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 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen US3517402 (hereinafter, Cohen) in view of Park US20030044255 (hereinafter, Park).
Regarding claim 7, A tie bolt comprising a shank (14, see Fig. 1) having a first longitudinal axis (X, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1);
said shank having a head end 12 and a foot end 13; wherein said shank has a first thread (see threaded head end (12) in Fig. 1) made along a first portion (see threaded portion (12) in Fig. 1), in the area of the head end;
said tie bolt comprising a dead nut (20, see Fig. 1), having a cavity (26, see Fig. 1) facing outwards from an opening (opening formed by cavity (26) as shown in Fig. 1) of said nut; said nut having a second thread (see threaded portion seen in the bore (26) in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) realized inside said cavity; the first thread of said shank and the second thread of said nut have profiles which form a self-locking tightening and are configured for generating, during the screwing between shank and nut (see Figs. 2-3), a joint which opposes the unscrewing (see Figs. 2-3 where a joint opposed to unscrewing is formed between the thread of the bolt and the nut); the first thread of said shank and the second thread of said nut are tightened (see the connection shown in Figs. 2 and 3), to each other so as that said end portion strikes against said bottom surface and generates, upon said shank, a predefined pre-load force which locks the nut around said first end to form an indivisible body; wherein the pre-load force acts on the first thread and second thread locking them to one another (see column 3, lines 3-18).
Cohen fails to teach wherein said nut has a bottom wall delimited by a bottom surface, which faces the inside of said cavity; the bottom surface is conical and coaxial with said second longitudinal axis.
Park teaches a fastening nut 22 receiving a threaded bolt 21 where the nut has a bottom wall (see interior bottom wall in opening 22a in Figs. 1-2) delimited by a bottom surface (see bottom surface closing the opening 22a at one end in Fig. 2), which faces the inside of said cavity 22a; the bottom surface is conical (see top region of nut in Figs. 4-5) and coaxial with said second longitudinal axis (see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to replace the nut in Cohen with the nut as taught by Park to prevent unintended decoupling of the assembly and protect the joint from unnecessary debris.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 8, Cohen in view of Park teaches the tie bolt according to Claim 7, wherein the first thread and the second thread have profiles which form a self-locking tightening (refer to threadedly connected bolt and nut in Fig. 2 of Cohen forming a self-locking tightening).
Regarding claim 9, Cohen in view of Park teaches the tie bolt according to Claim 7, wherein the shank and the nut are fixed to one another by means of an interference coupling, in particular a hot/cold coupling.
(Cohen discloses the interference coupling of the shank and the nut in Fig. 2 with the head treatment (Cohen: Column 3, lines (19-34).)
Regarding claim 10, Cohen in view of Park teaches the tie bolt according to claim 7, but fail to teach wherein the shank and the nut are made of a material chosen within the following group of materials: titanium, titanium alloys; nickel-chrome alloys; X1CrNiMoAITil12-11-2 stainless steel; XINiCrMoAITi12-10-2 stainless steel; and stainless steel with a PH (Precipitation Hardening) class ranging from 13 to 8 or from 15 to 5 or from 17 to 4; steel with composition Si, 19.00-21.00 Cr, 33.00-37.00 Ni, 9.00-11.00 Mo, 1.00 max. Ti, 0.01 B, 1.00 max. Fe, Bal Co; steel comprising nickel and cobalt; AISI4340 and AISI304 steel and stainless steel of the AISI300 series and of the AISI400 series.
However, Cohen does teach that the stud (10) and the nut (20) are made of a mechanically worked alloy such as A286 Stainless Steel.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed inventio to have modified the nut and bolt as taught by Cohen in view of Park to be of any material from the list in claim 10, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc. for the application, intended use and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, Cohen in view of Park teaches the tie bolt according to claim 7, but fail to expressly teach the bolt having a length, namely an extension along said longitudinal axis, greater than 160 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have the length of the bolt to be greater than 160 mm along said longitudinal axis, since such 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.
