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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 10, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 10 has been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-13 remain pending in the application.
With respect to the Claim amendments filed December 10, 2025, the Examiner respectfully notes amendments to the Claims appear to have been made without appropriate markings showing changes, i.e. underlining of line 16 in claim 1 to indicate added subject matter; for the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner understands the claim amendments and will examine as is, however, the Examiner respectfully requests addressing such issues for all claims in future responses; see MPEP 714.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 16, “excentric” should read “eccentric”
In claims 9 and 11, line 2, “an eccentric structure” should read “the eccentric structure”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. With respect to claim 9, the limitations as set forth in lines 2-4 do not appear to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, specifically, claim 1, line 16, recites “wherein an excentric structure is formed integrally with the screw element”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genick, II (US20040090030A1), hereinafter "Genick", in view of Gan et al (US20160059653A1), hereinafter "Gan".
Regarding claim 1, Genick teaches a fastening element (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes threaded bolt 12 as a fastening element) comprising a screw element (Fig 1, threaded bolt 12),
wherein the screw element (12) extends (see Fig 1) in a longitudinal direction (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a longitudinal direction of bolt 12 as a longitudinal direction),
wherein the screw element (12) has a threaded portion (Fig 1, threaded portion 50), a head (Fig 1, head 20) and a groove (Fig 1, channels 56),
wherein the groove (56) extends (see Fig 1) in the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1),
wherein the groove (56) has a head end portion (see Fig 1, Examiner notes portions of channels 56 adjacent head 20 as has a head end portion) and a distal end portion (see Fig 1, Examiner notes portions of channels 56 distal head 20 as a distal end portion),
wherein a length (see Fig 1) in the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1) between the head end portion (see Fig 1) and the head (20) is less (see Fig 1) than a length (see Fig 1) in the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1) between the head (20) and the threaded portion (50),
wherein the groove (56) extends (see Fig 1) at least partially (see Fig 1) through the threaded portion (50),
wherein the screw element (12) has a strength class of more than 10.9 or equal to 10.9 (Paragraph 0026, Genick indicates the bolt will have a bolt strength class rating of 8.8 to 10.9 and greater),
wherein the groove (56) has a rounded base (Fig 7, inner radius R, Paragraph 0026) and/or rounded side portions in a sectional plane (see Fig 7, Paragraph 0026) having a normal parallel (see Figs 1 and 7, Paragraph 0026) to the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1),
wherein a ratio (Paragraphs 0026-0027, Genick indicates ratios) of a rounding radius (see Fig 7, Paragraph 0026, Examiner notes inner radius R as a rounding radius) of the rounded base (R) and/or rounded side portions of the groove (56) to a diameter (Fig 7, diameter 58, Paragraph 0026) of the threaded portion (50) lies in a range of 0.1 to 0.5 (see Fig 7, Paragraph 0026, Genick indicates diameter 58 of between 13.75 and 14 mm and each channel has an inner radius R of about 2.0 mm, therefore, Genick teaches a range of 0.143-0.145),
wherein the groove (56) is **embossed and/or rolled**.
Genick fails to teach wherein an excentric structure is formed integrally with the screw element.
However, Gan teaches it is known to provide wherein an excentric structure (Fig 7, head washer 122) is formed integrally (see Fig 7, Paragraph 0025, Gan indicates head washer 122 is integrally formed with the cam bolt 102) with the screw element (Fig 7, cam bolt 102).
Therefore, as evidenced by Gan, 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 first cam plate 14 of Genick to be formed integrally with the screw element as taught by Gan. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an excentric structure formed integrally with the screw element, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate improving assembly and disassembly of the cam bolt assembly, e.g. reducing part count, reducing assembling/disassembling steps, etc.
**Examiner notes that even though a product-by-process claim is limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, modified Genick teaches the fastening element (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches
wherein the groove (56) extends (see Fig 1) completely through (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0026) the threaded portion (50).
