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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-40 remain in the application as withdrawn.
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 2, 10 and 11-12 are 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. In each of claim 2 and 10, it is unclear which of the friction coefficient increasing means are being references because there were two introduced. In claims 11 and 12 it is unclear if applicant intends to positively claim the fastener and nut or bolt head because it is not consistent with the preamble.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-2, 5-6, 9-13, 41-44 and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Davis (US 10,107,325). Davis discloses an anti-loosening reaction washer (100) comprising: an outer edge with a geometric shape (132, 136) for coupling with a tool; a smooth flat bottom surface (102) with coefficient increasing means surrounding a center bore (at 100A) in the form of inwardly extending spikes (106) biased towards and outer edge; and a flat top surface (101) with coefficient increasing means surrounding the center bore in the form of outwardly extending grooves (118) biased towards a void radius of the center bore with an outer radius which is greater than the void radius and less than a washer outer radius as seen in Fig. 1A. The coefficient increasing means extending less than the width of the respective surface; the top coefficient increasing treatment means having a greater surface area than the bottom; and the bottom coefficient friction means is not near the center bore and the top coefficient friction means is not near the outer edge. The geometric shape is located outside the top coefficient friction increasing means and aligned with the bottom coefficient friction increasing means and since the geometric shape is required to be accessible with the tool the effective friction radius of a fastener/head would inherently be less than the effective radius of the bottom coefficient increasing means and greater than the top coefficient increasing means.
Davis discloses an inner diameter of the bottom surface coefficient increasing treatment means (106) is greater than the void radius of the center bore and an outer radius of the bottom surface coefficient increasing treatment means (106) is less than a washer radius as defined by the outer diameter of the serrations 115 as seen in Fig. 1B. Alternatively, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to slightly further space the bottom surface coefficient increasing treatment means from the outer washer radius because a small increase in the space from the washer radius would not be critical to effect the operation of the washer.
In regards to the new claims, Davis further discloses the upper surface to include an outer untreated portion between the top friction coefficient increasement means an outer edge that is separately smooth (the top surface of castle element 133) and continuous (the combined castle elements 133 and grooves 137) to form an annular band.
PNG
media_image1.png
520
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claims 1 and 41 above, and further in view of Kesler (US 884,933). Davis does not disclose the top surface having a wider untreated portion. Kesler discloses a washer (8) with a wider untreated portion (11) relative to a friction treated portion (12). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the relative sizes of the top surface friction treated portion and untreated portion of Davis to where the untreated portion is wider than the treated portion such as taught in Kesler because the relative sizes are not critical since the washer would continue to function in the same predictable manner.
Response to Remarks
Applicant argues the 112(b) rejection contending that effective friction radius is described in the specification. In response, the rejection is directed to if applicant intends to claim the washer in combination with the nut or bolt because the nut or bolt is required for the limitation of the relative effective friction radius.
In regards to the prior art rejections, the examiner maintains the rejection over Davis (US 10,107,325) are proper.
Applicant argues that Davis does not disclose the top grooves biased towards the center bore extending to an outer radius less than the washer radius and not located at or near the washer outer edge. In response the examiner still disagrees because Davis shows the extension of the top grooves less the as washer radius as pointed to below and further explained in the above rejection addressing the new claims.
PNG
media_image2.png
516
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant also argues that the instant invention operates differently than Davis. In response, the claims are directed to the washer not how it operates. It is suggested applicant claims the unique structure(s) of the washer which facilitate the different operation.
Conclusion
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 FLEMMING SAETHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7071. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 7:00 eastern.
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.
/FLEMMING SAETHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights