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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 6-7, 14, 18, 20, and 24 have been amended. Claim 8 has been cancelled. Claim 25 has been added. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9-10, 12, 14-20, and 23-25 remain pending in the application.
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 1-7, 9-10, 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.
Claims 1 recites the limitation "the respective edges" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claims 1, 14, and 20 will be read as “respective edges”.
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) 1-7, 9-10, 12, 14-20, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebbeck et al. (US20150367954A1), hereinafter "Rebbeck", in view of Kim (KR20160029057A) and Umekage et al. (JP3021104U), hereinafter "Kim" and "Umekage", respectively.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Rebbeck teaches a cap (Fig 1, lightning strike protector 10) comprising:
a primary member (see Fig 4, Examiner notes cap 12 and insert 14 as a primary member) comprising a wall member (see Fig 4, Examiner notes walls 18 and 28 as a wall member) and a floor member (Fig 4, top end 20), the primary member (see Fig 4) defining a conic section (see Fig 4, Paragraph 0064, Rebbeck indicates walls 18 and 28 are frusto-conically shaped) with an open end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an open end of insert 14 adjacent castellations 32 as an open end); and
a plurality of prongs (see Fig 1, Examiner notes protrusions 38 as a plurality of prongs) extending radially inward (see Fig 1) from the wall member (see Fig 4), the plurality of prongs (see Fig 1) including a first set of prongs (Fig 1, protrusions 38), wherein:
a first prong (see Fig 1, Examiner notes uppermost protrusion 38 right of central axis 42 as a first prong) of the first set of prongs (38) includes a first prong stem (see Fig 1, Examiner notes the uppermost protrusion 38 as includes a first prong stem), wherein the first prong (see Fig 1) is [configured to, when the cap (10) is coupled (see Figs 4-5, Paragraphs 0078-0079) to a nut (Fig 1, nut 16), contact (see Figs 4-5, Paragraphs 0078-0079) a surface (see Fig 4) of the nut (16)],
the first prong stem (see Fig 1) extends radially (see Fig 1) from the wall member (see Fig 4) a first radial distance (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a radial distance in which the uppermost protrusion 38 extends radially inwards towards central axis 42 as a first radial distance).
Rebbeck fails to teach a second set of prongs, at least two first fingers extending radially inward from the first prong stem, each of the at least two first fingers includes a respective edge that extends a first width and faces towards a central longitudinal axis of the primary member, a second prong of the second set of prongs includes a second prong stem and at least two second fingers extending radially inward from the second prong stem, the second prong stem extends radially from the wall member a second radial distance, the second prong has a proximal width where the second prong stem meets the wall member and a distal width at the respective edges of the at least two second fingers, the proximal width being greater than the distal width, each of the at least two second fingers includes a respective edge that extends a second width and faces towards the central longitudinal axis of the primary member, the first width is greater than the second width, and the first radial distance is less than the second radial distance.
However, Kim teaches it is known to provide at least two first fingers (Fig 2, protrusions 40) extending radially inward (see Fig 2) from the first prong stem (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a stem of bolt supports 30 as from the first prong stem), each (see Fig 2) of the at least two first fingers (40) includes a respective edge (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an interior edge of each protrusion 40 as includes a respective edge) that extends (see Fig 2) a first width (see Fig 2) and faces towards (see Fig 2) a central longitudinal axis (see Figs 1-2) of the primary member (see Fig 1, Examiner notes bolt cap 10 and nut cap 20 as the primary member).
Therefore, as evidenced by Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusions of Rebbeck with adequately sized and shaped bolt supports as taught by Kim. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide bolt supports such that pressure is not applied to the wall of the cap to maintain the quality of the cap (Kim, Paragraph 0017).
Rebbeck, in view of Kim fails to teach a second set of prongs, a second prong of the second set of prongs includes a second prong stem and at least two second fingers extending radially inward from the second prong stem, the second prong stem extends radially from the wall member a second radial distance, the second prong has a proximal width where the second prong stem meets the wall member and a distal width at the respective edges of the at least two second fingers, the proximal width being greater than the distal width, each of the at least two second fingers includes a respective edge that extends a second width and faces towards the central longitudinal axis of the primary member, the first width is greater than the second width, and the first radial distance is less than the second radial distance.
