through as a structural member) having an internal channel (see Fig 2), the lock plate (5) configured to impinge (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27) on walls (Fig 2, inner edges 11) of the internal channel (see Fig 2) when expanded (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27).
Regarding claim 8, modified Offenbroich teaches the connector system (see Fig 2) of claim 7 and further teaches wherein the structural member (7) is an **extruded** beam (see Fig 2).
**Examiner notes that even though a product-by-process claim is limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 9, modified Offenbroich teaches the connector system (see Fig 2) of claim 1 and further teaches comprising a block locator tool (Fig 2, actuating element 17) having a tool thread (see Fig 2, Col 6, line 48 - Col 7, line 8, Examiner notes screwing in the screw insert 18 as having a tool thread) configured to engage (see Fig 2, Col 6, line 48 - Col 7, line 8) with a corresponding thread (see Fig 2, Col 6, line 48 - Col 7, line 8, Examiner notes screwing in the screw insert 18 as with a corresponding thread) of the connector block (16).
Regarding claim 11, modified Offenbroich teaches the connector system (see Fig 2) of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the connector block (16) is **formed by extruding** metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified wherein the connector block is **formed by extruding** metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a material based on application and requirements, e.g. strength, durability, etc.
Regarding claim 12, Offenbroich teaches an internal connector system (see Fig 2) for structural members (see Fig 2, Examiner notes square tubes 7 as structural members), comprising:
a locking screw (see Fig 2, screw 3, hereinafter “3a”, Col 6, line 48 - Col 7, line 8, Examiner notes screw 3a arranged in the opposite base body 1 as a locking screw) comprising a screw thread (see Fig 2, Examiner notes screw 3a attached to nut 4 as comprising a screw thread);
a connector block (see Fig 2, central body 16, Examiner notes central body 16 having screw 3a inserted as a connector block) comprising a first bore hole (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a bore hole of central body 16 having screw 3a inserted as comprising a first bore hole) defining a first axis (see Fig 2) and being sized and shaped (see Fig 2) to receive (see Fig 2) at least a portion (see Fig 2) of the locking screw (3a); and
a lock plate (see Fig 2, expansion body 5, Examiner notes expansion body 5 in which screw 3a is inserted as a lock plate) comprising a first wing (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as comprising a first wing) extending from a body (Fig 2, central area 9) at a first wing angle (see Fig 2) and a second wing (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a lower spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as a second wing) extending from the body (9) at a second wing angle (see Fig 2), the body (9), the first wing (see Fig 2), and the second wing (see Fig 2) each having a same generally uniform thickness (see Fig 2), a first bend disposed at a junction (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper bend at the upper spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as a first bend disposed at a junction) of the body (9) and the first wing (see Fig 2) and a second bend disposed at a junction (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a lower bend at the lower spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as a second bend disposed at a junction) of the body (9) and the second wing (see Fig 2), the lock plate (5) being configured to expand upon being drawn into tight engagement (see Fig 2, Col 4, line 44 - Col 5, line 23, Examiner notes as a result of the tensile force transmitted by the square nut 4 of the actuating means, the expansion body 5 expands so that the four expansion elements 2 are moved outwards as being configured to expand upon being drawn into tight engagement) with the connector block (16) by the locking screw (3a), wherein expansion of the lock plate (5) increases the first wing angle (see Fig 2) and the second wing angle (see Fig 2) to thereby increase (see Fig 2, Col 4, line 44 - Col 5, line 23, Examiner notes as a result of the tensile force transmitted by the square nut 4 of the actuating means, the expansion body 5 expands so that the four expansion elements 2 are moved outwards as expansion of the lock plate increases the first wing angle and the second wing angle to thereby increase) a height (see Fig 2) of the lock plate (5).
Offenbroich fails to teach the connector block defining a second bore hole disposed separate from and adjacent to the first bore hole, the second bore hole having a second axis parallel to the first axis and a block thread configured to engage with a bolt thread of a bolt and the lock plate further comprising a plate thread configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw.
