/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 20, 28, 39, and 49 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1, 3-44, and 49-53 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed March 19, 2025.
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, 3-24, and 28-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidauer (EP2314418A1), hereinafter "Lidauer", in view of Norton (US20180306230A1), hereinafter "Norton".
Regarding claim 1, Lidauer teaches a fastener (Fig 4, screw 1), said fastener (1) comprising:
a shaft (Fig 4, screw shank 2) having a coaxial longitudinal axis (Fig 4, long axis of screw 10);
helical threads (Paragraph 0002, Lidauer indicates threads on the screw shank) extending around at least a portion (Paragraph 0002, Lidauer indicates the screw shank can have a thread over its entire length or alternatively, the screw shank can have a partial thread) of said shaft (2);
a head (Fig 4, screw head 3) mounted on said shaft (2), said head (3) having a plurality of recesses (see Fig 2, tool receiving space 4, Examiner considers an upper and lower half of the tool receiving space 4 with respect to Fig 2 as having a plurality of recesses) extending outwardly (see Fig 2) from said longitudinal axis (10), each said recess (4) being defined by first (see Annotated Fig 4 below) and second oppositely disposed side surfaces (see Annotated Fig 4 below), and a floor surface (Fig 4, first face of the tool receiving space 5) extending therebetween (see Fig 4), wherein for each said recess (4), said first side surface (see Annotated Fig 4 below) comprises:
a first upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 below) extending from (see Fig 4) a top opening (Fig 4, insertion opening 7) of said recess (4), said first upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 below) being oriented (see Fig 4) at an acute angle (see Fig 4) relatively to said floor surface (5); and
a first lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 below) contiguous (see Fig 4) with said floor surface (5) and said first upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 below), said first lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 below) being oriented (see Fig 4) at an obtuse angle (see Fig 4) relatively to said floor surface (5).
Lidauer fails to teach wherein said acute angle varies with distance from said longitudinal axis and said first lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis.
However, Norton teaches wherein said acute angle (Fig 11, acute angle 70) varies with distance (see Fig 11, Paragraph 0036, Norton indicates the acute angles 70 vary with distance from the longitudinal axis 56) from said longitudinal axis (Fig 11, longitudinal axis 56).
Therefore, as evidenced by Norton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate adequately sized and shaped acute angles as taught by Norton to Lidauer. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate drive insertion and torque application.
Lidauer, in view of Norton fails to teach said first lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis.
However, Lidauer in Paragraph 0039, indicates that the screw may be provided with a first centering device on the first end face of the tool receiving space, wherein the first centering device is formed by a straight circular cone or straight circular cone segment tapering to a point in the direction of the first area of the screw, wherein the straight circular cone or straight circular cone segment runs coaxially to the longitudinal axis of the screw. Thus, Lidauer teaches said first lower facet (Paragraph 0039) having a depth (Paragraph 0039) that decreases (Paragraph 0039) with distance (Paragraph 0039) from said longitudinal axis (Paragraph 0039) (see Fig 4, Examiner notes incorporation of the first centering device, i.e. modifying the first face of the tool receiving space 5 to be a straight circular cone or straight circular cone segment tapering to a point results in said first lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis).
Therefore, as evidenced by Lidauer in Paragraph 0039, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate said first lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis as taught by Lidauer in Paragraph 0039 to modified Lidauer. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to ensure that the rotary tool head of the inserted rotary tool is held securely coaxially to the longitudinal axis of the screw and prevents the rotary tool from being easily shifted laterally within the tool holder.
