DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 4/20/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the term “are disclosed” is stated in line 2, and the term “is disclosed” is stated in lines 7-8. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the last two sentences refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and/or compare the invention with the prior art. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10 has a period(.) in the middle of the claim. In line 12, the claim ends with “and” as well as does not have a period (.).
Claim 3, line 2, the term “the first head” lacks antecedent basis within the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 103
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.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CA’899(CA 2979899).
With respect to claim 1, CA’899 discloses a method where at least one fastener (Figs. 1, 2) includes a head 12, a shaft 14 having a threaded portion (lower Fig. 2), and a thread 24 extending from a proximal end of the threaded portion to at least a distal end 16 of the threaded portion, where a major diameter Dmj of the thread is constant between the proximal and distal ends of the threaded portion, and a minor diameter (DR, DB) of the shaft is variable between the proximal and distal ends of the threaded portion.
CA’899 may not explicitly teach the method for mounting a surface mount to an installation surface, comprising: positioning a surface mount against or above an installation surface; and applying a tightening force to at least one fastener extending within an aperture of the surface mount until the surface mount is mounted to the installation surface as explicitly claimed. However, the invention of CA’899 relates generally to screw fasteners, and more particularly to improved screw fasteners particularly useful for composite lumber or other fibrous workpieces (pg. 1). Use of such fasteners for lumber would inherently include positioning a mounting surface against an installation surface and applying a tightening force in order to fasten the articles together.
With respect to claim 2, CA’899 teaches wherein a thread pitch of the thread is variable between the proximal and distal ends of the threaded portion (pg. 10, lines 4-22).
With respect to claim 3, CA’899 teaches wherein the at least one fastener includes a shank portion 20 between the first head and the proximal end of the threaded portion.
With respect to claim 4, CA’899 teaches wherein the thread engages a wooden structure (pg. 1, lines 7-22).
With respect to claim 5, the teachings of CA’899 would make obvious wherein the surface mount is positioned above the installation surface when a tip of at least one fastener extending within an aperture extends beyond a bottom surface of the surface mount prior to the application of the tightening force (pg. 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA’899 in view of JP’362 (JP 2013181362).
CA’899 teaches the method as stated above, however fails to explicitly teach wherein the surface mount is employed in a solar panel system. JP’362 teaches a fastener of a solar panel system (Fig. 25). It would be considered an obvious expedient to use the fasteners of CA’899 in an environment as desired, especially if the materials of the surface mount/installation surface are made of composite materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0034351 teaches systems, devices and methods used in construction to secure one component, such as a header, to another component, such as a joist, while controlling spacing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKIYA W BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-7039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 5712724137. 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.
/ZAKIYA W BATES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 6/5/2026
Prosecution Insights