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 .
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chasse et al., US20190003510 (hereinafter, Chasse) in view of Kageyama US20120099944 (hereinafter, Kageyama).
Regarding claim 1, Chasse discloses a fastener (10, see Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a shank 20 extending in a direction along a major axis X; and
a head 22 comprising a hexalobular recess 110, wherein A is an outer diameter (see Fig. 3 and outer diameter measuring from one end of the lobe 122 to other end for outer diameter) of the hexalobular recess, and Ri is the radius of the inner lobe surface (see inner lobe 112 and its radius in Fig. 3),
wherein B is the inner diameter (see inner lobe 112 and its inner diameter from one end of 112 to opposite end of inner lobe) of the hexalobular recess and is centered on the major axis and extends to an inner lobe surface of the hexalobular recess (see Fig. 3),
wherein the head further comprises a second recess 150 adjacent the hexalobular recess,
wherein the second recess is formed as a square recess (see Fig. 4) along the major axis of the fastener, and wherein the hexalobular recess has a depth of D1, the second recess has a depth of D2 (see Fig. 4).
Chasse fails to teach the hexalobular recess having an inner lobe surface 112 having a radius satisfying 0.3A < Ri < 1.8A.
However, Kageyama in the same field of endeavor, teaches a fastener (see paragraph 0086; see Figs. 1 and 9) comprising: a head comprising a hexalobular recess (12, see Fig. 9), wherein the hexalobular recess has an inner lobe surface having a radius satisfying 0.15A < Ri < 0.30A (see paragraph 0026; see Fig. 9).
Although these teachings in Kageyama do not cover the claimed range (0.3A < Ri < 1.8A), the claimed range is simply a change in size of the radius of the inner lobe surface (Ri) and is considered a design choice well within the level of ordinary skill in the art especially since the disclosure of present application does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the specific inequality in para. [0049, 0050, 0075].
Further, Chasse in view of Kageyama fails to expressly teach an outer diameter of the hexalobular recess in the range of 3.88 millimeters to 6.69 millimeters.
However, the Examiner interprets it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the size of the outer diameter as disclosed by Chasse in view of Kageyama to be within the claimed range above in order to fit desired tool, 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).
Furthermore, Chasse in view of Kageyama fails to teach the hexalobular recess having an inner diameter satisfying 0.72A < B < 0.85A.
However, the Examiner considers it obvious for the inner diameter in Chasse to be modified to be within the claimed range 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).
Regarding claim 4, Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the fastener of claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein A is 5.543 millimeters to 5.557 millimeters.
The Examiner considers it obvious matter of design choice to have modified the outer diameter of the hexalobular recess to be within the range of 5.543 millimeters to 5.557 millimeters, since such 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).
Regarding claim 6, Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the fastener of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the radius of the inner lobe surface of the hexalobular recess satisfies 0.5A < Ri < 1.8A.
The Examiner considers it obvious matter of design choice to have modified the inner lobe surface radius satisfying 0.5A < Ri < 1.8A, since such modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component and also the disclosure of present application does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the specific inequality in para. [0049, 0050, 0075]. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(a).
Regarding claim 7, Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the fastener of claim 1, Chasse further teaches the hexalobular recess comprises a plurality of inner lobe surfaces (see Fig. 3 for the plurality of inner lobe 112), but fails to teach wherein inner lobe surfaces satisfying 0.5A < Ri < 1.8A.
The Examiner considers it obvious matter of design choice to have modified the inner lobe surface radius satisfying 0.5A < Ri < 1.8A, since such 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).
Regarding claim 8, Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the fastener of claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein Ri is 1.3 millimeters to 12 millimeters.
The Examiner considers it obvious matter of design choice to have modified Ri in Chasse to satisfy where Ri is 1.3 millimeters to 12 millimeters, since such 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).
Regarding claim 11, Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the fastener of claim 1, wherein Chasse further teaches the second recess 150 is positioned between the shank 20 and the hexalobular recess 110.
Regarding claim 13, Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the fastener of claim 1, wherein Ri is configured to allow a tool having a square shape to be inserted into the hexalobular recess and the second recess (see paragraph [0049], lines 1-14).