However, Umekage teaches it is known to provide a plurality of prongs (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0010, Examiner notes bolt clamping ribs 3 and nut clamping ribs 4 as a plurality of prongs) extending radially inward (see Fig 1) from the wall member (see Fig 1, Examiner notes body portion 1 and skirt portion 2 as the wall member), the plurality of prongs (see Fig 1) including a first set of prongs (Fig 1, nut clamping ribs 4) and a second set of prongs (Fig 1, bolt clamping ribs 3).
Therefore, as evidenced by Umekage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate adequately sized, shaped, and positioned first set of prongs of modified Rebbeck to include a second set of prongs as taught by Umekage. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to aid in providing a secure clamping of the cap to prevent from falling off (Umekage, Paragraph 0005).
Accordingly, modified Rebbeck teaches a second set of prongs (Kim, Fig 2, bolt supports 30; Umekage, see Fig 1), a second prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the second set of prongs (Kim, 30; Umekage, see Fig 1) includes a second prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2, Examiner notes a stem of bolt supports 30 as includes a second prong stem) and at least two second fingers (Kim, Fig 2, protrusions 40) extending radially inward (Kim, see Fig 2) from the second prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2), the second prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2) extends radially (Kim, see Fig 2) from the wall member (see Fig 4) a second radial distance (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2; Examiner notes the combination of Rebbeck, in view of Kim and Umekage, i.e. the second set of prongs to engage the bolt, as extends radially from the wall member a second radial distance), the second prong (Kim, see Fig 2) has a proximal width (Kim, see Fig 2) where the second prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2) meets (Kim, see Fig 2) the wall member (see Fig 4) and a distal width (Kim, see Fig 2) at the respective edges (Kim, see Fig 2, Examiner notes the interior edge of each protrusion 40 as the respective edges) of the at least two second fingers (40), the proximal width (Kim, see Fig 2) being greater (Kim, see Fig 2) than the distal width (Kim, see Fig 2), each (Kim, see Fig 2) of the at least two second fingers (40) includes a respective edge (Kim, see Fig 2, Examiner notes the interior edge of each protrusion 40 as includes a respective edge) that extends (Kim, see Fig 2) a second width (Kim, see Fig 2) and faces towards (Kim, see Fig 2) the central longitudinal axis (Fig 1, central axis 42) of the primary member (see Fig 4), the first width (Kim, see Fig 2) is greater (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2) than the second width (Kim, see Fig 2) (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2; Examiner notes the combination of Rebbeck, in view of Kim and Umekage, i.e. the first set of prongs to engage the nut and the second set of prongs to engage the bolt, as the first width is greater than the second width), and the first radial distance (see Fig 1) is less (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2) than the second radial distance (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2).
Claim language set in brackets set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of a cap, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the electrical protector disclosed by modified Rebbeck, is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the cap (10) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein:
a surface (Kim, see Fig 1, Examiner notes an underside of bolt supports 30 as a surface) of the first set of prongs (Kim, Fig 2, bolt supports 30) that faces the open end (see Fig 1) is included in a first plane (Kim, see Fig 1, Examiner notes a plane of the underside of bolt supports 30 as a first plane),
a surface (Kim, see Fig 1, Examiner notes an underside of bolt supports 30 as a surface) of the second set of prongs (30; Umekage, see Fig 1) that faces the open end (see Fig 1) is included in a second plane (Kim, see Fig 1, Examiner notes a plane of the underside of bolt supports 30 as a second plane; Umekage, see Fig 1), and
the second plane (Kim, see Fig 1; Umekage, see Fig 1) is parallel (Kim, see Fig 1; Umekage, see Fig 1) to the first plane (Kim, see Fig 1) and is positioned between (Kim, see Fig 1; Umekage, see Fig 1) the first plane (Kim, see Fig 1) and the floor member (20).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the cap (10) of claim 2 and further teaches wherein prongs (Kim, see Fig 2) of the first set of prongs (30) are spaced apart from one another (Kim, see Fig 2) along a perimeter (see Fig 1; Kim, see Fig 2) of the wall member (see Fig 4), and wherein prongs (Kim, see Fig 2) of the second set of prongs (30; Umekage, see Fig 1) are spaced apart from one another (Kim, see Fig 2) along the perimeter (see Fig 1; Kim, see Fig 2) of the wall member (see Fig 4) and offset (Kim, see Fig 2; Umekage, see Figs 1-2) from each (Kim, see Fig 2) of the prongs (Kim, see Fig 2) of the first set of prongs (30) such that the plurality of prongs (see Fig 1; Umekage, see Fig 1) extend along an inner surface (see Fig 4) of the wall member (see Fig 4) without contacting one another (Kim, see Fig 2; Umekage, see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the cap (10) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein:
the first prong (see Fig 1; Kim, see Fig 2) is [configured to, when the cap (10) is coupled (see Fig 4) to the nut (16), engage (see Fig 4) with the nut (16) such that a ridge (see Fig 2) of the nut (16) is configured to be engaged (capable of being engaged, i.e. this is a functional recitation) between the at least two first fingers (40) of the first prong (see Fig 1; Kim, see Fig 2)].
