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 1-10, 12-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon US4601622 (hereinafter, Lyon) in view of Benjamin et al., US20140356099 (hereinafter, Benjamin).
Regarding claim 1, Lyon discloses a threaded fastener (12, see Fig), comprising:
an elongated shank portion (see elongated shank body of bolt 12 in drawing) having a first end (end towards tip end of the bolt 12) and a second end (end towards the head 16) opposed to the first end; and
a helical thread (shown in Fig.) arranged on an external surface of the shank portion (see Fig.);
wherein the helical thread includes an asymmetrical threaded portion (see Abstract and claim 1, stating thread pitch is different than uniform pitch) having a progressive asymmetrical thread profile (see Fig); and
wherein the progressive asymmetrical thread profile has a progressively increasing axial displacement of a pressure flank (see pressure flank 28 having a progressively increasing axial displacement shown in Fig.) of the helical thread between the first end and the second end of the shank portion, and a progressively decreasing axial displacement of a non-pressure flank (see non-pressure flank 26 progressively decreasing axial displacement between the first and the second end) of the helical thread between the first end and the second end of the shank portion.
To further clarify asymmetrical thread, the Examiner interprets the bolt thread or root is substantially a 30 degrees angle to the central axis of the bolt 12 (see column 1, lines 48-54), which makes the thread profile in the figure appear to be asymmetric to the central line of the bolt.
Lyon fails to expressly teach wherein the shank portion comprises a cylindrical-shaped portion having a constant diameter throughout the asymmetrical threaded portion; and wherein a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the helical thread is constant throughout the asymmetrical threaded portion.
Benjamin teaches a fastener (see Figs. 2-3) having a thread load distribution where the shank portion comprises a cylindrical shaped shank portion (see Figs. 2-3) having a constant diameter throughout the asymmetrical threaded portion (see Fig.2 and para. [0020] and [0022]); and wherein a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the thread is constant throughout the asymmetrical threaded portion (see Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the fastener of Lyon to have cylindrical and constant cross-sectional area as taught by Benjamin for constant load distribution and ease of manufacturing (see para. [0022]).
PNG
media_image1.png
732
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. of Lyon
Regarding claim 2, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the threaded fastener of claim 1, Lyon further comprising a head portion 16 arranged on the second end of the shank portion (see Fig.), wherein the head portion is engageable by a tool (see Column 1, lines 30-42).
Regarding claim 3, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the threaded fastener of claim 1, wherein Lyon further teaches the progressively increasing axial displacement of the pressure flank of the helical thread is determined for a plurality of successive helical elements employing a progressive relief relationship to achieve a uniform load distribution along the pressure flank of the helical thread between the first end and the second end of the shank portion.
The Examiner interprets that progressively increasing axial displacement of the pressure flank of the helical thread employs optimum distribution of stress in the bolt as well as prevailing torque relationship between the bolt and female element (see Column 1, lines 12-21).
Regarding claim 4, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the threaded fastener of claim 1, Lyon further teaches the asymmetric threaded portion being disposed between a first engaged helical thread portion (FIEHT, as indicated in annotated Fig. of Lyon) that is proximal to the first end of the shank portion and a final engaged helical thread portion (FEHT, as indicated in annotated Fig. of Lyon) that is proximal to the second end of the shank portion, and a progressively decreasing axial displacement of a non-pressure flank (see non-pressure flank 26 progressively decreasing axial displacement between the first and the second end) of the helical thread between the first engaged helical thread portion and the final engaged helical thread portion of the shank portion.
Regarding claim 5, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the threaded fastener of claim 4, wherein Lyon further teaches the progressively increasing axial displacement of the pressure flank (see pressure flank 28 having a progressively increasing axial displacement shown in Fig.) of the helical thread is determined for a plurality of successive helical elements employing a progressive relief relationship to achieve a uniform load distribution along the pressure flank of the helical thread between the first engaged helical thread portion and the final engaged helical thread portion.
