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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(e) which requires that each drawing sheet “must be reasonably free from erasures and must be free from alterations, overwritings, and interlineations.” Fig. 11 appears to include some unnecessary overwritings (e.g., partial drawings of arrows).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: “200” designating a target hanging assembly, see ¶ 32, line 2; “Arrow D” designating tightening of nut 280, see ¶ 39, line 8; and “940” designating a target hanging assembly, see ¶ 47, line 7. It appears to the examiner that the specification should be corrected to replace “200” in ¶ 32 with --240--, consistent with Figs. 2-3 and ¶ 36; and to replace “940” in ¶ 47 with --1140--, consistent with Figs. 11-13 and ¶¶ 48-49.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or appropriate correction of the specification, 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 8, line 2, “geometer” should read --geometry--.
In ¶ 38, lines 7-9, there is an open parenthesis with no corresponding closed parenthesis. Either the open parenthesis should be deleted or a closed parenthesis should be added.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.75(f), which requires consecutive numbering of claims, because the claim set includes two claims both numbered “25.” The second claim numbered “25” should be renumbered as claim 26, and the claim numbered “26” should be renumbered as claim 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 13, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear whether the limitation “the body” in line 1 refers to the body of the metal target (introduced in claim 1, line 3) or to the body of the bolt head (introduced in claim 1, line 5), rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, “the body” in claim 4 will be interpreted in view of Applicant’s disclosure to mean --the body of the bolt head--.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear whether the limitation “the body” in line 1 refers to the body of the metal target (introduced in claim 11, line 3) or to the body of the bolt head (introduced in claim 11, line 5), rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, “the body” in claim 13 will be interpreted in view of Applicant’s disclosure to mean --the body of the bolt head--.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the body of the metal target” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 20, from which claim 25 depends. Claim 20 is directed to an assembly comprising a mounting bolt and a nut, and does not recite a body of the metal target. Moreover, because claim 20 does not positively claim the metal target, it is unclear in what sense or to what extent the claimed bolt-and-nut assembly is further limited by the description of “a cross sectional shape” of a hole in a body of the target “configured for receiving the section with three or more sides of the shank” as recited in claim 25, lines 3-4. For the purpose of examination, limitations with respect to a hole in a body of the metal target in claim 25 will be interpreted as describing a context of intended use of the claimed bolt-and-nut assembly that does not further limit the structure of the claimed assembly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Olbrich et al. (German Patent No. DE 767,422, hereinafter Olbrich).
Regarding claim 20, Olbrich discloses an assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 below) comprising a mounting bolt including a head (d5) with a body extending from a front surface to a rear surface and a shank (d2, d3) extending from the rear surface to a threaded section (d1); and a nut (a) mating with the threaded section (d1) after insertion of the shank (d2, d3) through a hole in adjoining components (armor plates b, c), wherein the front surface of the body of the bolt head (d5) is tapered from a sidewall of the bolt head (d5) to a central point to have a conical shape (“conical head,” pg. 1, line 21; “conical head at its outwardly facing end,” pg. 2, line 2), and wherein the front surface of the body of the bolt head (d5) is tapered at a taper angle (θ) in the range of 40 to 80 degrees (illustrated in Fig. 1 as a 45-degree angle).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The preamble recitation of the assembly being “for hanging a metal target from a hanging strap” describes an intended use and does not further limit the structure of the claimed assembly. See MPEP § 2111.03, subsection II. Because the metal target and the hanging strap are not positively claimed as part of the assembly, the limitation “after insertion of the shank of the bolt through a hole in the metal target and through the hanging strap” in lines 5-6 is understood to describe an intended use of the bolt and nut. With respect to the statements of intended use, the examiner notes that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114(II). In this case, Olbrich teaches each and every structural limitation of the claimed assembly. Therefore, the recitations of intended use with a metal target and hanging strap do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from that of Olbrich.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Targets USA (Large KYL 2” - 8” Kits, hereinafter Targets USA) in view of Olbrich.
Regarding claim 1, Targets USA teaches an assembly for hanging metal shooting targets (“Round Gong,” pg. 2, made of 3/16” to 3/8” AR500 steel) from a hanging strap (“rubber straps,” pg. 3), comprising: a metal target (“Gong,” pg. 2; see annotated Targets USA image below) with a body having a hole extending from a front planar surface to a rear planar surface; a mounting bolt (“carriage bolts,” pg. 3) including a head with a body extending from a front surface to a rear surface and further including a shank extending from the rear surface to a threaded section; and a nut (“nuts,” pg. 3) mating with the threaded section after insertion of the shank of the bolt through the hole in the metal target and through the hanging strap, as is well understood in the art.
PNG
media_image2.png
469
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Targets USA does not teach a tapered front surface of the bolt head tapering from a sidewall of the body of the bolt head to a central point to have a conical shape. However, to solve the problem of deflecting projectiles to avoid penetration at the mounting bolt (the same problem confronting the inventor; see Applicant’s specification, ¶¶ 7-8), Olbrich teaches a mounting bolt (Fig. 1) with a head (d5) having a front surface that is tapered from a sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above) to a central point to have a conical shape (see Fig. 1; “conical head d5,” English machine translation, pg. 1, line 21). See Olbrich at pg. 1, lines 1-5, describing the purpose of the invention to prevent the bolt head from being “torn off upon impact with projectiles” and to prevent “a clean through-shot” at the bolt. 1 Therefore, 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 assembly of Targets USA by tapering the front surface of the bolt head from the sidewall of the body of the bolt head to a central point to have a conical shape, as taught by Olbrich, in order to deflect projectiles to prevent penetration at the mounting point.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Targets USA teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Olbrich further teaches the front surface of the body of the bolt head is tapered at a taper angle (θ; see annotated Fig. 1 above) in the range of 40 to 80 degrees (Fig. 1 illustrating a 45-degree taper angle).
Regarding claim 11, Targets USA teaches an assembly for hanging metal shooting targets (“Round Gong,” pg. 2, made of 3/16” to 3/8” AR500 steel) from a hanging strap (“rubber straps,” pg. 3), comprising: a metal target (“Gong,” pg. 2; see annotated Targets USA image above) with a body having a hole extending from a front surface to a rear surface; and a mounting bolt (“carriage bolts,” pg. 3) including a head with a body extending from a front surface to a rear surface and further including a shank extending from the rear surface to a threaded section, the shank clearly being configured for insertion in the hole of the metal target, as is well understood in the art.
Targets USA does not teach a tapered front surface of the bolt head tapering from a sidewall of the body of the bolt head at a taper angle in the range of 40 to 80 degrees. However, to solve the problem of deflecting projectiles to avoid penetration at the mounting bolt (the same problem confronting the inventor; see Applicant’s specification, ¶¶ 7-8), Olbrich teaches a mounting bolt (Fig. 1) with a head (d5) having a front surface that is tapered from a sidewall (see annotated Fig. 1 above) of the body of the bolt head at a taper angle (θ; see annotated Fig. 1 above) in the range of 40 to 80 degrees (Fig. 1 illustrating a 45-degree taper angle). Therefore, 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 assembly of Targets USA by tapering the front surface of the bolt head from the sidewall of the body of the bolt head to a central point to have a conical shape, as taught by Olbrich, in order to deflect projectiles to prevent penetration at the mounting point.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the modified Targets USA teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 2 and 11, respectively. Targets USA and Olbrich are both understood to teach the bolt head body being cylindrical in shape (see Olbrich, Fig. 1; the bolt head body being cylindrical at the sidewall when the front surface is tapered). Targets USA and Olbrich are silent with respect to the height and diameter of the bolt head body. However, the bolt head body inherently has a height and an outer diameter, and one of ordinary skill in the art, having an understanding of ordinary bolt dimensions, would reasonably expect that a bolt head body having a height within the broadly claimed range of 0.25 to 2.0 inches and an outer diameter in the broadly claimed range of 0.5 to 2.5 inches would be suitable for the purpose of mounting the 2”-8” targets of Targets USA to the hanging strap, with a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, there is no evidence in the present record that the recited ranges of dimensions are critical or would produce any unexpected result. For these reasons, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the assembly of Targets USA by selecting bolt head body dimensions including a height within the range of 0.25 to 2.0 inches and an outer diameter within the range of 0.5 to 2.5 inches, as an obvious matter of design choice within the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Claims 3, 6, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Targets USA in view of Olbrich, in further view of Spransy et al. (US Patent Pub. 2019/0145741, hereinafter Spransy).