Regarding claim 3, modified Genick teaches the fastening element (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches
wherein the screw element (12) has a carrier region (Fig 1, shoulder portion 52),
wherein the carrier region (52) is arranged closer (see Figs 1 and 5) to the head (20) in the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1) than the head end portion (see Fig 1) of the groove (56) and/or than the threaded portion (50).
Regarding claim 4, modified Genick teaches the fastening element (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches
wherein the head end portion (see Fig 1) of the groove (56) lies between (see Figs 5-6) the threaded portion (50) and a carrier region (Fig 1, shoulder portion 52) in the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Genick teaches the fastening element (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches
wherein a carrier region (Fig 1, shoulder portion 52) has a same core (see Figs 5-6, Examiner notes shoulder portion 52 and threaded portion 50 formed on bolt 12 as has a same core) and/or outer diameter (see Figs 5-6) as the threaded portion (50).
Regarding claim 6, modified Genick teaches the fastening element (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches
wherein a carrier region (Fig 1, shoulder portion 52) has carrier structures (see Fig 5, Examiner notes an exterior surface of shoulder portion 52 as has carrier structures) on an outer periphery (see Fig 5) of the carrier region (52),
wherein the carrier structures (52) allow a form-fit torque transmission (capable of allowing a form-fit torque transmission, i.e. this is a functional recitation; e.g. pliers engaged with shoulder portion 52 would allow a form-fit torque transmission) about the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Genick teaches the fastening element (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches
wherein carrier structures (see Fig 1, Examiner notes threads of threaded portion 50 as carrier structures) comprise a wedge toothing and/or a thread (see Fig 1, Examiner notes the threads of threaded portion 50 as a thread).
Regarding claim 8, modified Genick teaches the fastening element (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches
wherein the head end portion (see Fig 1) of the groove (56) is arranged (see Figs 5-6) in a ring groove (see Figs 5-6, Examiner notes an annular groove between shoulder portion 52 and threaded portion 50 as a ring groove) running around (see Figs 5-6) the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Genick teaches the fastening element (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches
wherein the fastening element (see Fig 1) has an eccentric structure (Fig 1, cam plate 14),
wherein the eccentric structure (14) is rotationally fixed (Gan, see Fig 7, Paragraph 0025, Examiner notes integrally formed as is rotationally fixed) about the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1) relative to the screw element (12).
Regarding claim 11, modified Genick teaches the fastening element (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 and further teaches
wherein an eccentric structure (Fig 1, cam plate 14) is arranged closer (see Fig 1) to the head (20) in the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1) than the head end portion (see Fig 1) of the groove (56) and/or than a carrier region (Fig 1, shoulder portion 52) and/or the threaded portion (50),
wherein the eccentric structure (14) is advantageously arranged directly adjacent (see Fig 1) to the head (20) in the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Genick teaches an adjustment system (Fig 1, cam bolt assembly 10) comprising the fastening element (see Fig 1) as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1) and further teaches an eccentric element (Fig 1, cam plate 16),
wherein the eccentric element (16) has a twist-prevention structure (see Figs 1, 4, and 7, Paragraphs 0021 and 0024-0025, Examiner notes cam plate 16 has an aperture 28 which is configured to mate with the cross section 30 of the threaded portion of the threaded bolt 12 and the cam plate 16 and the channels 56 define an interface capable of withstanding 150 nm of torque, and preferably 200 nm of torque as has a twist-prevention structure),
wherein the twist-prevention structure (see Figs 1, 4, and 7) engages (see Fig 4) in the groove (56) such that a rotation of the eccentric element (16) about the longitudinal direction (see Fig 1) relative to the screw element (12) is prevented by form fit (see Figs 1, 4, and 7, Paragraphs 0021 and 0024-0025, Examiner notes cam plate 16 and the channels 56 define an interface capable of withstanding 150 nm of torque, and preferably 200 nm of torque as a rotation of the eccentric element about the longitudinal direction relative to the screw element is prevented by form fit).
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