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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,3,5,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (JP 3137779 U) in view of Allison (US 0214804 A), McQueen (US 4635528 A), and Blaess (US 20030185648 A1).
It is noted that all citations to over Sakamoto (JP 3137779 U) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto discloses a tine (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a distal end portion (12), which has a cylindrical shape (para. [0016] “tip 12 is formed in a hollow cylindrical shape”), and is to be first brought into abutment against an object (lawn surface); and
a main body portion (11), which has a cylindrical shape on at least a part of the main body portion, and has one end portion to which the distal end portion is mounted,
wherein the distal end portion is removably mounted to the one end portion of the main body portion, and has an inner peripheral surface having a female thread (12a) formed at an end portion of the distal end portion on a side to be mounted to the main body portion,
wherein the main body portion has an outer peripheral surface having a male thread (11c) formed so as to be engaged with the female thread at the end portion of the main body portion on a side to which the distal end portion is mounted (Fig. 2).
Sakamoto fails to disclose wherein an inner end portion of the male thread includes an incomplete thread portion thread portion.
However, Allison teaches that it is extremely old and well-known to strengthen a threaded connection between a male thread (a) and a female thread (b) by including an incomplete thread portion (c) on an inner end of a male thread (Fig. 1-2, col. 2 lines 7-14).
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 inner end portion of the male thread to comprise an incomplete thread portion, as taught by Allison, in order to increase the strength of the threaded connection at that point (Allison at col. 2 lines 16-17).
Sakamoto fails to disclose a headless stop screw fitted and fixed into a penetrating screw hole in the distal end portion in a portion facing the male thread.
McQueen discloses a similar attaching means (1) for hollow cylindrical elements (2,6) consisting of male threads (“external threads” on 6) engaged with female threads (“internal threads 4” on 2) and locked via a headless stop screw (17) fitted and fixed into a penetrating screw hole (7) in the female thread portion (4) and facing the male thread portion (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 52-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a headless stop screw between the female and male thread portions, as taught by McQueen, in order to secure the two portions against relative movement thereby ensuring they remain locked one within the other (McQueen at col. 2 lines 60-61). It would have been further obvious to form the screw hole facing the incomplete thread portion of the male thread portion, because there are a limited number of choices as to where to position the screw hole with respect to the male thread portion (inner end, middle, outer end) and it would have been obvious design choice to consider and try, for the purpose of efficiency and design configuration of the threaded connection, positioning the screw hole facing the inner end portion of the male thread (i.e. the incomplete thread portion) (KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)). Note it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See also, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
McQueen fails to disclose wherein the stop screw has an adhesive applied to a screw tip of the stop screw.
Blaess discloses a set screw 100 used to hold a shaft/workpiece in place (bottom of para. [0004]), wherein an adhesive is applied to the tip 116 (which can be configured as cup, knurl, half dog, oval, or flat, see bottom of para. [0029]) which will enter an aperture of the workpiece (para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply an adhesive to the tip of the stop screw of the combination, as taught by Blaess, in order to provide a stronger clamping engagement and increased holding power by the set screw (Blaess at para. [0010, 0036]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sakamoto discloses the piercing tine according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the stop screw is a screw made of synthetic resin.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the stop screw of any material of sufficient strength, such as synthetic resin, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sakamoto discloses the piercing tine according to claim 1. Allison further teaches wherein the incomplete thread portion (c) is a portion that engages with a part of the female thread (b) of the distal end portion in a non-normal state, and is formed in a shape in which valleys of the male thread (a) become shallower as being away from the one end portion of the main body portion (Allison at Figs. 1-2, valleys of male thread (a) become shallower in a direction away from the tip portion of body a).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sakamoto discloses the piercing tine according to claim 1. Sakamoto further discloses, as the distal end portion, a plurality of distal end portions of different kinds that differ in one or both of a size and a shape of an opening of a distal end port to be first brought into abutment against the object (Sakamoto discloses different sizes and shaped distal ends, Fig. 2 vs. Fig. 5A,5B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sakamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Skaff et al. (US 20140224512 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sakamoto discloses the piercing tine according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the distal end portion has a Rockwell hardness higher than a Rockwell hardness of the main body portion.
Skaff discloses a similar aeration tine (1) comprising a distal end portion (200) threadably connected to a main body potion (100), wherein the hardness of the distal end portion is greater than that of the main body portion (Abstract and para. [0013] tip is hardened by boronization process that main body portion is not subjected to) which results in less wear and thus less frequent replacement of worn out tips (para. [0003-0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a hardened tip in the piercing tool of Sakamoto, as taught by Skaff, to reduce wear and extend tool longevity.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sakamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schoonen (US 20030132632 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sakamoto discloses the piercing tine according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an outer peripheral surface of the distal end portion has a hook hole for inserting a projection of a hook spanner.
Schoonen similarly discloses threadably engaged parts (Fig. 1) and teaches that it is old and well-known to utilize hook holes and hook spanners to facilitate threading/unthreading of the parts (para. [0016],[0029] discloses hook hole 13 to be engaged by a hook spanner for final tightening of threaded components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a hook hole and hook spanner in the combination as taught by Schoonen to facilitate removal or insertion of the tip from the main body when replacement is required.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 3, and 5-8, Applicant's arguments filed 11-12-2025 have been fully considered; however the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“it is alleged in the Office Action…that it is old and well-known in the art to use thread lock adhesives to hold screws in a fixed position within an aperture, but there is no specific ground for supporting such a content, as discussed above. In addition…an adhesive is applied to the screw tip of the stop screw so that the stop screw can be fixed to the incomplete thread portion in the male thread via the adhesive. The application of an adhesive to the screw tip of the stop screw is not a technology known in the related-art, but is considered as a constituent feature unique to the present application” (see page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 11-12-2025).
Regarding (a), in response to Applicant’s rebuttal, the Examiner incorporates Blaess (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0185648) in the present Office action as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding. Blaess teaches applying an adhesive to the tip of a set screw which is inserted into an aperture of a shaft/workpiece to provide a strong clamping engagement for holding the workpiece in place (para. [0036]).
The rejection is therefore maintained and this Office action made FINAL.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671