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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 has been amended. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 8 remain pending in the application.
With respect to the claim amendments filed February 16, 2026, the Examiner respectfully notes the claim amendment of claim 1, line 8, appears to include deleted subject matter, i.e. “height
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US20180347611A1), hereinafter "Tsai", in view of Campbell (US20160061246A1), hereinafter "Campbell".
Regarding claim 1, Tsai teaches a male workpiece (Fig 2, screw 20) that may be rotationally driven (Paragraph 0017, Tsai indicates screw 20 can be turned by the tool), comprising:
an outer edge (see Fig 3, Examiner notes an outer edge of recess 28 as an outer edge) that inwardly tapers (see Fig 4) from a lower end (see Fig 4, Examiner notes the outer edge of recess 28 at an end of head 24 adjacent face 26 as from a lower end) of the outer edge (see Fig 3) to an upper end (see Fig 4, Examiner notes the outer edge of recess 28 at an end of head 24 distal face 26 as an upper end) of the outer edge (see Fig 3);
a plurality of arcuate rib sets (see Fig 3, Examiner notes each zone 32 and zone 34 as a plurality of arcuate rib sets) forming a star-shaped pattern (see Fig 3) and arranged circumferentially (see Fig 3) about the outer edge (see Fig 3), wherein each rib set (see Fig 3) includes only one arcuate main rib (Fig 3, zone 32) adjacent (see Fig 3) only one corresponding arcuate subrib (Fig 3, zone 34), and wherein throughout substantially all of a height (see Figs 2 and 4) of the main rib (32) and throughout substantially all of a height (see Figs 2 and 4) of an adjacent subrib (34) forming the rib set (see Fig 3), a ratio of a width of an arc (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a tangential width of zone 32 as a width of an arc) of the main rib (32) to a width of an arc (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a tangential width of zone 34 as a width of an arc) of the subrib (34), for each rib set (see Fig 3), is between about 1.5:1 and 2.5:1 (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a ratio of the tangential width of zone 32 to the tangential width of zone 34 appears to be between about 1.5:1 and 2.5:1);
an inwardly-protruding curved groove (Fig 3, surface 44, Paragraph 0018, Tsai indicates curved inwardly) located (see Fig 3) between the main ribs (32) and the subribs (34), connecting (see Fig 3) each of the main ribs (34) and the corresponding subribs (34), and enabling the main ribs (32) and the subribs (34) to be exposed (see Fig 3); and
wherein the male workpiece (20) comprises an end (Fig 2, head 24) with either a conical head, or an inverted conical shape (see Fig 4, Examiner notes a shape of head 24 as an inverted conical shape), and a smooth edge (see Fig 4, Examiner notes an edge of recess 28 extending circumferentially adjacent to bottom 36 as a smooth edge) is formed on the conical head or the inverted conical shape (see Fig 4).
Tsai fails to teach a ramp formed on one end of the outer edge of the male workpiece, wherein a diameter of the ramp is larger than a diameter of the outer edge, and the ramp slopes downwardly from points on the ramp proximal to a center of the male workpiece to points on the ramp distal from the center of the male workpiece.
However, Campbell teaches it is known to provide a ramp (Figs 1 and 2A-2B, radiused counter bore 208, Paragraph 0039) formed on one end (Fig 1, head portion 108) of the outer edge (Figs 1 and 2A, wall 202, Paragraphs 0022-0025) of the male workpiece (Fig 1, fastener 104), wherein a diameter of the ramp (208) is larger than a diameter of the outer edge (202) (see Figs 1 and 2A-2B, Paragraph 0039, Examiner notes radiused counter bore 208 may comprise an inward sloping surface having a larger radius along a first surface 216 of the head portion 108 and a smaller radius along a second surface 218 as a diameter of the ramp is larger than a diameter of the outer edge), and the ramp (208) slopes downwardly from points on the ramp (208) proximal to a center (see Fig 1) of the male workpiece (104) to points on the ramp (208) distal from the center (see Fig 1) of the male workpiece (104) (see Figs 1 and 2A-2B, Paragraph 0039, Examiner notes radiused counter bore 208 may comprise an inward sloping surface as the ramp slopes downwardly from points on the ramp proximal to a center of the male workpiece to points on the ramp distal from the center of the male workpiece).