However, Choy teaches it is known to provide the connector block (see Fig 3, Examiner notes securing member 304 having screw nut 309 as the connector block) defining a second bore hole (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a bore hole of screw nut 309 as defining a second bore hole) disposed separate (see Fig 3) from and adjacent (see Fig 3) to the first bore hole (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a bore hole of securing member 304 having screw 301 inserted as the first bore hole), the second bore hole (see Fig 3) having a second axis (see Fig 3) parallel (see Fig 3) to the first axis (see Fig 3) and a block thread (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a thread of screw nut 309 as having a block thread) configured to engage (see Fig 3, Paragraphs 0046-0048) with a bolt thread of a bolt (see Fig 3, Paragraphs 0046-0048, Examiner notes the described connector can be easily connected to a plate by a screw passing through the plate as configured to engage with a bolt thread of a bolt).
Therefore, as evidenced by Choy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the connector block defining a second bore hole disposed separate from and adjacent to the first bore hole, the second bore hole having a second axis parallel to the first axis and a block thread configured to engage with a bolt thread of a bolt as taught by Choy to Offenbroich. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate attachment of other components, e.g. a plate (Choy, Paragraphs 0046-0048).
Offenbroich, in view of Choy fails to teach the lock plate further comprising a plate thread configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw.
However, Offenbroich, in an alternate embodiment of Figs 4a-4c, teaches it is known to provide the lock plate (Fig 4c, expansion body 5) further comprising a plate thread (Fig 4c, threaded hole 22) configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw (Col 7, line 13 - Col 8, line 4, Examiner notes the expansion body 5 makes the use of an additional nut for the clamping screw unnecessary as configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw).
Therefore, as evidenced by the alternate embodiment of Figs 4a-4c of Offenbroich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lock plate further comprising a plate thread configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw as taught by the alternate embodiment of Figs 4a-4c of Offenbroich to modified Offenbroich. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate reducing part count, improve assembly or disassembly with less components, etc., i.e. makes the use of an additional nut for the clamping screw unnecessary (Offenbroich, Col 7, line 13 - Col 8, line 4).
Regarding claim 13, modified Offenbroich teaches the internal connector system (see Fig 2) of claim 12 and further teaches comprising a structural member (Fig 2, tube 7, Examiner notes square tube 7 in which screw 3a extends through as comprising a structural member) having at least one channel (see Fig 2), and wherein when the lock plate (5) is expanded (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27), the first wing (see Fig 2) impinges (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27) on a first wall (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper inner edge 11 in which screw 3a extends parallel to as a first wall) of the at least one channel (see Fig 2) and the second wing (see Fig 2) impinges (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27) on a second wall (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a lower inner edge 11 in which screw 3a extends parallel to as a second wall) of the at least one channel (see Fig 2) when the lock plate (5) is expanded (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27).
Regarding claim 14, modified Offenbroich teaches the internal connector system (see Fig 2) of claim 13 and further teaches wherein the structural member (7) is an **extruded** beam (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 16, Offenbroich teaches a system (see Fig 2) for joining structural members (see Fig 2, Examiner notes square tubes 7 as structural members), comprising:
a first structural member (Fig 2, tube 7, Examiner notes square tube 7 in which screw 3 without wedge surfaces 21 extends through as a first structural member) comprising at least one channel (see Fig 2);
an internal connector assembly (see Fig 2) sized and shaped (see Fig 2) to be received (see Fig 2) in the at least one channel (see Fig 2), the internal connector assembly (see Fig 2) comprising:
a locking screw (see Fig 2, screw 3, hereinafter “3a”, Col 6, line 48 - Col 7, line 8, Examiner notes screw 3a arranged in the opposite base body 1 as a locking screw) comprising a screw thread (see Fig 2, Examiner notes screw 3a attached to nut 4 as comprising a screw thread);
a connector block (see Fig 2, central body 16, Examiner notes central body 16 having screw 3a inserted as a connector block) comprising a first bore hole (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a bore hole of central body 16 having screw 3a inserted as comprising a first bore hole) defining a first axis (see Fig 2) and being sized and shaped (see Fig 2) to receive (see Fig 2) at least a portion (see Fig 2) of the locking screw (3a); and