Regarding claim 1, Cohen in view of Park teaches structural limitation, and Cohen further teaches a process for manufacturing a tie bolt comprising the steps of:
- providing a shank having a first longitudinal axis; said shank having a head end and a foot end; wherein said shank has a first thread made along a first portion, in particular in the area of the head end; wherein said first portion has an end portion which protrudes axially from the first thread;
(See claim 2, lines 3-6 and Figs. 1, 2 and 4)
- providing a nut, having a second longitudinal axis and a cavity facing outwards from an opening of said nut; said nut having a second thread made inside said cavity; wherein said nut has a bottom wall delimited by a bottom surface, which faces the inside of said cavity; the bottom surface is conical and coaxial with said second longitudinal axis;
(See Claim 2, lines 7-8 of Cohen and rejection established in claim 7 above for the nut having a bottom wall delimited by a bottom surface and conical shaped bottom surface.)
- the first thread of said shank and the second thread of said nut form a self-locking tightening and are configured for generating, during the screwing between shank and nut, a joint which opposes the unscrewing;
(Claim 2, lines 11-21, and Figs. 2-3)
- tightening said nut against the head end of said shank, so as to screw said second thread around said first thread;
(Claim 2, lines 14-15, and Figs. 3 and 5)
- wherein said tightening step involves screwing said first thread of said shank and said second thread of said nut to one another so as to cause said end portion to strike against said bottom surface and generate, upon said shank, a predefined pre-load force as a function of the level of screwing of the shank with the nut to form a single, indivisible, body and are configured for generating, during the screwing between shank and nut, a joint which opposes the unscrewing.
(Please refer to Cohen method steps in claim 2, Figs. 1-5, and rejection set forth above in claim 7.)
Regarding claim 2, A process according to Claim 1, wherein the step of providing the shank and the step of providing the nut can take place simultaneously or at least partially in succession; wherein, the shank and the nut are made of a high mechanical resistance material; in particular, the shank and/or the nut are made of a material chosen within the following group of materials: titanium, titanium alloys; nickel-chrome alloys; X1CrNiMoAITil12-11-2 stainless steel; XINiCrMoAITil2-10-2 stainless steel; and stainless steel with a PH (Precipitation Hardening) class ranging from 13 to 8 or from 15 to 5 or from 17 to 4; steel with composition Si, 19.00-21.00 Cr, 33.00-37.00 Ni, 9.00-11.00 Mo, 1.00 max. Ti, 0.01 B, 1.00 max. Fe, Bal Co; steel comprising nickel and cobalt; AISI4340 and AISI304 steel and stainless steel of the AISI300 series and of the AISI400 series.
(Please refer to rejection and rationale set forth 10 above and see rejection for claim 1 above)
Regarding claim 3, Cohen in view of Park teaches the process according to claim 1, Cohen further teaches wherein the step of providing a shank comprises the sub-step of making said first thread along said first portion (see claim 2, lines 3-6); wherein the step of providing a nut comprises a sub-step of making said second thread inside said cavity (See claim 2, lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 5, Cohen in view of Park teaches the process according to claim 1, wherein the tightening step involves locking the nut and the shank to one another by means of an interference coupling, in particular a hot/cold coupling. (See claim 2, lines 13-20)
Regarding claim 6, Cohen in view of Park teaches the process according to claim 1 and comprising the further step of making a third thread along a respective further portion of said shank. (See claim 2, lines 3-6 and Figs. 1 and 4)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues in Park, the head and the shank are made in a single piece as shown in Fig. 4.
The Examiner has clearly established and considered the hub nut 22 of Park to be head of the bolt which is separate from the bolt 21. Therefore, please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth in previous Office Action.
The Applicant argues the hub bolts and hub nuts in Park are to be fastened and unfastened by means of a tool, and Park also describes that the hub bolts and hub nuts can be loosely fastened.
The applicant’s argument has been found unpersuasive. The Examiner does not see why it is relevant and/or issue that the hub nut in Park maybe used for fastening and unfastening. Further, the Applicant misinterprets the Park’s statement in para. [0004]. Park does not state that bolts and nuts can be loosely fastener, but the assembly prevents injury even if the bolt and nut are loosely fastened. Either way, the applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive as to why the combination of Cohen in view of Park does not meet limitations in present application.
The Applicant argues that Park does not disclose a nut with a bottom wall conical and coaxial with the second longitudinal axis.
It is the Examiner’s position that cavity in the nut disclosed by Park has conical wall (see inclined arrows showing conical shaped bottom wall complimentary to the bolt end in annotated Fig. 4 below) and coaxial with the second longitudinal axis (see vertical axis A in annotated Fig. 4 showing both the bolt and the nut are aligned and coaxial).
PNG
media_image2.png
600
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Applicant argues that Park does not disclose the first thread of said shank and the second thread of said nut form a self-locking tightening.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument.
Each prior arts shows a self-locking tightening between the threads of the shank and the thread of the nut. Threaded section 12 of the bolt 10 in Cohen is clearly capable of forming a self-locking tightening with the threaded bore 26 of the nut 20, which is clearly disclosed in Figs. 4-5. Likewise, Park discloses that the threaded nut 22 is configured to be threaded over said bolt 21 (see claim 4 and Fig. 4). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that both of the fastening device discloses threaded connection forming a self-locking tightening.
The Applicant argues Park fails to teach screwing of shank and the nut to one another cause said end portion to strike against said bottom surface and generate a predefined pre-load force which locks the nut.
The Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant’s argument.
First, base reference Cohen teaches the shank is threaded all the way to other end of the nut as shown in Figs. 2 and 4. Second, Teaching reference Park in Figs. 4-5 clearly discloses that the shank is threaded to the shank so the end portion of the shank strikes the bottom surface. It is the Examiner’s position that threaded engagement between the shank and the nut generates a predefined pre-load force which locks the nut. Please refer to connection between the nut and the bolt in Fig. 4-5 of Park showing threaded connection between the nut and the bolt.
The Applicant argues that Park does not describe tightening a shaft and a nut according to the claimed solution of the application.
The Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant’s argument.
It is the Examiner’s position that majority of the structural limitations of tie bolt have been met by the base reference Cohen, and the teaching reference is only brought in to teach about the nut having delimited bottom surface in its cavity that connects to bolt. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth in previous Office Action.
The Applicant argues that in Park, the end portion of the shaft does not strike against the bracket and generate upon said shank a pre-load force as function of the level of screwing of the shank with the nut.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument.
It is the Examiner’s position that end of the shaft 21 hits the back wall of the nut because the front end is considered the bolt entering region of the nut in Figs. 4-5 and back wall starts at the end region of the cavity matching the end structure of the bolt. Please refer to Figs. 4-5 in Park. Further, threaded connection between the bolt and the nut generates a pre-load force in Figs. 4-5.
The Applicant argues that Cohen fails to teach a pre-load force which acts on the first thread and second thread locking.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument.
It is the Examiner’s position that connection between the threaded portion of the bolt 12, 52 and the threaded portion of the nut 20, 40 is capable of generating pre-load force. See Cohen, Column 3, lines 55-75.
The Applicant argues that Cohen is from different technical field and Park fastening device can be easily unfastened.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument.
Fastener in Cohen is mainly used in high-strength bolts for aircrafts and missile, whereas fastener in Park is used in automobile and vehicles. It is the Examiner’s position that both fastening system are considered threaded fastener and in combination teaches structural limitations of the claims. Additionally, fastening device in Park may be easily unfastened if intended, however the fastening system disclosed by Park is designed for safety and fastened by tools so it doesn’t easily unfasten.
In view of arguments above, previously rejected claims in previous Office Action stand rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20110033260 (Miura) discloses a fastener assembly for fastening a member to workpiece having a threaded bolt 5 and a nut cap 7 having a female threading 6 to be screwed onto the bolt.
US5071300 (McCauley) discloses a Shrouded Jam Locknut having a locknut 11 in locking relation with the threaded bolt 15 (see Fig. 1).
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 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
Prosecution Insights