The Examiner interprets that progressively increasing axial displacement of the pressure flank of the helical thread employs optimum distribution of stress in the bolt as well as prevailing torque relationship between the bolt and female element (see Column 1, lines 12-21).
Regarding claim 6, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the threaded fastener of claim 5, wherein the progressive relief relationship to achieve the uniform load distribution along the pressure flank of the helical thread comprises each successive arc length of the helical thread being determined based upon a progression relationship, wherein the progression relationship is defined as:
sfi = f(i,n,sf)
wherein:
i represents an i-th engaged helical thread portion;
n represents total quantity of the engaged threads;
sfi represents an axial displacement of the i-th engaged helical thread portion from a nominal symmetrical thread; and
sf represents a total axial displacement based upon an expected deflection of the helical thread between a first engaged helical thread portion and a final engaged helical thread portion in-use.
Regarding the function set forth in claim 6, the Examiner interprets it to be inherent to the assembly of Lyon because the function is undefined. Assembly of Lyon is capable of meeting the limitations of function while in-use.
Regarding claim 7, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the threaded fastener of claim 6, wherein Lyon further teaches the non-pressure flank 26 is determined to maintain a uniform longitudinal cross-sectional area (see Fig of Lyon where the non-pressure flank 26 is extended longitudinally between the first and the second end of the shank portion) of the helical thread portion between the first end and the second end of the shank portion.
Regarding claim 8, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the threaded fastener of claim 1, wherein Lyon further teaches a longitudinal cross-sectional area (LCA, as indicated in annotated Fig. of Lyon) of the helical thread is constant throughout the asymmetrical threaded portion (see Fig).
Regarding claim 9, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the threaded fastener of claim 1, wherein Lyon further teaches the asymmetrical threaded portion is composed of a plurality of successive helical elements arranged in series (The Examiner interprets the thread designed for optimum distribution of stress in Lyon to be arranged in series because of its helical form), and wherein the progressively increasing axial displacement of the pressure flank of the asymmetrical threaded portion between the first end and the second end of the shank portion (see Fig of Lyon and progressively increasing pitch gap in between threads) comprises the progressively increasing axial displacement being determined for the plurality of successive helical elements based upon an expected deflection of a respective one of the plurality of successive helical elements when in-use (see Fig).
Regarding claim 10, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the threaded fastener of claim 9, wherein Lyon further teaches the progressively increasing axial displacement is determined for each of the plurality of successive helical elements to achieve a load that is evenly distributed on the plurality of successive helical elements of the helical thread portion in-use.
The Examiner interprets helical thread of Lyon that is progressively increasing axial displacement is configured to evenly distribute a load on the plurality of successive helical element of the helical thread portion in-use (please refer to Lyon’s Abstract and Column 2, lines 45-56).
Regarding claim 12, Lyon teaches a fastener assembly (see Fig), comprising:
a first element 12 engageable to a second element 14 via a threaded junction (see Fig.);
the first element having a first helical thread (see Fig.); and
second element having a second helical thread (see Fig.) that engages the first helical thread of the first element;
wherein the first helical thread has an asymmetrical threaded portion including a progressively increasing axial displacement (see Fig) of a pressure flank (see pressure flank 28 having a progressively increasing axial displacement shown in Fig.) of the first helical thread between a first end and a second end of the first element (see Fig); and
wherein the asymmetrical threaded portion includes a progressive thread profile (see Fig) having a progressively decreasing axial displacement of a non-pressure flank (see non-pressure flank 26 progressively decreasing axial displacement between the first and the second end) of the first helical thread between the first end and the second end of the first element (see Fig).
Lyon fails to expressly teach wherein the first element comprises an externally threaded bolt having a cylindrical-shaped shank portion having a constant diameter throughout the asymmetrical threaded portion; and wherein a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the first helical thread is constant throughout the asymmetrical threaded portion.
Benjamin teaches a fastener (see Figs. 2-3) having a thread load distribution where the first element 30 comprises an externally threaded bolt (see Fig. 2) having a cylindrical-shaped shank portion having a constant diameter throughout the asymmetrical threaded portion (see Figs. 2-3); and wherein a longitudinal cross-sectional area of the thread is constant throughout the asymmetrical threaded portion (see Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the fastener of Lyon to have cylindrical shank and constant cross-sectional area as taught by Benjamin for constant load distribution and ease of manufacturing (see para. [0022]).
Regarding claim 13, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener assembly of claim 12, wherein Lyon further teaches a longitudinal cross-sectional area (LCA, as indicated in annotated Fig. of Lyon) of the first helical thread is constant throughout the asymmetrical threaded portion (see Fig.).
Regarding claim 14, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener assembly of claim 12, wherein Lyon further teaches the first element comprises an elongated cylindrical shaft (see threaded cylindrical shaft of bolt 12 in Fig. of Lyon), and the second element comprises a threaded nut (see column 1, lines 30-35) having internal threads configured to engage the first helical thread of the first element (see Fig).
Regarding claim 16, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener assembly of claim 12, wherein Lyon further teaches the asymmetrical threaded portion of the first helical thread is a continuous device that is composed of a plurality of successive helical elements arranged in series (As previously established in claim 1, the Examiner interprets the helical that designed for optimum distribution of stress in Lyon to be arranged in series), and wherein the progressive asymmetrical thread profile having the progressively increasing axial displacement of the asymmetrical threaded portion between the first end and the second end of the first element comprises the progressively increasing axial displacement being determined for a plurality of successive helical elements based upon an expected deflection of a respective one of the plurality of successive helical elements in-use (see Fig).
Regarding claim 17, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener assembly of claim 16, wherein the progressively increasing axial displacement is determined for each of the plurality of successive helical elements to achieve a load that is evenly distributed over the plurality of successive helical elements in-use.
The Examiner interprets helical threads of first and second elements of Lyon that is progressively increasing axial displacement is configured for the even distribution of the load on the plurality of successive helical element of the helical thread portion in-use (please refer to Lyon’s Abstract and Column 2, lines 45-56).
Regarding claim 18, Lyon in view of Benjamin teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener assembly of claim 12, wherein the asymmetrical threaded portion is composed of a plurality of successive helical elements arranged in series (The Examiner interprets the thread that designed for optimum distribution of stress in Lyon is arranged in series for its helical form), and wherein the progressively increasing axial displacement of the asymmetrical threaded portion between the first end and the second end of the first element comprises the progressively increasing axial displacement being determined for the plurality of successive helical elements employing a progressive relief relationship between a first engaged helical thread portion that is proximal to the first end and a final engaged helical thread portion that is proximal to the second end to achieve a uniform load distribution along the pressure flank of the helical thread portion between the first end and the second end of the first element (The Examiner interprets that Lyon meets the structural limitation of claim 18 set forth here and is capable of intended use as set forth in the claim).
Regarding claim 19, The fastener assembly of claim 18, wherein the progressive relief relationship to achieve the uniform load distribution along the threads comprises each successive arc length of the helical thread portion being determined based upon a linear progression relationship, wherein the linear progression relationship is defined as:
sfi = f(i,n,sf)
wherein:
i represents an i-th engaged helical thread portion;
n represents total quantity of the engaged threads;
sfi represents an axial displacement of the i-th engaged helical thread portion from a nominal symmetrical thread; and
sf represents a total axial displacement based upon an expected deflection in-use.
Regarding the function set forth in claim 19, the Examiner interprets it to be inherent to the assembly of Lyon because the function is considered undefined. Assembly of Lyon is capable of meeting the limitations of function while in-use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Please refer to the rejection based on newly found prior art and/or existing prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US4076064 (Holmes) discloses a locking thread construction having a locking thread design, which is reversed buttress type wherein the angles of the respective flanks are unequal such that the thread forms are asymmetric.
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