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the modified Targets USA teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 2 and 11, respectively. Targets USA and Olbrich do not explicitly teach a taper angle of about 60 degrees. However, Spransy teaches a ballistic head nut (82, Fig. 12A) with a tapered head (conical head 83) that serves the same function of deflecting projectiles (¶ 55) and has a taper angle that is illustrated to be about 60 degrees. See annotated Fig. 12A below. Spransy teaches that the configuration of the conical head (83) is “selected such that the ballistic head nut 82 can withstand a direct, flush hit on the point of the conical head 83,” and that “angles other than as depicted may work to withstand a direct, flush hit on the point of the conical head 83, depending on the type of projectile threat.” ¶ 55.
PNG
media_image3.png
202
247
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying the bolt of Targets USA to have a conical head as taught by Olbrich as discussed above, to select a taper angle of about 60 degrees as suggested by Spransy, in order to optimize the functionality of the bolt head for deflecting projectiles depending on the type of projectile threat.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the modified Targets USA teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 2 and 11, respectively. Targets USA and Olbrich do not explicitly teach that the mounting bolt is formed of a steel alloy that has been heat treated using localized selective depth induction hardening. However, Spransy further teaches that a heat-treated steel alloy (“4140 steel heat treated to full hard finish,” ¶ 55) is a desirable material for a fastener (in this case, bolt head nut 82, Fig. 12A) designed to withstand a direct hit from a projectile. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the assembly of Targets USA by selecting a heat-treated steel alloy as taught by Spransy for the material of the mounting bolt, so that the mounting bolt can withstand a direct hit from a projectile. The examiner notes that “heat treated using localized selective depth induction hardening” is a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are 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. See MPEP § 2113. Spransy teaches a heat-treated steel alloy. Thus, the combination of Targets USA, Olbrich, and Spransy teaches a finished product that is the same as that described by the applicant and therefore meets the limitations as claimed.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Targets USA in view of Olbrich, in further view of Spransy and Atlas Specialty Metals, “Atlas 4140” (hereinafter Atlas).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the modified Targets USA teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 2 and 11, respectively. Targets USA further discloses a metal mounting bolt (i.e., a carriage bolt), as shown in the image above and well understood in the art. Targets USA and Olbrich are silent with respect to the hardness of the mounting bolt. However, Spransy teaches a bolt head nut (82) made to withstand a direct hit from a projectile, which is advantageously formed of “4140 steel heat treated to full hard finish” (¶ 55). Atlas 4140 teaches that heat-treated 4140 steel has a Rockwell hardness within the range of 48 to 60 HRC. See Atlas, pg. 3, Induction or Flame Hardening, “Atlas 4140 can be surface hardened to 58HRC (typical value)”; and Hardenability Diagram, showing typical max values ranging from 45 to 60 HRC. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the assembly of Targets USA by making the mounting bolt of 4140 steel as taught by Spransy, having a hardness within the range of 48 to 60 HRC as taught by Atlas, so that the bolt is able to withstand a direct hit from a projectile.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Targets USA in view of Olbrich, in further view of Wikipedia, “Carriage bolt” (hereinafter Wikipedia).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the modified Targets USA teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 1 and 11, respectively. Targets USA further teaches that the mounting bolt is a “carriage bolt” (pg. 3), including a section with three or more sides proximate the bolt head (i.e., the square section of the shank, as is conventional in carriage bolts; see Targets USA image above), wherein the hole in the body of the metal target has a cross-sectional shape (i.e., square, as shown in the Targets USA image above) configured for receiving the section with three or more sides of the shank. The examiner is unable to determine from the Targets USA disclosure whether the carriage bolt includes a blank section proximate to the threaded section. However, Wikipedia teaches that conventional carriage bolts include a blank section proximate to the threaded section, in addition to the square section proximate the bolt head. See annotated Wikipedia image below.
PNG
media_image4.png
295
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the mounting bolt of Targets USA to include a blank section between the square section and the threaded section, since this is a conventional component of a carriage bolt as taught by Wikipedia and since threading is unnecessary on the section of the bolt where the hanging strap is held (i.e., between the square section that holds the target and the threaded section that receives the nut).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Targets USA in view of Olbrich, in further view of D’Halloy (US Patent No. 1,919,205, hereinafter D’Halloy).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the modified Targets USA teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth for claims 1 and 11, respectively. Targets USA further teaches a washer but does not teach a centrally located counterbored surface in the rear surface of the bolt head body for receiving the washer. However, in the bolt art, D’Halloy teaches an assembly (Fig. 1) comprising a mounting bolt (4), a nut (6), and a washer (10), wherein the rear surface of the body of the bolt head (5) includes a centrally located counterbored surface (groove 9) for receiving the washer (10), and wherein the counterbored surface (9) has a depth less than a thickness of the washer (the height/thickness of the washer 10 being “equal, for example, to three times the depth of the groove 9 in which it is engaged,” pg. 2, lines 40-50). D’Halloy teaches that the counterbored surface in combination with the washer improves clamping action of the bolt and nut, particularly when the faces of the clamped components are not parallel or the holes are not perpendicular to the faces (e.g., due to imperfections in machining). See D’Halloy, pg. 1, lines 4-81. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Targets USA by including a centrally located counterbored surface in the rear face of the bolt head body and a washer with a thickness greater than the depth of the counterbored surface, as taught by D’Halloy, in order to improve the clamping action of the bolt and nut for a more secure connection.
Claims 9-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Targets USA in view of Olbrich, in further view of Monson (US Patent No. 6,811,365, hereinafter Monson).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the modified Targets USA teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 1 and 11, respectively. Targets USA and Olbrich are both understood to teach the bolt head body being cylindrical in shape (see Olbrich, Fig. 1; the bolt head body being cylindrical at the sidewall when the front surface is tapered). Targets USA and Olbrich do not teach a tool access hole or recessed surface between the front and rear surfaces of the bolt head. However, in the bolt art, Monson teaches a mounting bolt (Fig. 5) with a cylindrical bolt head body having a tool access hole (transverse recess 312) located between front and rear surfaces of the bolt head body, the tool access hole (312) being shaped and sized to receive a portion of a tool used to restrain rotation of the mounting bolt while concurrently tightening a nut on a threaded section of the bolt (“As the nut is tightened, the tendency of the bolt 300 is to rotate in the direction that the nut is being rotated. By inserting a pin, Allen wrench, etc. into the transverse recess 312, a lever is formed which keeps the bolt 300 from rotating, and allows the nut to be tightened,” col. 8:55-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Targets USA by including a tool access hole as taught by Monson between the front and rear surfaces of the bolt head, in order to facilitate tightening of the nut on the bolt (e.g., as a known alternative to a carriage bolt, to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the modified Targets USA teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 9 and 18, respectively. While the target of Targets USA, being round, does not include a corner as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the target of Targets USA with a shape that includes a corner (e.g., a square shape, as is common in the art of shooting targets), since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). With respect to the location of the tool access hole relative to the corner when the assembly is assembled, the examiner notes that the location of the tool access hole relative to a corner of the target can be easily selected by a user when assembling the apparatus, and that the user assembling the apparatus would reasonably expect that a location proximate the corner would be not only acceptable but also convenient so that the tool could be held near the edge of the target without interference from the body of the target. Therefore, the examiner concludes that, when the target of Targets USA is provided in a shape such as square, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (and to an ordinary user assembling the apparatus) to orient the bolt head with the tool access hole proximate to the corner of the body of the target, for the user’s convenience when assembling the apparatus.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olbrich in view of Spransy.
