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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 9-10 have been amended. Claims 13-20 have been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings overcome a majority of objections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed January 30, 2026. Unaddressed objections are maintained and are as set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 218, 220, 228, 230, 232, 234, 240, 320, and 340. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, line 12, “a predetermined torque” should read “the predetermined torque”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onishi et al. (US20030198528A1), hereinafter "Onishi".
Regarding claim 1, Onishi teaches a torque-limiting fastener (see Fig 15) comprising:
a head (Fig 15, portion 4) extending (see Fig 15) from a first end (see Fig 15, Examiner notes an end of portion 4 distal portion 7 as from a first end) to a second end (see Fig 15, Examiner notes an end of portion 4 adjacent portion 7 as a second end) and including a first lumen (Fig 15, hole 41) extending longitudinally (see Fig 15) therethrough;
a shaft (Fig 15, body 3) extending (see Fig 15) from the second end (see Fig 15) of the head (4) to a free end (see Fig 15, Examiner notes an end of body 3 adjacent portion 32 as a free end) and including a second lumen (Fig 15, hole 30) in operative communication (see Fig 15) with the first lumen (41), the second lumen (30) extending longitudinally (see Fig 15) through the shaft (3); and
a plurality of perforations (Fig 15, portions 5b) disposed (see Figs 14-15) at intervals (see Figs 14-15), each perforation (5b) of the plurality of perforations (5b) being in (see Fig 15) the head (4) and in (see Fig 15) the shaft (3), the plurality of perforations (5b) being proximate (see Fig 15) a transition region (Fig 15, portion 5) in between (see Fig 15) the head (4) and the shaft (3),
wherein the transition region (5) forms a frangible connection (Paragraph 0011) between (see Fig 15) the head (4) and the shaft (3).
Regarding claim 2, Onishi teaches the torque-limiting fastener (see Fig 15) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the second lumen (30) is threaded (see Fig 15, Examiner notes threads of female screw hole 30 as is threaded) and has a smaller diameter (see Fig 15) than the first lumen (41).
Regarding claim 3, Onishi teaches the torque-limiting fastener (see Fig 15) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the head (4) further comprises a hexagonal outer surface (see Figs 14-15).
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.
Claim(s) 4-8, 10-12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi.
Regarding claim 4, Onishi teaches the torque-limiting fastener (see Fig 15) of claim 1 and further teaches each perforation (5b) of the plurality of perforations (5b) being disposed (see Fig 15) at approximately equal (see Figs 14-15) intervals (see Figs 14-15) around (see Figs 14-15, Examiner notes portions 5b near portion 4 and body 3 as around) a periphery (see Fig 15) of the head (4) and the shaft (3).
Onishi fails to teach wherein the plurality of perforations includes at least twelve perforations (Paragraph 0062, Onishi indicates the number of fragile portions 5b of the torque restraining portion 5 is not limited to two or four).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of perforations to include at least twelve perforations, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate use of the fastener based on application and use requirements, i.e. accommodating a magnitude of torque intended to be specified (Onishi, Paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 5, Onishi teaches the torque-limiting fastener (see Fig 15) of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein each perforation of the plurality of perforations extends into an elongate recess along a length of the head such that the plurality of perforations includes a plurality of elongate recesses, the plurality of elongate recesses defining respective valleys and peaks around a periphery of the first lumen.
However, in an alternative embodiment in Figs 18-19 of Onishi, Onishi teaches it is known to provide wherein each perforation (Fig 19, portions 5b) of the plurality (see Fig 19) of perforations (5b) extends (see Fig 19) into an elongate recess (see Fig 19, Examiner notes elongated recesses between projections 411 as an elongate recess) along a length (see Fig 19) of the head (Fig 19, portion 4) such that the plurality of perforations (5b) includes a plurality of elongate recesses (see Fig 19), the plurality of elongate recesses (see Fig 19) defining respective valleys (see Figs 18-19) and peaks (see Figs 18-19) around a periphery (see Figs 18-19) of the first lumen (Fig 19, hole 41).