PNG
media_image1.png
601
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lidauer, Annotated Fig 4
Regarding claim 3, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein said acute angles (70) become smaller with increasing distance (Norton, see Fig 11, Paragraph 0036, Norton indicates angles 70 of side surfaces 64 become smaller (more acute) with increasing distance from the longitudinal axis 56) from said longitudinal axis (10).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said acute angles (70) ranges from 15° to 60° (Norton, see Fig 11, Paragraph 0036, Norton indicates a minimum value of acute angles 70 may range from about 15° to about 60°).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said acute angles (70) is 30° (Norton, see Fig 11, Paragraph 0036, Norton indicates an angle of about 30°).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles (see Fig 4) ranges from 110° to 165° (see Fig 4, Paragraph 0035, Lidauer indicates the at least one recess is inclined, i.e. at an angle between 1° and 179°, in particular between 45° and 135°, and very particularly at angle of 90°, to the longitudinal axis of the screw; Examiner considers the recess inclination can be selected wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles ranges from 110° and 165°, e.g. with respect to Fig 4, the obtuse angle relative to the first face of the tool receiving space 5 is 135°).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles (see Fig 4) is 135° (see Fig 4, Paragraph 0035, Lidauer indicates the at least one recess is inclined, i.e. at an angle between 1° and 179°, in particular between 45° and 135°, and very particularly at angle of 90°, to the longitudinal axis of the screw; Examiner considers the recess inclination can be selected wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles is 135°, e.g. with respect to Fig 4, the obtuse angle relative to the first face of the tool receiving space 5 is 135°).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein said floor surface (5) is angularly oriented (Paragraph 0039, Examiner considers the first centering device is formed by a straight circular cone or straight circular cone segment tapering to a point in the direction of the first area of the screw, wherein the straight circular cone or straight circular cone segment runs coaxially to the longitudinal axis of the screw, as angularly oriented) with respect to said longitudinal axis (10).
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 8 but fails to teach wherein said floor surface has an orientation angle [claim 9: ranging from 50° to 90°; claim 10: of 70°].
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the floor surface as disclosed by modified Lidauer to have an orientation angle [claim 9: ranging from 50° to 90°; claim 10: of 70°], 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 facilitate improving the centering device to ensure that the rotary tool head of the inserted rotary tool is held securely coaxially to the longitudinal axis of the screw.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein for each said recess (4), said floor surface (5) has a first width (see Annotated Fig 2 below) proximate to said longitudinal axis (10) and a second width (see Annotated Fig 2 below) distal to said longitudinal axis (10), said second width (see Annotated Fig 2 below) being greater (see Fig 2) than said first width (see Annotated Fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
582
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lidauer, Annotated Fig 2
Regarding claim 12, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein, for each said recess (4), an edge (see Annotated Fig 4 above) of said first upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) proximate to said longitudinal axis (10) is oriented parallel (see Fig 4) to said longitudinal axis (10), wherein for each said recess (4), an edge (see Annotated Fig 4 above, Examiner notes an edge of the first lower facet extending radially toward the long axis of screw 10 as an edge) of said first lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) proximate to said longitudinal axis (10) is oriented transversely (see Fig 4) to said longitudinal axis (10).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein for each said recess (4) said second side surface (see Annotated Fig 4 above) comprises:
a second lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) contiguous (see Fig 4) with said floor surface (5), said second lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) being oriented at an obtuse angle (see Fig 4) relatively to said floor surface (5);
a second upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) extending between (see Fig 4) said second lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) and said top opening (7) of said recess (4), said second upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) being oriented at an acute angle (see Fig 4) relatively to said floor surface (5).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 13 but fails to teach wherein said acute angles of said second upper facets (see Annotated Fig 4 above) vary with distance from said longitudinal axis.
However, Norton teaches wherein said acute angles (Fig 11, acute angle 72) vary with distance (see Fig 11, Paragraph 0036, Norton indicates the acute angles 72 vary with distance from the longitudinal axis 56) from said longitudinal axis (Fig 11, longitudinal axis 56).
Therefore, as evidenced by Norton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate adequately sized and shaped acute angles as taught by Norton to the second upper facets of modified Lidauer. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate drive insertion and torque application.
Regarding claim 15, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 13 but fails to teach wherein said acute angles of said second upper facets (see Annotated Fig 4 above) become smaller with increasing distance from said longitudinal axis.
However, Norton teaches wherein said acute angles (Fig 11, acute angle 72) become smaller with increasing distance (see Fig 11, Paragraph 0036, Norton indicates angles 72 of side surfaces 66 become smaller (more acute) with increasing distance from the longitudinal axis 56) from said longitudinal axis (Fig 11, longitudinal axis 56).
Therefore, as evidenced by Norton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate adequately sized and shaped acute angles as taught by Norton to the second upper facets of modified Lidauer. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate drive insertion and torque application.
Regarding claim 16, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 13 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said acute angles (see Fig 4) of said second upper facets (see Annotated Fig 4 above) ranges from 15° to 60° (see Fig 4, Paragraph 0035, Lidauer indicates the at least one recess is inclined, i.e. at an angle between 1° and 179°, in particular between 45° and 135°, and very particularly at angle of 90°, to the longitudinal axis of the screw; Examiner considers the recess inclination can be selected wherein a minimum value of said acute angles of said second upper facets ranges from 15° to 60°, e.g. with respect to Fig 4, the acute angle relative to the first face of the tool receiving space 5 is 45°).
Regarding claim 17, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 13 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said acute angles (see Fig 4) of said second upper facets (see Annotated Fig 4 above) is 30° (see Fig 4, Paragraph 0035, Lidauer indicates the at least one recess is inclined, i.e. at an angle between 1° and 179°, in particular between 45° and 135°, and very particularly at angle of 90°, to the longitudinal axis of the screw; Examiner considers the recess inclination can be selected wherein a minimum value of said acute angles of said second upper facets is 30°, e.g. with respect to Fig 4, the acute angle relative to the first face of the tool receiving space 5 is 45°).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 13 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles (see Fig 4) of said second lower facets (see Annotated Fig 4 above) ranges from 110° to 165° (see Fig 4, Paragraph 0035, Lidauer indicates the at least one recess is inclined, i.e. at an angle between 1° and 179°, in particular between 45° and 135°, and very particularly at angle of 90°, to the longitudinal axis of the screw; Examiner considers the recess inclination can be selected wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles of said second lower facets ranges from 110° and 165°, e.g. with respect to Fig 4, the obtuse angle relative to the first face of the tool receiving space 5 is 135°).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 13 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles (see Fig 4) of said second lower facets (see Annotated Fig 4 above) is 135° (see Fig 4, Paragraph 0035, Lidauer indicates the at least one recess is inclined, i.e. at an angle between 1° and 179°, in particular between 45° and 135°, and very particularly at angle of 90°, to the longitudinal axis of the screw; Examiner considers the recess inclination can be selected wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles of said second lower facets is 135°, e.g. with respect to Fig 4, the obtuse angle relative to the first face of the tool receiving space 5 is 135°).
Regarding claim 20, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 13 and further teaches wherein, for each said recess (4), an edge (see Annotated Fig 4 above) of said second upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) proximate to said longitudinal axis (10) is oriented parallel (see Fig 4) to said longitudinal axis (10), wherein for each said recess (4), an edge (see Annotated Fig 4 above, Examiner notes an edge of the second lower facet extending radially toward the long axis of screw 10 as an edge) of said second lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) proximate to said longitudinal axis (10) is oriented transversely (see Fig 4) to said longitudinal axis (10).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 1 but fails to teach comprising three of said recesses and comprising four of said recesses, respectively.
However, Lidauer teaches in the embodiments of Figs 10a and 11a, comprising three (see Fig 10a) of said recesses (Fig 10a, tool receiving space 4) and comprising four (see Fig 11a) of said recesses (Fig 11a, tool receiving space 4), respectively.
Therefore, as evidenced by Lidauer, 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 quantity of recesses to comprise three or four as taught by Lidauer. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate the use of different drive types.
Regarding claim 23, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein each said recess (4) further comprises a respective end wall (see Annotated Fig 2 above) extending between (see Fig 2) said first (see Annotated Fig 4 above) and second oppositely disposed side surfaces (see Annotated Fig 4 above).
Regarding claim 24, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to Claim 1 and further teaches wherein for each said recess (4) a portion (see Annotated Fig 4 above) of said second side surface (see Annotated Fig 4 above) defines a single plane (see Annotated Fig 4 above) extending (see Fig 4) from said top opening (7) of each said recess (4).
Regarding claim 28, Lidauer teaches a fastener (Fig 4, screw 1), said fastener (1) comprising:
a shaft (Fig 4, screw shank 2) having a coaxial longitudinal axis (Fig 4, long axis of screw 10);
helical threads (Paragraph 0002, Lidauer indicates threads on the screw shank) extending around at least a portion (Paragraph 0002, Lidauer indicates the screw shank can have a thread over its entire length or alternatively, the screw shank can have a partial thread) of said shaft (2);
a head (Fig 4, screw head 3) mounted on said shaft (2), said head (3) having a plurality of recesses (see Fig 2, tool receiving space 4, Examiner considers an upper and lower half of the tool receiving space 4 with respect to Fig 2 as having a plurality of recesses) extending outwardly (see Fig 2) from said longitudinal axis (10), each said recess (4) being defined by first (see Annotated Fig 4 above) and second oppositely disposed side surfaces (see Annotated Fig 4 above), and a floor surface (Fig 4, first face of the tool receiving space 5) extending therebetween (see Fig 4), wherein for each said recess (4), said first side surface (see Annotated Fig 4 above) comprises:
a first upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) extending from (see Fig 4) a top opening (Fig 4, insertion opening 7) of said recess (4), said first upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) being oriented (see Fig 4) at an acute angle (see Fig 4) relatively to said floor surface (5);
a first lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) contiguous (see Fig 4) with said floor surface (5) and said first upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above), said first lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) being oriented (see Fig 4) at an obtuse angle (see Fig 4) relatively to said floor surface (5); and
for each said recess (4) said second side surface (see Annotated Fig 4 above) comprises:
a second upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) extending from (see Fig 4) said top opening (7) of said recess (4), said second upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) oriented (see Fig 4) at an acute angle (see Fig 4) relatively to said floor surface (5);
a second lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) contiguous (see Fig 4) with said floor surface (5) and said second upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above), said second lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) being oriented (see Fig 4) at an obtuse angle (see Fig 4) relatively to said floor surface (5).
Lidauer fails to teach wherein said acute angle varies with distance from said longitudinal axis, said first lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis, and said second lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis.
However, Norton teaches wherein said acute angle (Fig 11, acute angle 70) varies with distance (see Fig 11, Paragraph 0036, Norton indicates the acute angles 70 vary with distance from the longitudinal axis 56) from said longitudinal axis (Fig 11, longitudinal axis 56).
Therefore, as evidenced by Norton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate adequately sized and shaped acute angles as taught by Norton to Lidauer. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate drive insertion and torque application.
Lidauer, in view of Norton fails to teach said first lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis and said second lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis.
However, Lidauer in Paragraph 0039, indicates that the screw may be provided with a first centering device on the first end face of the tool receiving space, wherein the first centering device is formed by a straight circular cone or straight circular cone segment tapering to a point in the direction of the first area of the screw, wherein the straight circular cone or straight circular cone segment runs coaxially to the longitudinal axis of the screw. Thus, Lidauer teaches said first lower facet (Paragraph 0039) having a depth (Paragraph 0039) that decreases (Paragraph 0039) with distance (Paragraph 0039) from said longitudinal axis (Paragraph 0039) and said second lower facet (Paragraph 0039) having a depth (Paragraph 0039) that decreases (Paragraph 0039) with distance (Paragraph 0039) from said longitudinal axis (Paragraph 0039) (see Fig 4, Examiner notes incorporation of the first centering device, i.e. modifying the first face of the tool receiving space 5 to be a straight circular cone or straight circular cone segment tapering to a point results in said first lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis and said second lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis).
Therefore, as evidenced by Lidauer in Paragraph 0039, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate said first lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis and said second lower facet having a depth that decreases with distance from said longitudinal axis as taught by Lidauer in Paragraph 0039 to modified Lidauer. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to ensure that the rotary tool head of the inserted rotary tool is held securely coaxially to the longitudinal axis of the screw and prevents the rotary tool from being easily shifted laterally within the tool holder.
Regarding claim 29, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 28 but fails to teach wherein said acute angle for said second upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) varies with distance from said longitudinal axis.
However, Norton teaches wherein said acute angle (Fig 11, acute angle 72) varies with distance (see Fig 11, Paragraph 0036, Norton indicates the acute angles 72 vary with distance from the longitudinal axis 56) from said longitudinal axis (Fig 11, longitudinal axis 56).