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the cap (10) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein:
the first prong (see Fig 1; Kim, see Fig 2) is [configured such that, when the cap (10) is coupled (see Fig 4) to the nut (16), the respective edge (Kim, see Fig 2) of each (Kim, see Fig 2) of the at least two first fingers (40) extends a height that is greater than a height of the nut (16), wherein the height of the nut (16) is along the central longitudinal axis (42) (Examiner notes claim 5 appears to be further defining the intended use and not further limiting the structure of the cap; Examiner’s position is the electrical protector of modified Rebbeck is capable of meeting the intended use and functional recitations of claim 5 with an adequately sized and shaped nut)].
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the cap (10) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein:
each prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the plurality of prongs (see Fig 1; Umekage, see Fig 1) includes a respective prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2, Examiner notes a stem of bolt supports 30 as includes a respective prong stem) and at least two fingers (Fig 2, protrusions 40) extending from the respective prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2) in a V-shape (Kim, see Fig 2),
each prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the first set of prongs (30) is [configured to, when the cap (10) is coupled (see Fig 4) to the nut (16), contact (see Fig 4) the nut (16)], and
for each prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the first set of prongs (30):
edges (Kim, see Fig 2, Examiner notes interior edges of each protrusion 40 as edges) of the at least two fingers (40) of each prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the first set of prongs (30) extend the first width (Kim, see Fig 2), and
the respective prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2) of each prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the first set of prongs (30) extends radially (Kim, see Fig 2) from the wall member (see Fig 4) the first radial distance (see Fig 1).
Modified Rebbeck fails to teach at least two fingers extending from the respective prong stem in a U-shape.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the at least two fingers extending from the respective prong stem in a V-shape to a U-shape as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a shape based on application and use requirements, e.g. fastener dimensions, strength, manufacturing, etc.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the cap (10) of claim 6 and further teaches wherein:
for each prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the second set of prongs (30; Umekage, see Fig 1):
edges (Kim, see Fig 2, Examiner notes interior edges of each protrusion 40 as edges) of the at least two fingers (40) of each prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the second set of prongs (30; Umekage, see Fig 1) extend the second width (Kim, see Fig 2), and
the respective prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2) of each prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the second set of prongs (30; Umekage, see Fig 1) extends radially (Kim, see Fig 2) from the wall member (see Fig 4) the second radial distance (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the cap (10) according to claim 2 and further teaches wherein the first plane (Kim, see Fig 1) is orthogonal (Kim, see Fig 1) to a longitudinal axis (see Fig 1, Examiner notes central axis 42 as a longitudinal axis) of the cap (10).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the cap (10) according to claim 1 and further teaches comprising:
a contact edge (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes with respect to Fig 3, undersides of ring 26 and castellations 32, facing and engaging, respectively, surface 34 as a contact edge) comprising an edge (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes with respect to Figs 3-4, ring 26 and castellations 32 extending from wall 28 and extending distal from top end 20 as comprising an edge) of the wall member (see Fig 4) of the primary member (see Fig 4), the contact edge (see Figs 1-4) positioned opposite (see Figs 1-4) the floor member (20); and