a lock plate (see Fig 2, expansion body 5, Examiner notes expansion body 5 in which screw 3a is inserted as a lock plate) comprising a body (Fig 2, central area 9), a first wing (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as a first wing) extending at a first wing angle (see Fig 2) from the body (9), and a second wing (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a lower spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as a second wing) extending at a second wing angle (see Fig 2) from the body (9), the body (9) having a generally uniform thickness (see Fig 2), the first wing (see Fig 2) having the same generally uniform thickness (see Fig 2) as the body (9), and the second wing (see Fig 2) having the same generally uniform thickness (see Fig 2) as the body (9), the lock plate (5) further comprising a first bend disposed at a junction (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper bend at the upper spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as comprising a first bend disposed at a junction) of the body (9) and the first wing (see Fig 2) and a second bend disposed at a junction (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a lower bend at the lower spreading element 2 adjacent screw 3a as a second bend disposed at a junction) of the body (9) and the second wing (see Fig 2), the lock plate (5) being configured to expand and increase a frictional force (see Fig 2, Col 4, line 44 - Col 5, line 23, Examiner notes as a result of the tensile force transmitted by the square nut 4 of the actuating means, the expansion body 5 expands so that the four expansion elements 2 are moved outwards as being configured to expand and increase a frictional force) between an edge (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper spreading tip 6 adjacent screw 3a as an edge) of the first wing (see Fig 2) of the lock plate (5) and a first wall (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper inner edge 11 in which screw 3a extends parallel to as a first wall) and an edge (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a lower spreading tip 6 adjacent screw 3a as an edge) of the second wing (see Fig 2) of the lock plate (5) and a second wall (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a lower inner edge 11 in which screw 3a extends parallel to as a second wall) of the at least one channel (see Fig 2) upon being drawn into tight engagement (see Fig 2, Col 4, line 44 - Col 5, line 23) with the connector block (16) by the locking screw (3a).
Offenbroich fails to teach the connector block defining a second bore hole disposed separate from and adjacent to the first bore hole, the second bore hole having a second axis parallel to the first axis and a block thread configured to engage with a bolt thread of a bolt and the lock plate having a plate thread configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw.
However, Choy teaches it is known to provide the connector block (see Fig 3, Examiner notes securing member 304 having screw nut 309 as the connector block) defining a second bore hole (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a bore hole of screw nut 309 as defining a second bore hole) disposed separate (see Fig 3) from and adjacent (see Fig 3) to the first bore hole (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a bore hole of securing member 304 having screw 301 inserted as the first bore hole), the second bore hole (see Fig 3) having a second axis (see Fig 3) parallel (see Fig 3) to the first axis (see Fig 3) and a block thread (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a thread of screw nut 309 as having a block thread) configured to engage (see Fig 3, Paragraphs 0046-0048) with a bolt thread of a bolt (see Fig 3, Paragraphs 0046-0048, Examiner notes the described connector can be easily connected to a plate by a screw passing through the plate as configured to engage with a bolt thread of a bolt).
Therefore, as evidenced by Choy, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the connector block defining a second bore hole disposed separate from and adjacent to the first bore hole, the second bore hole having a second axis parallel to the first axis and a block thread configured to engage with a bolt thread of a bolt as taught by Choy to Offenbroich. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate attachment of other components, e.g. a plate (Choy, Paragraphs 0046-0048).
Offenbroich, in view of Choy fails to teach the lock plate having a plate thread configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw.
However, Offenbroich, in an alternate embodiment of Figs 4a-4c, teaches it is known to provide the lock plate (Fig 4c, expansion body 5) having a plate thread (Fig 4c, threaded hole 22) configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw (Col 7, line 13 - Col 8, line 4, Examiner notes the expansion body 5 makes the use of an additional nut for the clamping screw unnecessary as configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw).