Chasse in view of Kageyama fails to teach wherein the square shape having a side length of 2.2 millimeters to 4.1 millimeters
However, the Examiner considers it obvious matter of design choice to have modified a side length of the square shape tool to be within the range 2.2 millimeters to 4.1 millimeters, since such 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).
Regarding claim 23, Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the fastener of claim 1, further Chasse teaches a method of forming the fastener of claim 1, the method comprising:
providing a fastener blank; and
shaping the fastener blank to provide the fastener having the head and the shank (see claim 32 of Chasse).
Regarding claim 24, A fastening system comprising:
the fastener of claim 1 (Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the fastener of claim 1); and
a tool having a shape configured to engage with the head of the fastener (see paragraph [0049], lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 25, Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the fastening system of claim 24, but fails to expressly teach wherein A is 5.543 millimeters to 5.557 millimeters.
The Examiner considers it obvious matter of design choice to have modified the outer diameter of the hexalobular recess in Chasse to be within the range of 5.543 millimeters to 5.557 millimeters, since such 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).
Regarding claim 26, Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the fastening system of claim 24, but fails to teach wherein the radius of the inner lobe surface of the hexalobular recess 0.5A < Ri < 1.8A.
The Examiner considers it obvious matter of design choice to have modified the inner lobe surface radius satisfying 0.5A < Ri < 1.8A in Chasse, since such 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).
Regarding claim 27, Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the fastening system of claim 24, wherein the shape of the tool is configured to engage with the hexalobular recess; and
and an inner diameter of the hexalobular recess is configured to allow the tool to be inserted into at least 90% of a total depth of the hexalobular recess, the depth being measured along the major axis of the fastener (the Examiner interprets the limitations in italic fonts above to be intended use and/or method steps, and the device made obvious by Chasse in view of Kageyama is capable of meeting such limitations).
Regarding claim 28, Chasse in view of Kageyama teaches the method of claim 23, but fails to teach wherein 0.5A < Ri < 1.8A.
The Examiner considers it obvious matter of design choice to have modified the inner lobe surface radius satisfying 0.5A < Ri < 1.8A in Chasse, since such 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues the combination of Chasse and Kageyama fails to render obvious the claimed invention and the dimensional relationships recited in independent claim 1 are not mere design choice.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s remarks.
The fastener disclosed by Chasse is identical to the present application and Kageyama is simply teaching that the inner lobe radius is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since such modification is mere change in size of a component. Additionally, the disclosure of present application does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the specific inequality in para. [0049, 0050, 0075]. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth in rejection of claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
642
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
480
287
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Applicant argues Kageyama teaches away from the specifically claimed range and modifying the carefully calculated range as specifically described by Kageyama would destroy any intended functionality regarding driving angle optimization.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s remarks.
Chasse modified by Kageyama teaches and/or make obvious of all the structural limitations as claimed. The inequality as disclosed in para. [0062] of Kageyama is assumed, which means further modification of the fastener as claimed is possible for improved tightening torque between the fastener and the tool. The structural limitation is met and inequality as claimed has been established to be obvious by Chasse in view of Kageyama, therefore the driving angle pointed by the Applicant in para. [0063] is considered intended use to determine appropriate angle in consideration of likelihood of inducing transfer loss and come-out.
The Applicant argues combination of Chasse and Kageyama would not result in the claimed invention as Chasse specifically acknowledges difficulties in combining hexalobular and square recesses (emphasis added).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s remarks.
Chasse inherently discloses successful combination of hexalobular and square recess, similar to that of present application as shown side by side above. Further, please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 1 for the modification of outer diameter and related dimensions made obvious by Chasse in view of Kageyama based on obvious dimensional change in size.
The Applicant argues that the result in TABLE 1 provide clear and convincing evidence of the unexpected technical advantage achieve by the claimed configuration.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument.
The Examiner interprets the structural limitations of the claim 1 is met and/or made obvious by Chasse in view of Kageyama. Therefore, modifications of parameter like size are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, claims 4, 6-8, 11, 13 and 23-28 still stand rejected in view of rejection, rationale and arguments above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20110170985 (Vandenberg) discloses a threaded fastener and related method of installation including a head defining a hexalobular drive hole, a shaft, threadeds and a pointed end.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675