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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9-10, 16, and 19-20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome a majority of objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 23, 2025, hereinafter “Non-Final Office Action”. However, additional objections and 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action, in view of Applicant’s Remarks filed January 23, 2026, are maintained and responses are addressed as set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of "a first vertical groove" in combination with "a first cutting surface" as set forth in claim 6 and "a second vertical groove" in combination with "a first vertical groove" and "a first cutting surface" as set forth in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Examiner notes the amended Specification filed January 23, 2026 does not appear to be provided with any markings to show all the changes relative to the previous versions of respective paragraphs. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner understands Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, however, the Examiner respectfully requests Applicant to provide a marked up copy of the amended Specification in future responses. See MPEP 714.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 0044, “bold” should read “bolt”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 3, “a shape and size” should read “the shape and size”
In claim 3, line 4, “the shape and size” should read “a shape and size”
In claim 3, line 4, “cross- sectional area” should read “cross-sectional area”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application {claim 19, a means for meshing together a first surface of the first nut with a first surface of the first washer} that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: The means in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, lines 1-2, a claim limitation of “wherein a second surface of the second washer is configured to contact a first surface of the second bolt” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, claim 15 will be read as “wherein a second surface of the second washer is configured to contact a first surface of the second nut”.
Regarding claim 17, lines 2-3, a claim limitation of “the first surface of the second washer to mesh with the first surface of the second bolt” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, claim 17 will be read as “the first surface of the second washer to mesh with the first surface of the second nut”.
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 20 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. Specifically, claim 19, lines 5-6, in which claim 20 depends from recites “a mean for meshing together a first surface of the first nut with a first surface of a first washer”, however, claim 20, lines 1-4, also recites “the means includes a first surface of the first nut including one or more wedge-shaped helical teeth, a first surface of the first washer including one or more wedge-shaped helical teeth, and a first cutting surface located on the screw tail of the bolt”; thus, claim 20 appears as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. 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 § 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lyu (CN112855728A), hereinafter "Lyu".
Regarding claim 1, Lyu teaches an anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0001, Lyu indicates an anti-loosening bolt), comprising:
a bolt (Fig 1, slotted bolt body 1) including a head (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a head of slotted bolt body 1 as including a head) and a screw tail (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a screw tail of slotted bolt body 1 as a screw tail);
a first washer (Fig 1, washer 3) configured to fit (see Fig 1) around the screw tail (see Fig 1) of the bolt (1), wherein a first surface (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes a surface of washer 3 having a radially uniformly distributed spiral surface as a first surface) of the first washer (3) includes one or more wedge-shaped helical teeth (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes a radially uniformly distributed spiral surface as includes one or more wedge-shaped helical teeth);
a first nut (Fig 1, nut 2) configured to screw (see Fig 1) onto the screw tail (see Fig 1) of the bolt (1), wherein a first surface (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes a surface of nut 2 having a radially uniformly distributed helical surface as a first surface) of the first nut (2) includes one or more wedge-shaped helical teeth (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes a radially uniformly distributed helical surface as includes one or more wedge-shaped helical teeth);
a second nut (Fig 1, nut 4) configured to screw (see Fig 1) onto the screw tail (see Fig 1) of the bolt (1);
a first cutting surface (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes an inner surface of a spiral groove of slotted bolt body 1 as a first cutting surface) located on the screw tail (see Fig 1) of the bolt (1), wherein the bolt (1), the first washer (3), the first nut (2), the second nut (4), and the first cutting surface (see Fig 1) are capable of affixing (see Fig 1) a component (Fig 1, pieces 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 2, Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 1 and further teaches comprising:
a second cutting surface (see Figs 1 and 3, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes the inner ring surface of the anti-loosening washer (3) is provided with a stopper, the cross section of the anti-loosening washer (3) is the same as the cross section of the spiral groove of the grooved bolt (1) and the stopper of the anti-loosening washer (3) matches the spiral groove of the grooved bolt (1) as a second cutting surface) located on the screw tail (see Fig 1) of the bolt (1).
Regarding claim 3, Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first washer (3) has a hole (see Fig 3), and wherein the hole (see Fig 3) in the first washer (3) has a shape and size (see Fig 3), and wherein a shape and size (see Fig 3) of the hole (see Fig 3) of the first washer (3) is approximately equal (see Figs 1-3, Paragraph 0019) to the shape and size (see Figs 1-2) of a cross- sectional area (see Figs 1-2) of the screw tail (see Fig 1) of the bolt (1).
Regarding claim 4, Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first surface (see Fig 1) of the first nut (2) is configured to contact (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0019) the first surface (see Fig 1) of the first washer (3).
Regarding claim 5, Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 4 and further teaches wherein the first surface (see Fig 1) of the first nut (2) is configured to mesh together (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0019) with the first surface (see Fig 1) of the first washer (3).
Regarding claim 6, Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 1 and further teaches comprising: a first vertical groove (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes the spiral groove of slotted bolt body 1 extending along a longitudinal axis of slotted bolt body 1 as a first vertical groove; Examiner further notes recitation of direction without a frame of reference is relative terminology and can be given little to no patentable weight) located on the screw tail (see Fig 1) of the bolt (1).
Regarding claim 7, Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 6 and further teaches wherein the first washer (3) includes a first buckle (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes a buckle of a stopper as includes a first buckle) that is configured to fit (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0019) into the first vertical groove (see Fig 1) when the bolt (1) is inserted (see Fig 1) into the first washer (3).
Regarding claim 8, Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 6 and further teaches comprising: a second vertical groove (see Figs 1 and 3, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes the spiral groove of slotted bolt body 1 extending along the longitudinal axis of slotted bolt body 1 and the stopper of the anti-loosening washer (3) matches the spiral groove of the grooved bolt (1) as a second vertical groove; Examiner further notes recitation of direction without a frame of reference is relative terminology and can be given little to no patentable weight) located on the screw tail (see Fig 1) of the bolt (1).
Regarding claim 9, Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 6 and further teaches wherein the first washer (3) includes a second buckle (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes a buckle of a stopper as includes a second buckle) that is configured to fit (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0019) into a second vertical groove (see Figs 1 and 3, Paragraph 0019, Examiner notes the spiral groove of slotted bolt body 1 extending along the longitudinal axis of slotted bolt body 1 and the stopper of the anti-loosening washer (3) matches the spiral groove of the grooved bolt (1) as a second vertical groove; Examiner further notes recitation of direction without a frame of reference is relative terminology and can be given little to no patentable weight) when the bolt (1) is inserted (see Fig 1) into the first washer (3).
Regarding claim 10, Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the one or more wedge-shaped helical teeth (see Fig 1) of the first nut (2) are uniformly distributed (see Figs 1 and 6, Paragraph 0019) on the first surface (see Fig 1) of the first nut (2) and radiate outwards (see Fig 6) from a center (see Fig 6) of the first nut (2).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hess (US20120063864A1), hereinafter "Hess".
Regarding claim 19, Hess teaches an anti-loosening fastener (Fig 1, fastening device 10), comprising:
a bolt (Fig 1, threaded fastener 12) including a screw tail (Fig 1, body portion 14);
a first nut (Fig 1, locking nut 50);
a first washer (Fig 1, lock washer 30); and
a means (Figs 3-4, teeth pairs 56a/56b, teeth 38, and flat section 14a) for meshing together (see Fig 1) a first surface (Fig 3, upper surface portion 52a) of the first nut (50) with a first surface (Fig 3, lower surface 32b) of the first washer (30).
Regarding claim 20, Hess teaches the anti-loosening fastener (10) of Claim 19 and further teaches wherein the means (56a/56b, 38, 14a) includes the first surface (52a) of the first nut (50) including one or more wedge-shaped helical teeth (56a/56b), a first surface (32b) of the first washer (30) including one or more wedge-shaped helical teeth (38), and a first cutting surface (14a) located on the screw tail (14) of the bolt (12).
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) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyu, in view of Chen (CN209875676U), hereinafter "Chen".
Regarding claim 11, Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 1 but fails to teach further comprising:
a second washer, wherein the second washer is elastic and configured to fit around the screw tail of the bolt.
However, Chen teaches it is known in the art to provide a second washer (Fig 1, spring washer 4), wherein the second washer (4) is elastic (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0054, Examiner notes opening the spring washer 4 as is elastic) and configured to fit (see Fig 1) around the screw tail (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a screw tail of anti-loosening bolt 1 as a screw tail) of the bolt (Fig 1, anti-loosening bolt 1).
Therefore, as evidenced by Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped second washer, wherein the second washer is elastic and configured to fit around the screw tail of the bolt as taught by Chen to Lyu. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to increase friction and resistance to loosening of the anti-loosening bolt.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 11 and further teaches wherein a first surface (Chen, see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of spring washer 4 adjacent ring 3 as a first surface) of the second washer (Chen, 4) is configured to contact (Chen, see Fig 1) a second surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of washer 3 adjacent nut 4 as a second surface) of the first washer (3).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 11 and further teaches wherein the second washer (Chen, 4) is a circular ring gasket (Chen, see Figs 1 and 11).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 13 and further teaches wherein the second washer (Chen, 4) includes a notch (Chen, see Fig 1), and wherein a first surface (Chen, see Fig 1) of the notch (Chen, see Fig 1) and a second surface (Chen, see Fig 1) of the notch (Chen, see Fig 1) are misaligned (Chen, see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, modified Lyu teaches the anti-loosening fastener (see Fig 1) of Claim 13 and further teaches wherein a second surface (Chen, see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of spring washer 4 distal ring 3 as a second surface) of the second washer (Chen, 4) is configured to contact (see Fig 1; Chen, see Fig 1) a first surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of nut 4 adjacent washer 3 as a first surface) of the second bolt (4).
Regarding claims 16-18, Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Concerning claims 16-18, given the structure of an anti-loosening fastener, the structural elements of the combination of Lyu and Chen (as rejected in claims 1 and 11-15 above) would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Response to Arguments
With respect to “I. DRAWINGS” on Pg 9 of Applicant’s Remarks filed January 23, 2026, Applicant argues no drawing amendment is necessary because the existing drawings already depict the claimed features. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action and as set forth above, the features of "a first vertical groove" in combination with "a first cutting surface" as set forth in claim 6 and "a second vertical groove" in combination with "a first vertical groove" and "a first cutting surface" as set forth in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
With respect to “II. SPECIFICATION INFORMALITIES” on Pg 10 of Applicant’s Remarks filed January 23, 2026, Applicant indicates that Applicant has submitted the informal corrections with this amendment. The Examiner agrees with Applicant regarding Paragraphs 0022, 0035, 0040, and 0043, however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees regarding Paragraph 0044. Further, as set forth above, the Examiner notes the amended Specification filed January 23, 2026 does not appear to be provided with any markings to show all the changes relative to the previous versions of respective paragraphs and respectfully requests Applicant to provide a marked up copy of the amended Specification in future responses. See MPEP 714.
With respect to “IV. 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) – CLAIMS 15 and 17” on Pg 10 of Applicant’s Remarks filed January 23, 2026, Applicant indicates claims 15 and 17 have been amended. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as set forth above.
With respect to “V. 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) – CLAIM 20” on Pg 10 of Applicant’s Remarks filed January 23, 2026, Applicant argues claim 20 is a proper dependent claim and the § 112(d) rejection should be withdrawn. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action and as set forth above, claim 19 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), i.e. Paragraph 0006 of Applicant’s originally filed Specification. Accordingly, claim 20 appears as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to independent claim 1 on Pgs 10-11 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues Lyu’s disclosure of a grooved bolt and components lacks the claimed structural interrelationships and cutting surface configuration as recited in claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., interrelationships) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, with respect to independent claim 19 on Pg 11 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues Hess does not disclose the claimed combination with the same structural arrangement and function as recited. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action and as set forth above, Hess teaches a means (Figs 3-4, teeth pairs 56a/56b, teeth 38, and flat section 14a) for meshing together (see Fig 1) a first surface (Fig 3, upper surface portion 52a) of the first nut (50) with a first surface (Fig 3, lower surface 32b) of the first washer (30).
With respect to method claims 16-18 on Pg 12 of Applicant’ Remarks, Applicant argues because the claimed apparatus is not taught or suggested by the cited references, the corresponding method steps are not rendered obvious. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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