Therefore, as evidenced by the alternative embodiment in Figs 18-19 of Onishi, 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 each perforation of the plurality of perforations extends into an elongate recess along a length of the head such that the plurality of perforations includes a plurality of elongate recesses, the plurality of elongate recesses defining respective valleys and peaks around a periphery of the first lumen as taught by the alternative embodiment in Figs 18-19 of Onishi to Onishi. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a desired shape based on application and use requirements, i.e. sizing portions 5a and 5b to accommodate a magnitude of torque intended to be specified (Onishi, Paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 6, Onishi teaches the torque-limiting fastener (see Fig 15) of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein each perforation of the plurality of perforations includes a channel formed longitudinally through at least a portion of the head, the shaft, and the transition region.
However, in an alternative embodiment in Figs 18-19 of Onishi, Onishi teaches it is known to provide wherein each perforation (Fig 19, portions 5b) of the plurality (see Fig 19) of perforations (5b) includes a channel (see Fig 19, Examiner notes channels between projections 411 as includes a channel) formed longitudinally (see Fig 19) through at least a portion (see Fig 19) of the head (4), the shaft (3), and the transition region (5).
Therefore, as evidenced by the alternative embodiment in Figs 18-19 of Onishi, 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 each perforation of the plurality of perforations includes a channel formed longitudinally through at least a portion of the head, the shaft, and the transition region as taught by the alternative embodiment in Figs 18-19 of Onishi to Onishi. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a desired shape based on application and use requirements, i.e. sizing portions 5a and 5b to accommodate a magnitude of torque intended to be specified (Onishi, Paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 7, modified Onishi teaches the torque-limiting fastener (see Fig 15) of claim 6 and further teaches wherein the channel (see Fig 19) is formed longitudinally (see Fig 19) through an entire length (see Fig 19) of the head (4) from the first end (see Fig 15) to the second end (see Fig 15).
Regarding claim 8, modified Onishi teaches the torque-limiting fastener (see Fig 15) of claim 6 and further teaches wherein each perforation (5b) of the plurality of perforations (5b) is defined in part (see Figs 14-15) by a recess (see Figs 14-15) in an outer surface (see Fig 15, Examiner notes a surface of a front end of the necked portion 7 as an outer surface) of the shaft (3).
Regarding claim 10, Onishi teaches a fastener (see Fig 15) comprising:
a head (Fig 15, portion 4) with a first diameter (see Fig 15);
a shaft (Fig 15, body 3) extending (see Fig 15) from the head (4), the shaft (3) having a second diameter (see Fig 15, Examiner notes a tapering diameter adjacent portion 7 as having a second diameter) less (see Fig 15) than the first diameter (see Fig 15); and
a plurality of apertures (Fig 19, portions 5b), each aperture (5b) of the plurality of apertures (5b) extending (see Fig 15) from an outer surface (see Figs 14-15) of the fastener (see Fig 15) to a lumen (see Fig 15, Examiner notes hole 41 and hole 30 as a lumen) of the fastener (see Fig 15), the lumen (see Fig 15) extending (see Fig 15) through a longitudinal dimension (see Fig 15) of the fastener (see Fig 15),
wherein each aperture (5b) of the plurality of apertures (5b) includes a first surface (see Fig 15, Examiner notes a surface of portions 5b in portion 4 as includes a first surface) within an internal portion (see Fig 15, Examiner notes a portion of portions 5b within portion 4 as within an internal portion) of the head (4) extending (see Fig 15) from an external surface (see Fig 15, Examiner notes an external surface of portion 4 as from an external portion) of the head (4) and a second surface (see Fig 15, Examiner notes a surface of portions 5b within body 3 as a second surface) within (see Fig 15) the shaft (3), and
wherein when a predetermined torque (Paragraph 0011) is applied (Paragraph 0011) to the head (4) relative to the shaft (3), the head (4) is separable (Paragraph 0011) from the shaft (3) at a predetermined torque (Paragraph 0011).
Onishi fails to teach the head is separable from the shaft at a predetermined torque in a range from approximately 30 in-lbs to approximately 50 in-lbs.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the predetermined torque as disclosed by Onishi to be in a range from approximately of 30 in-lbs to approximately 50 in-lbs, 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 use of the fastener based on application and use requirements, i.e. accommodating a magnitude of torque intended to be specified (Onishi, Paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 11, modified Onishi teaches the fastener (see Fig 15) of claim 10 and further teaches wherein each aperture (5b) of the plurality of apertures (5b) has a first maximum cross-sectional dimension (see Figs 14-15).
Regarding claim 12, modified Onishi teaches the fastener (see Fig 15) of claim 10 and further teaches wherein each aperture (5b) of the plurality of apertures (5b) is equally spaced (see Figs 14-15) around (see Figs 14-15) a perimeter (see Figs 14-15) of the lumen (see Fig 15).
Regarding claim 21, Onishi teaches a torque-limiting fastener (see Fig 15) comprising:
a head (Fig 15, portion 4) extending (see Fig 15) from a first end (see Fig 15, Examiner notes an end of portion 4 distal portion 7 as from a first end) to a second end (see Fig 15, Examiner notes an end of portion 4 adjacent portion 7 as a second end) and including a first lumen (Fig 15, hole 41) extending longitudinally (see Fig 15) therethrough;
a shaft (Fig 15, body 3) extending (see Fig 15) from the second end (see Fig 15) of the head (4) to a free end (see Fig 15, Examiner notes an end of body 3 adjacent portion 32 as a free end) and including a second lumen (Fig 15, hole 30) in operative communication (see Fig 15) with the first lumen (41), the second lumen (30) extending longitudinally (see Fig 15) through the shaft (3); and
a plurality of perforations (Fig 15, portions 5b) disposed (see Figs 14-15) at intervals (see Figs 14-15) proximate (see Fig 15) a transition region (Fig 15, portion 5) in between (see Fig 15) the head (4) and the shaft (3), each perforation (5b) of the plurality of perforations (5b) being in (see Fig 15) the head (4) and in (see Fig 15) the shaft (3),
wherein the plurality of perforations (5b) are distributed (see Figs 14-15) along a circumferential periphery (see Figs 14-15) of the head (4) and the shaft (3), and
wherein the transition region (5) forms a frangible connection (Paragraph 0011) between (see Fig 15) the head (4) and the shaft (3).
Onishi fails to teach each quarter of the circumferential periphery includes at least three perforations from among the plurality of perforations (Paragraph 0062, Onishi indicates the number of fragile portions 5b of the torque restraining portion 5 is not limited to two or four).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of perforations such that each quarter of the circumferential periphery includes at least three perforations from among the plurality of perforations, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate use of the fastener based on application and use requirements, i.e. accommodating a magnitude of torque intended to be specified (Onishi, Paragraph 0060).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi, in view of Hand et al. (US20090211005A1), hereinafter "Hand".
Regarding claim 9, Onishi teaches the torque-limiting fastener (see Fig 15) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the material (see Fig 15, Examiner notes a material of the nut as the material) of the fastener (see Fig 15) is configured to reduce (capable of reducing, i.e. this is a functional recitation) an accumulation of contaminates but fails to teach wherein a material of the fastener is made of at least one of nylon, polysulfone, polytherimide, polypropylene, polytetraflurocthylene, or polyetheretherketone.
However, Hand teaches it is known to provide wherein the fastener (Fig 2, nut 135) is made of at least one of nylon (Paragraph 0038), polysulfone, polytherimide, polypropylene, polytetraflurocthylene, or polyetheretherketone.
Therefore, as evidenced by Hand, 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 a material of the fastener is made of at least one of nylon, polysulfone, polytherimide, polypropylene, polytetraflurocthylene, or polyetheretherketone as taught by Hand to Onishi. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a material based on application and use requirements, e.g. resist galling under frictional loads (Hand, Paragraph 0038).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 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
Prosecution Insights