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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 10-13 have been added. Therefore, claims 1, 4-6, and 9-13 remain pending in the application.
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, 4-6, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lat et al. (US5741104A), hereinafter "Lat", in view of Dill et al. (US20060018733A1) and Sutt, Jr (US20070025829A1), hereinafter "Dill" and "Sutt, Jr", respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Lat teaches a steel fastener (Fig 2, fastener 20, Col 3, lines 32-41, Lat indicates the fastener 20 may be made from a cylindrical wire of 1030 carbon steel) comprising:
a shaft (see Fig 2, Examiner notes shank 22 and tip 26 as a shaft) including:
an elongate shank (Fig 2, shank 22) having a longitudinal axis (see Fig 2, Col 3, lines 26-31, Lat indicates shank 22 defining an axis) and including a knurled portion (Fig 2, portion 40) formed (see Fig 2) by helical grooves (Fig 2, helical grooves 46, Col 4, lines 36-47) extending (see Fig 2) along the entire knurled portion (40) and defining helical ribs (Fig 2, helical ribs 48, Col 4, lines 36-47) and by annular grooves (Fig 2, annular grooves 42, Col 4, lines 36-47) extending (see Fig 2) along the entire knurled portion (40) and defining annular rings (Fig 2, annular rings 44, Col 4, lines 36-47); and
a tip (Fig 2, tip 26) connected (see Fig 2) to the shank (22), the tip (26) including a beginning portion (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a portion of tip 26 adjacent shank 22 as including a beginning portion) connected (see Fig 2) to the shank (22) and an ending portion (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a portion of tip 26 distal shank 22 as an ending portion) opposite (see Fig 2) the shank (22), wherein the tip (26) does not (see Fig 2) include helical ribs (48) or annular grooves (42) at any point (see Fig 2) from the beginning portion (see Fig 2) of the tip (26) to the ending portion (see Fig 2) of the tip (26); and
an enlarged head (Fig 2, head 24) including:
a top surface (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a top surface of head 24 as a top surface),
a side surface (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a side surface of head 24 as a side surface) extending perpendicular (see Fig 2) to the top surface (see Fig 2), and
a bottom surface (see Fig 2) having a second portion (see Fig 2, Col 3, lines 26-31, Examiner notes chamfered where the head 24 faces the shank 22 as a second portion), and
wherein the second portion (see Fig 2) is a tapered connection portion (see Fig 2, Col 3, lines 26-31, Examiner notes chamfered where the head 24 faces the shank 22 as including a tapered connection portion) connected (see Fig 2) at a first edge (see Fig 2) to the shaft (see Fig 2) at an end (see Fig 2) of the shank (22) opposite (see Fig 2) the tip (26) and connected (see Fig 2) at a second edge (see Fig 2); and
wherein the shaft (see Fig 2) is tapered progressively larger (see Fig 2, Col 4, lines 55-64, Examiner notes diverges toward the head 24 and converges toward the tip 26 as tapered progressively larger) from the ending portion (see Fig 2) of the tip (26) to the enlarged head (24).
Lat fails to teach a bottom surface having a first portion, wherein the first portion extends parallel to the top surface and perpendicular to the side surface, wherein the first portion has a surface area equal to at least 50% of a surface area of the top surface, and wherein the second portion is connected at a second edge to the first portion, and wherein the knurled portion continuously extends from the beginning portion of the tip up the shaft to the tapered connection portion of the enlarged head.
However, Dill teaches it is known in the art to provide a bottom surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a bottom surface of portion 16 adjacent portion 24 as a bottom surface) having a first portion (see Fig 1, Examiner notes the bottom surface of portion 16 adjacent portion 24 as having a first portion) and a second portion (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a tapering portion of fastener 10 between portion 16 and portion 24 as a second portion), wherein the first portion (see Fig 1) extends parallel (see Fig 1) to the top surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a top surface of portion 16 distal portion 24 as the top surface) and perpendicular (see Fig 1) to the side surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a side surface of portion 16 as the side surface), wherein the first portion (see Fig 1) has a surface area (Paragraphs 0019 and 0022, Examiner notes extents D1 and D2 having a diametrical extent of 0.315-0.320” and 0.215-0.250”, respectively, and extent D5 having a diametrical extent of 0.110-0.115” as has a surface area) equal to at least 50% (Paragraphs 0019 and 0022, Examiner notes extents D1, D2, and D5 as equal to at least 50%) of a surface area (Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes extents D1 and D2 having a diametrical extent of 0.315-0.320” and 0.215-0.250”, respectively, as a surface area) of the top surface (see Fig 1), and wherein the second portion (see Fig 1) is connected (see Fig 1) at a second edge (see Fig 1) to the first portion (see Fig 1).
Therefore, as evidenced by Dill, 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 bottom surface having a first portion, wherein the first portion extends parallel to the top surface and perpendicular to the side surface, wherein the first portion has a surface area equal to at least 50% of a surface area of the top surface, and wherein the second portion is connected at a second edge to the first portion as taught by Dill to Lat. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a head based on application and requirements, e.g. accommodating different driver structure characteristics such as pneumatically driven and gas-powered tools (Dill, Paragraph 0019), facilitate using the fastener in different environments, e.g. accommodating varying compositions, quantities, thicknesses, etc. of workpieces and substrates, etc.