the contact edge (see Figs 1-4) includes an edge channel (Fig 3, gap 50), the edge channel (50) includes an annular groove defined in a face (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes gap 50 extending circumferentially between ring 26 and castellations 32 as includes an annular groove defined in a face) of the contact edge (see Figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the cap (10) according to claim 1 and further teaches comprising:
a skirt (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes ring 26 and castellations 32 as a skirt) disposed adjacent (see Fig 1) the open end (see Fig 1) of the primary member (see Fig 4), wherein the primary member (see Fig 4) has a first diameter and the skirt (see Figs 1-4) has a second diameter larger (see Figs 1-4) than the first diameter (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes ring 26 having a diameter larger than walls 18 and 28 as the primary member has a first diameter and the skirt has a second diameter larger than the first diameter); and
an aperture (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes with respect to Fig 3, openings under ring 26 and between castellations 32 adjacent surface 34 as an aperture) defined through the skirt (see Figs 1-4), such that the aperture (see Figs 1-4) faces outward (see Figs 1-4) from the skirt (see Figs 1-4) and opens (see Figs 1-4) into the skirt (see Figs 1-4) parallel (see Figs 1-4) to a longitudinal axis (see Fig 1, Examiner notes central axis 42 as a longitudinal axis) of the cap (10), and
wherein the aperture (see Figs 1-4) is disposed on an upper surface (see Figs 1-4; Examiner notes with respect to Fig 3, surfaces of ring 26 and castellations 32, facing and engaging, respectively, surface 34 as an upper surface; Examiner notes recitation of direction without a frame of reference is relative terminology and can be given little to no patentable weight) of the skirt (see Figs 1-4), such that the aperture (see Figs 1-4) faces open (see Figs 1-4) along an axis parallel (see Figs 1-4) to the longitudinal axis (see Fig 1) of the cap (10).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Rebbeck teaches a fastening system (see Fig 1) comprising:
a bolt (Paragraph 0072, Examiner notes central bore 48 of nut 16 is contemplated to engage a bolt as comprising a bolt);
a nut (Fig 1, nut 16) configured to be fastened (Paragraph 0072) to the bolt (Paragraph 0072); and
a cap (Fig 1, lightning strike protector 10) that is configured to be coupled (Paragraph 0054) to the nut (16) and the bolt (Paragraph 0072) such that a portion (Paragraphs 0054 and 0072) of the bolt (Paragraph 0072) and a portion (Paragraphs 0054 and 0072) of the nut (16) are positioned in a cavity (see Fig 4, Paragraphs 0054 and 0072) of the cap (10), the cap (10) comprising:
a primary member (see Fig 4, Examiner notes cap 12 and insert 14 as a primary member) comprising a wall member (see Fig 4, Examiner notes walls 18 and 28 as a wall member) and a floor member (Fig 4, top end 20), the primary member (see Fig 4) defining a conic section (see Fig 4, Paragraph 0064, Rebbeck indicates walls 18 and 28 are frusto-conically shaped) having an open end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an open end of insert 14 adjacent castellations 32 as an open end); and
a plurality of prongs (see Fig 1, Examiner notes protrusions 38 as a plurality of prongs) extending radially inward (see Fig 1) from the wall member (see Fig 4), the plurality of prongs (see Fig 1) including a first set of prongs (Fig 1, protrusions 38), wherein:
a first prong (see Fig 1, Examiner notes uppermost protrusion 38 right of central axis 42 as a first prong) of the first set of prongs (38) is associated with a first characteristic (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a vertical position of a lower surface of protrusions 38 along central axis 42 as associated with a first characteristic) and includes a first prong stem (see Fig 1, Examiner notes the uppermost protrusion 38 as includes a first prong stem) and is configured to, when the cap (10) is coupled (capable of being coupled, i.e. this is a functional recitation; see Figs 4-5, Paragraphs 0078-0079) to the nut (16), contact (capable of contacting, i.e. this is a functional recitation; see Figs 4-5, Paragraphs 0078-0079) a surface (see Fig 4) of the nut (16),
the first prong stem (see Fig 1) extends radially (see Fig 1) from the wall member (see Fig 4) a first radial distance (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a radial distance in which the uppermost protrusion 38 extends radially inwards towards central axis 42 as a first radial distance).