Therefore, as evidenced by the alternate embodiment of Figs 4a-4c of Offenbroich, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lock plate having a plate thread configured to engage the screw thread of the locking screw as taught by the alternate embodiment of Figs 4a-4c of Offenbroich to modified Offenbroich. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate reducing part count, improve assembly or disassembly with less components, etc., i.e. makes the use of an additional nut for the clamping screw unnecessary (Offenbroich, Col 7, line 13 - Col 8, line 4).
Regarding claim 17, modified Offenbroich teaches the system (see Fig 2) of claim 16 and further teaches wherein the lock plate (5) is configured to expand and increase the frictional force (see Fig 2, Col 4, line 44 - Col 5, line 23) between the edge (see Fig 2) of the first wing (see Fig 2) of the lock plate (5) and the first wall (see Fig 2) and the edge (see Fig 2) of the second wing (see Fig 2) of the lock plate (5) and the second wall (see Fig 2) of the at least one channel (see Fig 2) upon being drawn into tight engagement (see Fig 2, Col 4, line 44 - Col 5, line 23) with the connector block (16) by rotation (see Fig 2, Col 4, line 44 - Col 5, line 23, Examiner notes screw 3 is tightened as by rotation) of the locking screw (3a).
Regarding claim 19, modified Offenbroich teaches the system (see Fig 2) of claim 16 and further teaches wherein expanding the lock plate (5) increases (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27, Examiner notes this in turn leads to the angle of inclination w1 of the spreading elements 2 increasingly adapting to the predetermined angle of inclination w2 of the support surfaces 12 as wherein expanding the lock plate increases) the first (see Fig 2) and second wing angles (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 20, modified Offenbroich teaches the system (see Fig 2) of claim 19 and further teaches wherein the connector block (16) further comprises a first chamfer (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper support surface 12 adjacent screw 3a as a first chamfer) and a second chamfer (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a lower support surface 12 adjacent screw 3a as a second chamfer) disposed opposite (see Fig 2) the first chamfer (see Fig 2), the first chamfer (see Fig 2) operable to displace (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27) the first wing (see Fig 2) and the second chamfer (see Fig 2) operable to displace (see Fig 2, Col 5, line 54 - Col 6, line 27) the second wing (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 21, modified Offenbroich teaches the connector system (see Fig 2) of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein in a relaxed state of the lock plate, the first wing angle is in a range of 100-125 degrees and the second wing angle is in a range of 100-125 degrees.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified wherein in a relaxed state of the lock plate, the first wing angle and the second wing angle as disclosed by modified Offenbroich to each be in a range of 100-125 degrees, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide angles based on desired spreading movement (e.g. optimizing force-locking contact), manufacturability (e.g. tooling, material springback), etc.
Claim(s) 3, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Offenbroich, in view of Choy and Coscarella (US20100229989A1), hereinafter "Coscarella".
Regarding claims 3 and 15, modified Offenbroich teaches the connector system (see Fig 2) of [claim 3: claim 1; claim 15: claim 12] and further teaches wherein the first bore hole (see Fig 2) is sized and shaped (see Fig 2) to receive (see Fig 2) a head (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an end of screw 3a having a tool recess extending through the bore hole of central body 16 as a head) of the locking screw (3a).
Modified Offenbroich fails to teach wherein the first bore hole is partially threaded.
However, Coscarella teaches it is known to provide wherein the first bore hole (see Annotated Fig 1 below) is partially threaded (see Annotated Fig 1 below).
Therefore, as evidenced by Coscarella, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the first bore hole is partially threaded of Coscarella to modified Offenbroich. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to aid in ensuring actuator movement is relative to the body as it is rotated (Coscarella, Paragraph 0015).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Coscarella, Annotated Fig 1
Regarding claim 18, modified Offenbroich teaches the system (see Fig 2) of claim 16 and further teaches wherein the first bore hole (see Fig 2) is sized and shaped (see Fig 2) to receive (see Fig 2) a head (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an end of screw 3a having a tool recess extending through the bore hole of central body 16 as a head) of the locking screw (3a).