Regarding claim 21, Olbrich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 20. Olbrich does not explicitly teach a taper angle of about 60 degrees. However, Spransy teaches a ballistic head nut (82, Fig. 12A) with a tapered head (conical head 83) that serves the same function of deflecting projectiles (¶ 55) and has a taper angle that is illustrated to be about 60 degrees. See annotated Fig. 12A above. Spransy teaches that the configuration of the conical head (83) is “selected such that the ballistic head nut 82 can withstand a direct, flush hit on the point of the conical head 83,” and that “angles other than as depicted may work to withstand a direct, flush hit on the point of the conical head 83, depending on the type of projectile threat.” ¶ 55. Therefore, 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 invention of Olbrich by selecting a taper angle of about 60 degrees as suggested by Spransy, in order to optimize the functionality of the bolt head for deflecting projectiles depending on the type of projectile threat.
Regarding claim 24, Olbrich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 20. Olbrich does not teach that the mounting bolt is formed of a steel alloy that has been heat treated using localized selective depth induction hardening. However, Spransy further teaches that a heat-treated steel alloy (“4140 steel heat treated to full hard finish,” ¶ 55) is a desirable material for a fastener designed to withstand a direct hit from a projectile. Therefore, 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 invention of Olbrich by selecting a heat-treated steel alloy as taught by Spransy for the material of the mounting bolt, so that the mounting bolt can withstand a direct hit from a projectile. The examiner notes that “heat treated using localized selective depth induction hardening” is a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are 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. See MPEP § 2113. Spransy teaches a heat-treated steel alloy. Thus, the combination of Olbrich and Spransy teaches a finished product that is the same as that described by the applicant and therefore meets the limitations as claimed.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olbrich.
Regarding claim 22, Olbrich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 20. Olbrich teaches the bolt head body being cylindrical in shape (see Olbrich, Fig. 1; the bolt head body being cylindrical at the sidewall). Olbrich is silent with respect to the height and diameter of the bolt head body. However, the bolt head body inherently has a height and an outer diameter, and one of ordinary skill in the art, having an understanding of ordinary bolt dimensions, would reasonably expect that a bolt head body having a height within the broadly claimed range of 0.25 to 2.0 inches and an outer diameter in the broadly claimed range of 0.5 to 2.5 inches would be suitable for the purposes of Olbrich, with a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, there is no evidence in the present record that the recited ranges of dimensions are critical or would produce any unexpected result. For these reasons, the examiner concludes that 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 invention of Olbrich by selecting bolt head body dimensions including a height within the range of 0.25 to 2.0 inches and an outer diameter within the range of 0.5 to 2.5 inches, as an obvious matter of design choice within the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olbrich in view of Spransy and Atlas.
Regarding claim 23, Olbrich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 20. Olbrich is silent with respect to the material and hardness of the mounting bolt. However, Spransy teaches a bolt head nut (82) made to withstand a direct hit from a projectile, which is advantageously formed of “4140 steel heat treated to full hard finish” (¶ 55). Atlas 4140 teaches that heat-treated 4140 steel has a Rockwell hardness within the range of 48 to 60 HRC. See Atlas, pg. 3, Induction or Flame Hardening, “Atlas 4140 can be surface hardened to 58HRC (typical value)”; and Hardenability Diagram, showing typical max values ranging from 45 to 60 HRC. Therefore, 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 invention of Olbrich by making the mounting bolt of 4140 steel as taught by Spransy, having a hardness within the range of 48 to 60 HRC as taught by Atlas, so that the bolt is able to withstand a direct hit from a projectile.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olbrich in view of Wikipedia.
Regarding claim 25, Olbrich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 20. Olbrich further teaches the shank includes a blank section (d2) proximate to the threaded section (d1), and a shaped section (d3) proximate to the bolt head, wherein the hole in the adjoining component (armor plate b) has a cross sectional shape configured for receiving the shaped section (d3) of the shank. As noted above in the rejection of claim 25 under 35 USC 112(b), limitations describing the configuration of the hole “in the body of the metal target” are interpreted as describing a context of intended use that does not further limit the structure of the claimed assembly, since claims 20 and 25 do not positively claim the metal target as part of the assembly.
Olbrich does not teach that the shaped section (d3) has three or more sides. However, Wikipedia teaches that it is old and well known to provide a mounting bolt with a section having three or more sides proximate to the bolt head (i.e., a carriage bolt), corresponding to the shape of a hole in an component to be joined by the mounting bolt, which “makes the bolt self-locking when it is placed through a square hole” so that the bolt can “be installed with only one tool, a spanner or wrench, working from one side.” Wikipedia, pg. 1. Therefore, 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 invention of Olbrich by providing the shaped section with three or more sides, as taught by Wikipedia and well known in the art, in order to facilitate installation of the mounting bolt using only one tool working from one side.
Claim 26 (originally the second claim 25) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olbrich in view of D’Halloy.
Regarding claim 26, Olbrich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 20. Olbrich does not teach a centrally located counterbored surface in the rear surface of the bolt head body for receiving the washer. However, in the bolt art, D’Halloy teaches an assembly (Fig. 1) comprising a mounting bolt (4), a nut (6), and a washer (10), wherein the rear surface of the body of the bolt head (5) includes a centrally located counterbored surface (groove 9) for receiving the washer (10), and wherein the counterbored surface (9) has a depth less than a thickness of the washer (the height/thickness of the washer 10 being “equal, for example, to three times the depth of the groove 9 in which it is engaged,” pg. 2, lines 40-50). D’Halloy teaches that the counterbored surface in combination with the washer improves clamping action of the bolt and nut, particularly when the faces of the clamped components are not parallel or the holes are not perpendicular to the faces (e.g., due to imperfections in machining). See D’Halloy, pg. 1, lines 4-81. Therefore, 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 invention of Olbrich by including a centrally located counterbored surface in the rear face of the bolt head body and a washer with a thickness greater than the depth of the counterbored surface, as taught by D’Halloy, in order to improve the clamping action of the bolt and nut for a more secure connection.
Claim 27 (originally claim 26) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olbrich in view of Monson.
Regarding claim 27, Olbrich teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 20. Olbrich further teaches the bolt head body being cylindrical in shape (see Olbrich, Fig. 1; the bolt head body being cylindrical at the sidewall). Olbrich does not teach a tool access hole or recessed surface between the front and rear surfaces of the bolt head. However, in the bolt art, Monson teaches a mounting bolt (Fig. 5) with a cylindrical bolt head body having a tool access hole (transverse recess 312) located between front and rear surfaces of the bolt head body, the tool access hole (312) being shaped and sized to receive a portion of a tool used to restrain rotation of the mounting bolt while concurrently tightening a nut on a threaded section of the bolt (“As the nut is tightened, the tendency of the bolt 300 is to rotate in the direction that the nut is being rotated. By inserting a pin, Allen wrench, etc. into the transverse recess 312, a lever is formed which keeps the bolt 300 from rotating, and allows the nut to be tightened,” col. 8:55-59). Therefore, 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 invention of Olbrich by including a tool access hole as taught by Monson between the front and rear surfaces of the bolt head, in order to facilitate tightening of the nut on the bolt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foldager (US Patent Pub. 2009/0269552) discloses a mounting bolt comprising a conical head for deflecting and reducing the risk of penetration of projectiles at the mounting bolt (¶ 23).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. 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, Patricia L. Engle can be reached at (571)272-6660. 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.
/Laura Davison/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 As supporting evidence that the conical head of Olbrich would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to serve the purpose of deflecting projectiles to prevent penetration at the bolt, see DE 19960944 C2 to Neff, which describes DE 767,422 to Olbrich as teaching “a conical head” such that “[i]mpinging foreign bodies are deflected thereby, so that the effective direction of the introduced kinetic energy deviates from the longitudinal axis of the connecting bolt.” Neff, English translation, pg. 1, lines 35-38.