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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
“a foot extending circumferentially and axially inwardly at an oblique angle” in claim 1 and “drive-on surfaces on an interior side of the shell base wall and facing a second circumferential direction and extending away from the shell base wall” in claim 24
“a barb that contacts the internal shoulder” in claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Further, previously elected Figs. 20-21 fail to disclose limitation mentioned above. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 5-7, 13-16, 19, 24-27, 38, 40-43 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widule et al., US20120237312 (hereinafter, Widule) in view of Siems et al., US20030097891 (hereinafter, Siems), in further view of Ohmi et al., US6170890 (hereinafter, Ohmi).
Regarding claim 1, Widule discloses a torque-limiting fastener (110, see Figs. 7) comprising:
a drive shell 114, including a shell base wall (SBW, as indicated in annotated Fig. 7) having
drive-off surfaces (side region of the teeth 148 in Fig. 7) on an interior side of the shell base wall (see Fig. 7) and facing a first circumferential direction (see tooth 148 side surfaces facing circumferential direction or tightening direction towards right in Fig. 7), and
drive-on surfaces (see valley 160 in Fig. 8) on the interior side of the shell base wall and facing a second circumferential direction (facing towards direction opposite to tightening direction), and
a shell skirt (S, as indicated in annotated Fig. 7) extending axially away from the shell base wall;
a driven fastener 112 carried by the drive shell, and including
a fastener base wall (FBW, as indicated in annotated Fig. 7) having
driven-on surfaces (side region of the face 152 in Fig. 7) on an exterior side of the fastener base wall and facing the first circumferential direction (see regions facing towards right or tightening direction), and
driven-off surfaces (see notches 164 in Fig. 7) on an exterior side of the fastener base wall and facing the second circumferential direction (direction opposite to tightening direction), and
a radially outer wall (ROW, as indicated in annotated Fig. 7) extending axially away from the fastener base wall; and
a clutch 150 axially between the fastener and shell base walls, and including
a plate (see plate 150 in Fig. 7),
a driven beam 166 extending radially and cantilevered with respect to the plate (see Fig. 7) and having a leg (see cantilevered leg 166) extending circumferentially, and
a drive tang (162, see Fig. 8) extending radially and axially outward with respect to the plate (see Fig. 8).
Widule fails to teach wherein a driven beam extending radially outwardly and cantilevered with respect to the plate.
However, Siems teaches similar disk (144, see Fig. 7B) having a driven beam (DB, as indicated in annotated Fig. 7B) extending radially outwardly and cantilevered with respect to the plate.
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the clutch in Widule to have a driven beam extending radially outwardly as taught by Siems so the flat body of the disk and bent out teeth are adapted to angular control edge as shown in Fig. 7C.
Further, Widule fails to teach a foot extending circumferentially and axially inwardly at an oblique angle.
However, Widule does expressly states that the hold tabs 162 may be arranged in a variety of manners to achieve the desired, application-specific torque transfer characteristics.
Further, Ohmi teaches Pipe Joint where a clutch 5 having a foot extending circumferentially (see all three retainers/clutch 5 extended circumferentially) and axially inwardly at an oblique angle (see pawls 30 in Fig. 2 extending axially inwardly first and in an oblique angle after).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified leg of Gibson to have foot extending as taught by Ohmi for resiliently griping the surface of the shell and the fastener for secure joint (column 3, lines 34-46).
PNG
media_image1.png
264
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7B
PNG
media_image2.png
460
469
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7
Regarding claim 5, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the torque-limiting fastener of claim 1, wherein the drive shell 114 further includes a hub (see hub/wall formed by the rim 116 in Figs. 6-7) extending axially inwardly from the shell base wall and establishing a shell aperture (see opening/aperture in Fig. 7) via an internal diameter of the hub.
Regarding claim 6, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the torque-limiting fastener of claim 5, wherein the drive shell further includes an tool-engagement rim (116, see Figs. 6-7 and refer to para. [0030] as a reference) extending axially inwardly from the shell base wall and spaced radially outward of the hub.
Regarding claim 7, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the torque-limiting fastener of claim 1, but fails to teach the drive-on surfaces extend substantially obliquely.
However, the Examiner interprets changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the shape of drive-on surfaces that is substantially oblique. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the valley 160 in Widule as shown in Fig. 8 to a substantially oblique drive-on surface as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Regarding claim 13, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the torque-limiting fastener of claim 1, wherein the radially outer wall of the driven fastener 112 is integral with the fastener base wall establishing an internal shoulder (132, see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches he torque-limiting fastener of claim 13, wherein Widule in different embodiment shown in Fig. 12 teaches the driven fastener 412 is axially trapped on one axially end by a barb (the Examiner interprets the barb here to be lug 413) that contacts the internal shoulder and is axially trapped on a second axially end by a ferrule (the Examiner interprets the ferrule here to be a captured member 421).
The Examiner interprets it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have the driven fastener to be trapped axially as claimed to ensure that the outer nut does not prevent the inner nut from urging the member/substrate against the hub (para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 15, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the torque-limiting fastener of claim 1, wherein the driven-on surfaces extend substantially axially (see Fig. 7) and the driven-off surfaces extend substantially axially (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, (Original) The torque-limiting fastener of claim 1, wherein the clutch drive tangs extend circumferentially between 2 and 10 angular degrees (see Fig. 7 of Widule where the tangs 162 appear to be at least between 2 and 10 angular degrees), the legs of the clutch driven beams extend circumferentially between 10 and 30 angular degrees (see inclined driven beams 166 in Fig. 7), and the feet of the clutch driven beams extend at an oblique angle with respect to the legs between 20 and 70 angular degrees (As established in claim 1 above, Widule in view of Ohmi (see Fig. 2) teaches the legs to be between 20 and 70 angular degrees).
Regarding claim 19, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the torque-limiting fastener of claim 1, wherein the driven fastener 112 is a driven nut (para. 0041]).
Regarding claim 24, A torque-limiting drive shell, comprising:
a shell base wall, including
drive-off surfaces on an interior side of the shell base wall and facing a first circumferential direction, and
drive-on surfaces on an interior side of the shell base wall and facing a second
circumferential direction and extending substantially obliquely; and
a shell skirt extending axially away from the shell base wall.
Concerning claim 24, the Examiner interprets the limitations in claim 24 are as same as claims 1 and 7, therefore Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations here. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claims 1 and 7.
Regarding claim 25, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the drive shell of claim 24, wherein the shell base wall includes a shell aperture (see central opening of the shell 114), wherein the drive-off and drive-on surfaces circumscribe the shell aperture (see Figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 26, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the drive shell of claim 24, further comprising a hub (see hub/wall formed by the rim 116 in Figs. 6-7) extending axially inwardly from the shell base wall and establishing a shell aperture (shell central opening) via an internal diameter of the hub (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 27, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the drive shell of claim 26, further comprising a tool-engagement rim (116, see Figs. 6-7 and refer to para. [0030] as a reference) extending axially inwardly from the shell base wall and spaced radially outward of the hub.
Regarding claim 38, A torque-limiting clutch, comprising:
a plate;
driven beams extending radially outwardly and cantilevered with respect to the plate and having legs extending circumferentially and feet extending circumferentially and axially inwardly at an oblique angle; and
drive tangs extending radially and axially outwardly with respect to the plate. 39, (Original) The clutch of claim 38, further comprising support flanges extending radially outwardly of the plate and circumferentially between the drive tangs and the driven beams.
Concerning claim 38, Limitations of claim 38 has been addressed in claim 1, except for the feet. However, the Examiner interprets Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi still teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 40, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the clutch of claim 38, further comprising an aperture through the plate, wherein the driven beams and the drive tangs circumscribe the aperture (please refer to the rejection set forth in claim 1 and Fig. 7 of Widule).
Regarding claim 41, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the clutch of claim 38, wherein Widule further teaches the drive tangs 162 extend circumferentially between 2 and 10 angular degrees (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 42, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the clutch of claim 38, wherein the driven beams extend circumferentially between 10 and 30 angular degrees (As established above and see Fig. 7 of Widule).
Regarding claim 43, Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches the clutch of claim 38, wherein the feet of the driven beams extend at an oblique angle with respect to the legs of the driven beams between 20 and 70 angular degrees.
Widule in view of Siems, in further view of by Ohmi teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations in claim 43. Please refer to Fig. 9 of Ohmi.
Regarding claim 47, Widule in view of Simes, in further view of Ohmi teaches and/or make obvious of method according to claim 38, but fails to expressly teach wherein the length of the legs of the driven beams are eight to fourteen times greater than a plate thickness of the legs.
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the clutch in Widule to be as disclosed in claim above in order to adapt the clutch with various sized components, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument related to drawing objection in previous office action has been found persuasive. Therefore, drawing objections in previous office action has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1 and 38 have been considered and has been found moot based on newly found prior art. Rejection based on newly found prior art and the existing prior at has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 24, applicant argues the rejection, merely relies upon a per se rule that mere changes of shape are obvious.
However, it is the examiner’s position that Widule in view of Siems, in further view of Ohmi teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations, and the modification in claim 7 is considered obvious because the disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the drive-on surface being oblique in the specification, para. [0044].
Regarding claim 14, the applicant argues the lug 413 is axially secured by threads, not an internal shoulder.
However, the examiner argues the language in claim 14 does not require the internal shoulder to secure the driven fastener, but the barb traps the driven fastener. Further, upper end of the drawing in Fig. 12 is considered first axial end and the bottom end of the drawing is considered second axial end.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that hold tabs 162 extend circumferentially less than 2 degrees and the fingers 166 extends less than 10 degrees.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The hold tabs 162 in Fig. 7 extends in all around the flat ring 150 in which 2 degrees and 10 degrees are among one of the angles. Further, fingers 166 extends at least 30 degrees from the ring body as disclosed in Fig. 7.
Conclusion
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