Lat, in view of Dill fails to teach wherein the knurled portion continuously extends from the beginning portion of the tip up the shaft to the tapered connection portion of the enlarged head.
However, Sutt, Jr teaches it is known in the art to provide wherein the knurled portion (see Fig 2, rings 66) continuously extends (Paragraph 0032, Examiner notes Sutt, Jr’s indication of rings 66 may extend along the entire length of the shank 60 as continuously extends) from the beginning portion (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a portion of tip 64 adjacent shank 60 as the beginning portion) of the tip (see Fig 2, tip 64) up (see Fig 2) the shaft (see Fig 2, shank 60) to the tapered connection portion (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a tapered portion of head 52 facing shank 60 as the tapered connection portion) of the enlarged head (see Fig 2, head 52).
Therefore, as evidenced by Sutt, Jr, 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 knurled portion continuously extends from the beginning portion of the tip up the shaft to the tapered connection portion of the enlarged head as taught by Sutt, Jr to modified Lat. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate using the fastener in different environments, e.g. accommodating varying compositions, quantities, thicknesses, etc. of workpieces and substrates.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, modified Lat teaches the steel fastener (20) of [claim 4: claim 1; claim 6: claim 5] and further teaches wherein the tip (26) has a generally parabolic profile (Fig 2, rounded end 28).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lat teaches the steel fastener (20) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the tip (26) is a tapered pointed tip (see Fig 2, Col 3, lines 26-31, Lat indicates frusto-conical).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lat teaches the steel fastener (20) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the top surface (see Fig 2) of the enlarged head (24) has a diameter (see Fig 2) of approximately 8.0-8.4 mm (Dill, Paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lat teaches the steel fastener (20) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the side surface (see Fig 2) of the enlarged head (see Fig 2) has a height (see Fig 2) of approximately 1.00-1.20 mm (Dill, Paragraph 0019, Dill indicates 0.035-0.050”) with respect to the longitudinal axis (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lat teaches the steel fastener (20) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the bottom surface (Dill, see Fig 1) of the enlarged head (24) has a height (Dill, see Fig 1) but fails to teach of approximately 0.5 mm with respect to the longitudinal axis.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the bottom surface of the enlarged head as disclosed by modified Lat to have a height of approximately 0.5 mm with respect to the longitudinal axis, 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 facilitate using the fastener in different environments, e.g. accommodating varying compositions, quantities, thicknesses, etc. of workpieces and substrates.
Regarding claim 13, modified Lat teaches the steel fastener (20) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the top surface (see Fig 2) of the enlarged head (24) has a diameter (see Fig 2) of approximately 8.0-8.4 mm (Dill, Paragraph 0019), the side surface (see Fig 2) of the enlarged head (24) has a height (see Fig 2) of approximately 1.00-1.20 mm (Dill, Paragraph 0019, Dill indicates 0.035-0.050”) with respect to the longitudinal axis (see Fig 2), and the bottom surface (Dill, see Fig 1) of the enlarged head (24) has a height (Dill, see Fig 1) but fails to teach of approximately 0.5 mm with respect to the longitudinal axis.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the bottom surface of the enlarged head as disclosed by modified Lat to have a height of approximately 0.5 mm with respect to the longitudinal axis, 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 facilitate using the fastener in different environments, e.g. accommodating varying compositions, quantities, thicknesses, etc. of workpieces and substrates.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lat, in view of Dill, Sutt, Jr and Panasik et al. (US20040223830A1), hereinafter "Panasik".
Regarding claim 9, modified Lat teaches the steel fastener (20) of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the shaft has a diameter of 3.68-3.48 mm closer to the head compared to 3.55-3.45 mm closer to the tip.
However, Panasik teaches it is known in the art to provide wherein the shaft (Fig 1, shank 12) has a diameter (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0028, Examiner notes the outer diameter of knurled portion 36 as has a diameter) of 3.68-3.48 mm closer to the head (Fig 1, head 15) compared to 3.55-3.45 mm closer to the tip (Fig 1, tip 16) (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0028, Panasik indicates the outer diameter of knurled portion 36 is largest nearest to head 15 and gradually decreases in a diameter along the length of knurled portion 36 toward tip 16; Panasik further indicates the outer diameter of knurled portion 36 near head 15 is between about 0.13 inches and about 0.16 inches and the outer diameter of knurled portion 36 nearest tip 16 is between about 0.12 inches and about 0.155 inches; Examiner notes diameters can be selected to have a diameter of 3.68-3.48 mm closer to the head compared to 3.55-3.45 mm closer to the tip).
Therefore, as evidenced by Panasik, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adequately size and shape the shaft of modified Lat to have a diameter of 3.68-3.48 mm closer to the head compared to 3.55-3.45 mm closer to the tip as taught by Panasik. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide dimensions of the shaft based on application and requirements, e.g. material types, material thicknesses, clamping forces, pull-out resistance, etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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