Therefore, as evidenced by Norton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate adequately sized and shaped acute angles as taught by Norton to the second upper facet of modified Lidauer. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate drive insertion and torque application.
Regarding claim 30, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 29 and further teaches wherein said acute angles (70 and 72) for said first (see Annotated Fig 4 above) and second upper facets (see Annotated Fig 4 above) become smaller with increasing distance (Norton, see Fig 11, Paragraph 0036, Norton indicates angles 70 and 72 of side surfaces 64 and 66 become smaller (more acute) with increasing distance from the longitudinal axis 56) from said longitudinal axis (10).
Regarding claim 31, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 29 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said acute angles (70 and 72) for said first (see Annotated Fig 4 above) and second upper facets (see Annotated Fig 4 above) ranges from 15° to 60° (Norton, see Fig 11, Paragraph 0036, Norton indicates a minimum value of acute angles 70 and 72 may range from about 15° to about 60°).
Regarding claim 32, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 29 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said acute angles (70 and 72) for said first (see Annotated Fig 4 above) and second upper facets (see Annotated Fig 4 above) is 30° (Norton, see Fig 11, Paragraph 0036, Norton indicates an angle of about 30°).
Regarding claim 33, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 28 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles (see Fig 4) for said first (see Annotated Fig 4 above) and second lower facets (see Annotated Fig 4 above) ranges from 110° to 165° (see Fig 4, Paragraph 0035, Lidauer indicates the at least one recess is inclined, i.e. at an angle between 1° and 179°, in particular between 45° and 135°, and very particularly at angle of 90°, to the longitudinal axis of the screw; Examiner considers the recess inclination can be selected wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles for said first and second lower facets ranges from 110° and 165°, e.g. with respect to Fig 4, the obtuse angles relative to the first face of the tool receiving space 5 is 135°).
Regarding claim 34, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 28 and further teaches wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles (see Fig 4) for said first (see Annotated Fig 4 above) and second lower facets (see Annotated Fig 4 above) is 135° (see Fig 4, Paragraph 0035, Lidauer indicates the at least one recess is inclined, i.e. at an angle between 1° and 179°, in particular between 45° and 135°, and very particularly at angle of 90°, to the longitudinal axis of the screw; Examiner considers the recess inclination can be selected wherein a minimum value of said obtuse angles for said first and second lower facets is 135°, e.g. with respect to Fig 4, the obtuse angles relative to the first face of the tool receiving space 5 is 135°).
Regarding claim 35, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 28 and further teaches wherein said floor surface (5) is angularly oriented (Paragraph 0039, Examiner considers the first centering device is formed by a straight circular cone or straight circular cone segment tapering to a point in the direction of the first area of the screw, wherein the straight circular cone or straight circular cone segment runs coaxially to the longitudinal axis of the screw, as angularly oriented) with respect to said longitudinal axis (10).
Regarding claims 36-37, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 35 but fails to teach wherein said floor surface has an orientation angle [claim 36: ranging from 50° to 90°; claim 37: of 70°].
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the floor surface as disclosed by modified Lidauer to have an orientation angle [claim 36: ranging from 50° to 90°; claim 37: of 70°], 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 facilitate improving the centering device to ensure that the rotary tool head of the inserted rotary tool is held securely coaxially to the longitudinal axis of the screw.
Regarding claim 38, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 28 and further teaches wherein for each said recess (4), said floor surface (5) has a first width (see Annotated Fig 2 above) proximate to said longitudinal axis (10) and a second width (see Annotated Fig 2 above) distal to said longitudinal axis (10), said second width (see Annotated Fig 2 above) being greater (see Fig 2) than said first width (see Annotated Fig 2 above).