Modified Offenbroich fails to teach wherein the first bore hole is partially threaded.
However, Coscarella teaches it is known to provide wherein the first bore hole (see Annotated Fig 1 above) is partially threaded (see Annotated Fig 1 above).
Therefore, as evidenced by Coscarella, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the first bore hole is partially threaded of Coscarella to modified Offenbroich. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to aid in ensuring actuator movement is relative to the body as it is rotated (Coscarella, Paragraph 0015).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Offenbroich, in view of Choy and Odorico (EP1050244A2), hereinafter "Odorico".
Regarding claim 6, modified Offenbroich teaches the connector system (see Fig 2) of claim 4 but fails to teach wherein the lock plate defines a first void disposed at the junction between the first wing and the body and defines a second void disposed at the junction between the second wing and the body.
However, in a variant of Odorico in Paragraph 0067, Odorico indicates plate 22 can be made in a single piece with profiles 19. Thus, Odorico teaches it is known to provide wherein the lock plate (Fig 4a, adapter element 16) defines a first void (see Figs 3-4a, Examiner notes with respect to Fig 3, a void between upper bridge 21 and plate 22 on upper profiles 19 as a first void) disposed at the junction (see Fig 4a, Paragraph 0067, Examiner notes an upper junction between upper profiles 19 connected by upper bridge 21 and plate 22 made in a single piece with profiles 19 as the junction) between the first wing (see Fig 4a, Examiner notes upper profiles 19 connected by upper bridge 21 as the first wing) and the body (Fig 4a, plate 22) and defines a second void (see Figs 3-4a, Examiner notes with respect to Fig 3, a void between lower bridge 21 and plate 22 on lower profiles 19 as a second void) disposed at the junction (see Fig 4a, Paragraph 0067, Examiner notes a lower junction between lower profiles 19 connected by lower bridge 21 and plate 22 made in a single piece with profiles 19 as the junction) between the second wing (see Fig 4a, Examiner notes lower profiles 19 connected by lower bridge 21 as the second wing) and the body (22).
Therefore, as evidenced by Odorico, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the lock plate defines a first void disposed at the junction between the first wing and the body and defines a second void disposed at the junction between the second wing and the body as taught by Odorico to modified Offenbroich. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to optimize controlled elastic expansion (Odorico, Paragraph 0063).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Offenbroich, in view of Choy and Lutes (US20180073256A1), hereinafter "Lutes".
Regarding claim 10, modified Offenbroich teaches the connector system (see Fig 2) of claim 1 but fails to teach further comprising a tightening knob configured to receive a head of the bolt.
However, Lutes teaches it is known to provide comprising a tightening knob (Fig 1, handle 106) configured to receive a head of the bolt (Fig 1, set screw 104, Paragraph 0015, Examiner notes fixedly attached as configured to receive a head of the bolt).
Therefore, as evidenced by Lutes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped tightening knob as taught by Lutes to modified Offenbroich. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to eliminate the need to use a separate tool (Lutes, Paragraph 0011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1 on Pg 8 of Applicant’s Remarks filed September 29, 2025, Applicant argues the combination of Offenbroich and Choy does not disclose a second bore hole that is disposed separate from and adjacent to a first bore hole, where the second bore has a second axis that is parallel with the first axis of the first bore hole. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and as set forth above, the combination of Offenbroich and Choy teaches a second bore hole that is disposed separate from and adjacent to a first bore hole, where the second bore has a second axis that is parallel with the first axis of the first bore hole.
Further, with respect to claim 1 on Pg 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues it would not be obvious to modify Offenbroich to include a second bore hole disposed separate and adjacent to the bore hole that receives the screw 3, where the second bore hole has a second axis that is parallel to the first axis of the bore hole that receives the screw 3; such second bore hole in the base body 1 would not be functional at least because it would not be accessible through the central opening 19 in the screw insert 18 of Offenbroich. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes Choy, in Paragraphs 0046-0048, indicates “A screwdriver can passes through the aperture 313 and the centre of the nut 309 for fixing the connector inside the tube”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (ET).
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675