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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen US20090060680 (hereinafter, Chen) in view of Uchiyama et al., 20180073544 (hereinafter, Uchiyama), in further view of Lee et al., US7262969 (hereinafter, Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a screw locking unit structure (see Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a screw main body 22 including a head portion 226, a stem portion 224 extended from a lower side of the head portion, and a second screw locking section 222; the second screw locking section being externally provided with a second male thread (see Figs. 1-2);
an elastic element 26 being externally fitted around the stem portion of the screw main body and located between the head portion and the first screw locking section (see Fig. 2); and
a sleeve 24 being integrally formed on or previously connected to an assembling interface; the sleeve including an upper end 246 and internally defining an axial bore 242; the upper end being formed with an inner shoulder portion 244, and a length of the axial bore extended through the inner shoulder portion being formed with a female thread (see threaded shoulder in Fig. 2), and the inner shoulder portion providing axial limitation to prevent unintentional detachment of the screw main body and enable the screw main body to be engaged or disengaged with the sleeve through rotation (intended use); and
wherein when the screw main body is extended into the sleeve (see Fig. 2) and two opposite ends of the elastic element 26 elastically pressed against the lower side of the head portion 226 of the screw main body and an upper surface of the inner shoulder portion 244 to apply an elastic preload force for stabilizing the screw main body and preventing loosening, so that the screw main body can be temporarily retained before final tightening (see Figs. 1-2), thereby the screw main body can be held temporarily to the assembling interface before the latter is screw locked to a heat source.
Chen fails to teach wherein a length of the second male thread corresponds to a length of the elastic element in a fully compressed state.
However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the length of the second male thread corresponds to a length of the elastic element in a fully compressed state in order for the assembly to function as per user’s intended use, 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). Further, the disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the corresponding lengths of the second male threads and elastic element in a fully compressed state.
Chen fails to teach first screw locking section provided with a first male thread and the first male thread having a tightening direction different from that of the second male thread.
Uchiyama teaches a screw bolt (40, see Figs. 3A-3B) having a first male thread 44 and the first male thread having a tightening direction different (see Fig. 3A-3B) from that of a second male thread 42.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the screw bolt of Chen to have first screw locking portion as taught by Uchiyama a fastener system is capable of omitting washers to reduce the number of parts, and keeping the fitting of two members after being fastened together even when the washers are omitted.
Further, the first and the second male thread with different tightening directions provide a function of stopping screwing automatically to prevent the second screw locking section extended through the assembling interface from being excessively screwed into the heat source.
It is the Examiner’s position that the limitation above is a functional limitation, where Chen modified by Uchiyama meets structural limitations of the claim 1 and the combination is capable of performing such function.
Further, Chen in view of Uchiyama fails to teach wherein the elastic element is exposed outside the sleeve.
However, Lee teaches similar assembly of Heat Sink Clip Assembly (see Figs. 3-4) where an elastic element 44 is exposed outside the sleeve 46.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the elastic element as disclosed by Lee to be bigger and exposed outside the sleeve in order to exert resilient force on the heat sink so the heat sink is secured on the motherboard 50, 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).
Additionally, the disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of limitation where the elastic element is exposed outside the sleeve in page 6-7 of present specification. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the elastic element to expose outside the sleeve as an obvious change in shape
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Uchiyama, in further view of Lee teaches the screw locking unit structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein Chen further teaches the elastic element is a compression spring (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Chen in view of Uchiyama, in further view of Lee teaches the screw locking unit structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein Uchiyama further teaches that the first male thread 44 is one of a right-hand thread and a left-hand thread; while the second male thread 42 is another one of the right-hand and the left-hand thread (see paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Uchiyama, in further view of Lee teaches the screw locking unit structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein Uchiyama further teaches the first screw locking section 44 is diametrically larger than the second screw locking section 42.
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Uchiyama, in further view of Lee teaches the screw locking unit structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second screw locking section is located at a lower end of the screw main body (see Figs. 3A-3B of Uchiyama).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Uchiyama, in further view of Lee teaches the screw locking unit structure as claimed in claim 1, Chen further teaches the assembling interface is one of a heat dissipating support and a heat radiating element (see 2 and paragraph [0016]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered, however limitations in claims 1-6 above are still taught and/or made obvious in view of existing prior art (Chen in view of Uchiyama, in further view of Lee).
The applicant argues prior arts fails to teach newly amended claim limitations in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is the examiner’s position that prior art and combination established above teaches and/or make obvious of the newly amended claim limitations as set forth in claim 1 above. Examiner notes that the disclosure fails to show the criticality of the amended claim limitation in the specification. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth in claim 1 above.
The applicant argues Lee ‘969 does not disclose the first screw locking section of the claimed invention.
The examiner acknowledges the fact that Lee ‘969 alone does not disclose all the limitations of the claimed invention, therefore 103 rejections has been set forth based on teaching references. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above.
The applicant argues Lee ‘969 neither discloses nor teaches the use of first and second male threads having different thread structures on the same screw main body as in the present invention.
The examiner acknowledges the fact that Lee ‘969 alone fails to meet the structural limitations of two different threads on the same screw main body. However, Lee ‘969 in view of teaching references as established above teaches and make obvious such combination. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above.
The applicant argues Lee ‘969 neither discloses nor teaches the configuration of the invention in which the two ends of the elastic element are fully compressed.
The Examiner acknowledges such limitation are newly amened and the combination above is capable of such limitations. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights