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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright US1207356 (hereinafter, Wright).
Regarding claim 1, Wright teaches a simple and convenient self-locking nut (see Fig. 4), comprising a concave nut 21 having a tapered-cylinder-shaped recess (see tapered interior of the nut 21 in Fig. 4) and a matching convex nut 18 having a tapered-cylinder-shaped protrusion (see protruding body of nut 18 extended into the nut 21 in Fig. 4), wherein a tapered-cylinder-shaped part of the convex nut is provided with a matching spiral progressive locking structure (see threaded connection between nut 21 and nut 18 in Fig. 4);
an annular convex-concave pressing reinforcing rib 22 is arranged on contact faces of the concave nut and the convex nut;
wherein for taper degrees of the taper-cylinder-shaped recess of the concave nut and the convex part of the convex nut, one safety factor is added to a self-locking angle according to different nut sizes and application occasions; number, shape and size of open through grooves are determined according to the different nut sizes and application occasions, and the open through grooves are arranged in an equal division manner, so as to apply a balanced locking force to the bolt; and the annular convex-concave pressing reinforcing rib comprises an annular reinforcing rib recess 19 formed by extending a convex part with the same taper degree on the convex nut, and an annular convex reinforcing rib matching the annular reinforcing rib recess and arranged on the concave nut (see Fig. 4) and extending along the same taper degree on the convex nut (see reinforcing rib 22 arranged on the recess in Fig. 4 where the taper degree of the reinforcing rib and the recess are matching to fit each other’s structure);
wherein a cross section of the annular convex reinforcing rib is in an inclined trapezoidal wedge shape (see shape of protrusion 22 tapered and extended like an trapezoidal wedge in Fig. 4).
Wright fails to expressly teach wherein both the concave nut and the matching convex nut are configured to be engaged with a same bolt.
It is the examiner’s position that the nut disclosed in Wright is capable of being configured to be engaged with a same bolt (refer to Figs. 1-2, 4 & 6)). As Wright meets all the structural limitation of claim 1, the claim 2 in Wright states that the combination of a nut is for engagement of a bolt.
Regarding claim 3, Wright teaches and/or make obvious of the simple and convenient self-locking nut of claim 1, wherein Wright further teaches the annular convex reinforcing rib 22 comprises a bottom angle of R chamfer (C, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4), so as to increase an effective locking surface of the nut, ensure the strength of the reinforcing ribs and improve the locking reliability.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of Goldbaum US7437976 (hereinafter, Goldbaum).
Regarding claim 7, Wright teaches and/or make obvious of the simple and convenient self-locking nut of claim 1, wherein a stepped hole is formed in the concave nut (see Figs. 3-4 and 6 where the nut 21 having stepped hole configured to receive threaded and unthreaded portion of the convex nut).
Wright fails to teach wherein inclined plane structure are formed at crests of threads of the concave nut.
Goldbaum teaches similar nut essemble (see Figs. 2-3) for positional placement on a threaded shaft where inclined plane structure 64 is are formed at the concave nut 60.
It would have been obvious to have modified the crest of threads of the concave nut in Wright to have inclined structure as taught by Goldbaum for further mutual locked engagement between concave and convex nut (see column 4, lines 21-33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection based on existing and/or newly found prior art has been set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US0914053 (D. M. Kenyon) discloses similar Nut Lock where Fig. 1 shows a concave nut and convex nut in locking position, and Fig. 3 discloses a protrusion 15 locked in matching recess 16.
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