Regarding claim 39, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 29 and further teaches wherein, for each said recess (4), an edge (see Annotated Fig 4 above) of said first upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) proximate to said longitudinal axis (10) is oriented parallel (see Fig 4) to said longitudinal axis (10), wherein for each said recess (4), an edge (see Annotated Fig 4 above, Examiner notes an edge of the first lower facet extending radially toward the long axis of screw 10 as an edge) of said first lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) proximate to said longitudinal axis (10) is oriented transversely (see Fig 4) to said longitudinal axis (10), and an edge (see Annotated Fig 4 above) of said second upper facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) proximate to said longitudinal axis (10) is oriented parallel (see Fig 4) to said longitudinal axis (10), wherein for each said recess (4), an edge (see Annotated Fig 4 above, Examiner notes an edge of the second lower facet extending radially toward the long axis of screw 10 as an edge) of said second lower facet (see Annotated Fig 4 above) proximate to said longitudinal axis (10) is oriented transversely (see Fig 4) to said longitudinal axis (10).
Regarding claims 40 and 42, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 28 but fails to teach comprising three of said recesses and comprising four of said recesses, respectively.
However, Lidauer teaches in the embodiments of Figs 10a and 11a, comprising three (see Fig 10a) of said recesses (Fig 10a, tool receiving space 4) and comprising four (see Fig 11a) of said recesses (Fig 11a, tool receiving space 4), respectively.
Therefore, as evidenced by Lidauer, 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 quantity of recesses to comprise three or four as taught by Lidauer. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate the use of different drive types.
Regarding claim 41, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 40 and further teaches wherein said recesses (4) are distributed (see Fig 10a) about said longitudinal axis (10) at angles of 120° (see Fig 10a) from one another (see Fig 10a) about said longitudinal axis (10).
Regarding claim 43, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 42 and further teaches wherein said recesses (4) are distributed (see Fig 11a) about said longitudinal axis (10) at angles of 90° (see Fig 11a) from one another (see Fig 11a) about said longitudinal axis (10).
Regarding claim 44, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 28 and further teaches wherein each said recess (4) further comprises a respective end wall (see Annotated Fig 2 above) extending between (see Fig 2) said first (see Annotated Fig 4 above) and second oppositely disposed side surfaces (see Annotated Fig 4 above).
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidauer, in view of Norton and Cecil (US20140150612A1), hereinafter "Cecil".
Regarding claim 25, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 24 but fails to teach wherein for each said recess said portion of said second side surface is oriented at an obtuse angle with respect to said floor surface.
However, Cecil teaches wherein for each said recess (see Figs 4 and 5, Paragraph 0027, Examiner considers the recessed surfaces 29 between angularly spaced teeth 28 on an outer peripheral portion 33 as the recess) said portion (see Fig 9, Examiner considers the disengagement surface 36 on angularly spaced teeth 28 as having a portion) of said second side surface (Fig 9, disengagement surface 36) is oriented at an obtuse angle (see Fig 9, Examiner considers an angle, with respect to Fig 9, between disengagement surface 36 and the recessed surface 29 to the left as oriented at an obtuse angle) with respect to said floor surface (Fig 4, recessed surface 29).
Therefore, as evidenced by Cecil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second side surface as taught by Cecil to modified Lidauer. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide tamper resistance.
Regarding claim 26, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 25 and further teaches wherein a value of said obtuse angle (see Fig 9) of said second side surface (36) ranges from 105° to 150° (see Fig 9, Paragraphs 0026-0027, Cecil indicates surface 21 on drive teeth 17 of drive tool socket 10 is inclined at an angle of approximately 20-30 degrees relative to flat surface 22 and greater inclinations up to about 45 degrees are also possible; Examiner considers complementary engagement surfaces 34 having disengagement surface 36 engaged with teeth 17 as a value of said obtuse angle of said second side surface ranges from 105° to 150°, i.e. values result in 135° to 160°).
Regarding claim 27, modified Lidauer teaches the fastener (1) according to claim 25 but fails to teach wherein a value of said obtuse angle (see Fig 9) of said second side surface (36) is 120°.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified a value of said obtuse angle of said second surface as disclosed by Cecil to be 120°, 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 absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed size was significant. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a desired angle based on application and requirements.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Pg 20 of Applicant’s Remarks filed September 19, 2025 regarding Request for Rejoinder of withdrawn claims 49-53, drawn to a method of manufacturing a fastener, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request and respectfully notes, claims 49-53 will be considered for rejoinder upon an allowable product claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 28 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