Therefore, as evidenced by Campbell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped ramp formed on one end of the outer edge of the male workpiece, wherein a diameter of the ramp is larger than a diameter of the outer edge, and the ramp slopes downwardly from points on the ramp proximal to a center of the male workpiece to points on the ramp distal from the center of the male workpiece as taught by Campbell to Tsai. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a ramp to help funnel the driver bit towards the recessed receiving area of the fastener (Campbell, Paragraph 0039).
Further, the Examiner respectfully notes with respect to a ratio of a width of an arc of the main rib to a width of an arc of the subrib, for each rib set, is between about 1.5:1 and 2.5:1, that in the alternative, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified a ratio of a width of an arc of the main rib to a width of an arc of the subrib, for each rib set as disclosed by modified Tsai to be between about 1.5:1 and 2.5:1, 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 aid in improving torque transmission (e.g. increasing/decreasing contact surface area), improving centering of a tool within a fastener (e.g. increasing/decreasing centering surface area), optimizing manufacturability (e.g. tooling design and/or wear), etc.
Regarding claim 2, modified Tsai teaches the male workpiece (20) of Claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the inwardly tapering outer edge forms an angle of between about 2°-3° with a longitudinal axis parallel to a length of the male workpiece.
However, Campbell teaches it is known to provide wherein the inwardly tapering outer edge (Figs 1 and 2A, wall 202, Paragraphs 0022-0025) forms an angle of between about 2°-3° (Paragraphs 0022-0025, Campbell indicates wall 202 may have a taper of between two and fifteen degrees relative to the longitudinal axis 210) with a longitudinal axis (Figs 1 and 2A, longitudinal axis 210) parallel to a length (see Figs 1 and 2A) of the male workpiece (Fig 1, fastener 104).
Therefore, as evidenced by Campbell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the inwardly tapering outer edge forms an angle of between about 2°-3° with a longitudinal axis parallel to a length of the male workpiece as taught by Campbell to modified Tsai. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to aid in facilitating a wedge-like fit between the fastener and the driver bit (Campbell, Paragraphs 0022-0025).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tsai teaches the male workpiece (20) of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein a distal outward extent (see Fig 3) of the main ribs (32) from a center (see Fig 3) of the outer edge (see Fig 3) is substantially further (see Fig 3) than a distal outward extent (see Fig 3) of the subribs (34) from the center (see Fig 3) of the outer edge (see Fig 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1 on Pgs 4-5 of Applicant’s Remarks filed February 16, 2026, Applicant argues that Tsai says he solves the “guidance” problem by providing a larger-than-conventional fastener opening, so there is no need to provide a ramp, and a person of ordinary skill would not have made such a combination. Further, Applicant argues any other conclusion, respectfully, exercises impermissible hindsight, and also fails to recognize that the cited prior art does not even recognize the problem solved by the present invention.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Tsai says he solves the “guidance” problem by providing a larger-than-conventional fastener opening, so there is no need to provide a ramp, and a person of ordinary skill would not have made such a combination, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ramps are known in the art of recessed drive screws, as evidenced by Landsmann (US20160115988A1), to facilitate guiding a tool toward a centre of a screw (Landsmann, see Figs 1 and 3, Paragraph 0021).
Further, in response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Further, in response to Applicant's argument that the cited prior art does not even recognize the problem solved by the present invention, i.e. providing a more precise stamping while also helping to remove burrs that can otherwise form on the fastener head, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Landsmann (US20160115988A1) teaches that it is known in the art of recessed drive screws to provide inclined surfaces to facilitate guiding a tool toward a centre of a screw
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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