Rebbeck fails to teach a second set of prongs, at least two first fingers extending radially inward from the first prong stem, each of the at least two first fingers includes a respective edge that extends a first width and faces towards a central longitudinal axis of the primary member, a second prong of the second set of prongs is associated with a second characteristic different than the first characteristic and includes a second prong stem and at least two second fingers extending radially inward from the second prong stem, the second prong stem extends radially from the wall member a second radial distance, the second prong has a proximal width where the second prong stem meets the wall member and a distal width at the respective edges of the at least two second fingers, the proximal width being greater than the distal width, each of the at least two second fingers includes a respective edge that extends a second width and faces towards the central longitudinal axis of the primary member, the first width is greater than the second width, and the first radial distance is less than the second radial distance.
However, Kim teaches it is known to provide at least two first fingers (Fig 2, protrusions 40) extending radially inward (see Fig 2) from the first prong stem (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a stem of bolt supports 30 as from the first prong stem), each (see Fig 2) of the at least two first fingers (40) includes a respective edge (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an interior edge of each protrusion 40 as includes a respective edge) that extends (see Fig 2) a first width (see Fig 2) and faces towards (see Fig 2) a central longitudinal axis (see Figs 1-2) of the primary member (see Fig 1, Examiner notes bolt cap 10 and nut cap 20 as the primary member).
Therefore, as evidenced by Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusions of Rebbeck with adequately sized and shaped bolt supports as taught by Kim. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide bolt supports such that pressure is not applied to the wall of the cap to maintain the quality of the cap (Kim, Paragraph 0017).
Rebbeck, in view of Kim fails to teach a second set of prongs, a second prong of the second set of prongs is associated with a second characteristic different than the first characteristic and includes a second prong stem and at least two second fingers extending radially inward from the second prong stem, the second prong stem extends radially from the wall member a second radial distance, the second prong has a proximal width where the second prong stem meets the wall member and a distal width at the respective edges of the at least two second fingers, the proximal width being greater than the distal width, each of the at least two second fingers includes a respective edge that extends a second width and faces towards the central longitudinal axis of the primary member, the first width is greater than the second width, and the first radial distance is less than the second radial distance.
However, Umekage teaches it is known to provide a plurality of prongs (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0010, Examiner notes bolt clamping ribs 3 and nut clamping ribs 4 as a plurality of prongs) extending radially inward (see Fig 1) from the wall member (see Fig 1, Examiner notes body portion 1 and skirt portion 2 as the wall member), the plurality of prongs (see Fig 1) including a first set of prongs (Fig 1, nut clamping ribs 4) and a second set of prongs (Fig 1, bolt clamping ribs 3).
Therefore, as evidenced by Umekage, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate adequately sized, shaped, and positioned first set of prongs of modified Rebbeck to include a second set of prongs as taught by Umekage. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to aid in providing a secure clamping of the cap to prevent from falling off (Umekage, Paragraph 0005).
Accordingly, modified Rebbeck teaches a second set of prongs (Kim, Fig 2, bolt supports 30; Umekage, see Fig 1), a second prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the second set of prongs (30; Umekage, see Fig 1) is associated with a second characteristic (Kim, see Fig 2; Umekage, see Fig 1, Examiner notes the combination of modified Rebbeck and Umekage, i.e. a vertical position of the second set of prongs, as associated with a second characteristic) different (Kim, see Fig 2; Umekage, see Fig 1) than the first characteristic (see Fig 1) and includes a second prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2, Examiner notes a stem of bolt supports 30 as includes a second prong stem) and at least two second fingers (Kim, Fig 2, protrusions 40) extending radially inward (Kim, see Fig 2) from the second prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2), the second prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2) extends radially (Kim, see Fig 2) from the wall member (see Fig 4) a second radial distance (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2; Examiner notes the combination of Rebbeck, in view of Kim and Umekage, i.e. the second set of prongs to engage the bolt, as extends radially from the wall member a second radial distance), the second prong (Kim, see Fig 2) has a proximal width (Kim, see Fig 2) where the second prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2) meets (Kim, see Fig 2) the wall member (see Fig 4) and a distal width (Kim, see Fig 2) at the respective edges (Kim, see Fig 2, Examiner notes the interior edge of each protrusion 40 as the respective edges) of the at least two second fingers (40), the proximal width (Kim, see Fig 2) being greater (Kim, see Fig 2) than the distal width (Kim, see Fig 2), each (Kim, see Fig 2) of the at least two second fingers (40) includes a respective edge (Kim, see Fig 2, Examiner notes the interior edge of each protrusion 40 as includes a respective edge) that extends (Kim, see Fig 2) a second width (Kim, see Fig 2) and faces towards (Kim, see Fig 2) the central longitudinal axis (42) of the primary member (see Fig 4), the first width (Kim, see Fig 2) is greater (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2) than the second width (Kim, see Fig 2) (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2; Examiner notes the combination of Rebbeck, in view of Kim and Umekage, i.e. the first set of prongs to engage the nut and the second set of prongs to engage the bolt, as the first width is greater than the second width), and the first radial distance (see Fig 1) is less (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2) than the second radial distance (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the fastening system (see Fig 1) of claim 14 and further teaches comprising a washer (Paragraph 0096, Rebbeck indicates a use of a washer between nut 16 and surface 34) wherein:
the second prong (Kim, see Fig 2) is configured to, when the cap (10) is coupled (capable of being coupled, i.e. this is a functional recitation; Paragraphs 0054 and 0072) to the nut (16), contact a surface (capable of contacting a surface, i.e. this is a functional recitation) of the washer (Paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the fastening system (see Fig 1) of claim 15 and further teaches wherein prongs (Kim, see Fig 2) of the first set of prongs (30) are spaced apart from one another (Kim, see Fig 2) along a perimeter (see Fig 1; Kim, see Fig 2) of the wall member (see Fig 4), and wherein prongs (Kim, see Fig 2) of the second set of prongs (30; Umekage, see Fig 1) are spaced apart from one another (Kim, see Fig 2) along the perimeter (see Fig 1; Kim, see Fig 2) of the wall member (see Fig 4) and offset (Kim, see Fig 2; Umekage, see Figs 1-2) from each (Kim, see Fig 2) of the prongs (Kim, see Fig 2) of the first set of prongs (30) such that the plurality of prongs (see Fig 1; Umekage, see Fig 1) extend along an inner surface (see Fig 4) of the wall member (see Fig 4) without contacting one another (Kim, see Fig 2; Umekage, see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the fastening system (see Fig 1) of claim 15 and further teaches wherein each prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the plurality of prongs (see Fig 1; Umekage, see Fig 1) includes a respective prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2, Examiner notes a stem of bolt supports 30 as includes a respective prong stem) and at least two fingers (Fig 2, protrusions 40) extending from the respective prong stem (Kim, see Fig 2) in a V-shape (Kim, see Fig 2).
Modified Rebbeck fails to teach at least two fingers extending from the respective prong stem in a U-shape.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the at least two fingers extending from the respective prong stem in a V-shape to a U-shape as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a shape based on application and use requirements, e.g. fastener dimensions, strength, manufacturing, etc.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the fastening system (see Fig 1) of claim 17 and further teaches wherein:
when the cap (10) is coupled (see Fig 4) to the nut (16), each prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the first set of prongs (30) is configured to engage (capable of engaging, i.e. this is functional recitation; see Fig 4) the nut (16) such that edges (Kim, see Fig 2) of the at least two fingers (40) of each (Kim, see Fig 2) of the prongs (Kim, see Fig 2) in the first set of prongs (30) extend (Kim, see Fig 2) the first width (Kim, see Fig 2) and the respective prong stems (Kim, see Fig 2) of each (Kim, see Fig 2) of the prongs (Kim, see Fig 2) of the first set of prongs (30) extend radially (Kim, see Fig 2) from the wall member (see Fig 4) the first radial distance (see Fig 1); and
when the cap (10) is coupled (see Fig 4) to the nut (16), each prong (Kim, see Fig 2) of the second set of prongs (30; Umekage, see Fig 1) is configured to engage (capable of engaging, i.e. this is a functional recitation) the washer (Paragraph 0096) such that edges (Kim, see Fig 2) of the at least two fingers (40) of each (Kim, see Fig 2) of the prongs (Kim, see Fig 2) in the second set of prongs (30; Umekage, see Fig 1) extend (Kim, see Fig 2) the second width (Kim, see Fig 2) and the respective prong stems (Kim, see Fig 2) of each (Kim, see Fig 2) of the prongs (Kim, see Fig 2) of the second set of prongs (30; Umekage, see Fig 1) extend radially (Kim, see Fig 2) from the wall member (see Fig 4) the second radial distance (see Fig 4; Kim, see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the fastening system (see Fig 1) of claim 14 and further teaches comprising:
a contact edge (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes with respect to Fig 3, undersides of ring 26 and castellations 32, facing and engaging, respectively, surface 34 as a contact edge) including an edge (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes with respect to Figs 3-4, ring 26 and castellations 32 extending from wall 28 and extending distal from top end 20 as including an edge) of the wall member (see Fig 4) of the primary member (see Fig 4) positioned opposite (see Figs 1-4) the floor member (20) and configured to contact (capable of contacting, i.e. this is a functional recitation; see Fig 3) an article (Fig 3, surface 34) being joined by a combination (Paragraphs 0054 and 0072) of the nut (16) and the bolt (Paragraph 0072), wherein the cap (10) is configured to at least partially enclose (capable of partially enclosing, i.e. this is a functional recitation; see Fig 4) the nut (16) when the cap (10) is coupled (see Fig 15, Paragraph 0126) to the nut (16), and wherein the contact edge (see Figs 1-4) includes an edge channel (Fig 3, gap 50), the edge channel (50) including an annular groove defined in a face (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes gap 50 extending circumferentially between ring 26 and castellations 32 as an annular groove defined in a face) of the contact edge (see Figs 1-4);
a skirt (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes ring 26 and castellations 32 as a skirt) disposed adjacent (see Fig 1) the open end (see Fig 1) of the primary member (see Fig 4), wherein the primary member (see Fig 4) has a first diameter and the skirt (see Figs 1-4) has a second diameter larger (see Figs 1-4) than the first diameter (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes ring 26 having a diameter larger than walls 18 and 28 as the primary member has a first diameter and the skirt has a second diameter larger than the first diameter); and
an aperture (see Figs 1-4, Examiner notes with respect to Fig 3, openings under ring 26 and between castellations 32 adjacent surface 34 as an aperture) defined through the skirt (see Figs 1-4).
Regarding claims 20 and 23, Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Concerning claims 20 and 23, given the structure of the cap, the structural elements of the combination of the electrical protector as disclosed by modified Rebbeck (as rejected in claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12 above) would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 24, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the method of claim 20 and further teaches wherein the height (see Fig 4) of the nut (16) is along the central longitudinal axis (42) but fails to teach wherein the respective edge of each of the at least two first fingers extends a height that is greater than both a height of the nut and the first radial distance.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the respective edge of each of the at least two first fingers as disclosed by modified Rebbeck to extend a height that is greater than both a height of the nut and the first radial distance and/or have modified a height of the nut such that the respective edge of each of the at least two first fingers extends a height that is greater than the height of the nut and the first radial distance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in 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 optimize engagement between the nut of desired sizes and the respective edge of each of the at least two first fingers and/or facilitate reducing costs and mass with a modified height of the nut.
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, modified Rebbeck teaches the cap (10) according to claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the second prong stem together with the at least two second fingers form a concave surface.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second prong stem together with the at least two second fingers to form a concave surface as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a surface based on application and use requirements, e.g. fastener dimensions, strength, manufacturing, etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights