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 § 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 14-19 and 21 are 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. In the amendment to claim 14, the limitation of “a maximum wall thickness of the first region is less than a thickness of the elongate portion” is unclear because the first region is claimed as being a part of the elongate portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 14-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haines (US 9,194,412). Haines discloses a fastening collar (14) comprising: a first collar end (34); a second collar end (32); an elongate portion between the ends with a first region at the first end, a second region at the second end and an inner surface (40) between the ends; the second end region includes a flange (36); the first region includes a taper (50b) of 15° relative to the axis (column 3, lines 17-19) which is within the claimed range which decreases from a maximum wall thickness; the distance of the first and second regions are within the claimed range (Fig. 5); the collar is made of metal (column 1, lines 56-60); a pin (10) is disclosed with a groove in the form of a threaded defining a threaded region (12); the fastener would be capable of installation in a transportation and/or building component; the pin diameter is disclosed can be within the claimed range (column 4, paragraph beginning line 4); wherein the tapered first region consists of a reduced diameter relative to a diameter (D1) of the elongated portion between the regions. The inner collar surface is substantially smooth, lacking threads. And, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 3 Haines teaches an inner diameter (D2) can remain constant over the first portion.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haines (US 9,194,412) in view of Nordyke (US 4,921,384). Haines discloses a fastening collar as described above but does not disclose the collar end extends away from the longitudinal axis at a non-perpendicular angle. Nordyke discloses a fastening collar similar to Haines including a second collar end but in the embodiment shown in Fig. 6 discloses the second collar end extends away from a longitudinal axis at a first angle relative to an angle perpendicular to the axis; the perpendicular angle can be equated to the surface of the substrate 42c where it is clearly shown to be at least 1 degree, at least 5 degrees and less than 30 degrees. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the flange disclosed in Haines with the second collar end extending away from the longitudinal axis at a non-perpendicular angle as disclosed in Nordyke because Nordyke teaches it as an alternative a flange (Fig. 1) in the same field of endeavor.
In regards to claim 2-4, the examiner maintains that the first angle is shown to be within the claimed ranges. But to possibly expedite the prosecution, the claimed ranges would alternatively have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Nordyke disclose the angle is not critical and can be varied for different applications. As described in Nordyke the distance X which determines the first angle needs only to be greater than ½Y so it can be made to something within the claimed ranges depending on the desired high pre-assemble initial clamp force of a particular application (column 10, line 30 through column 12, line 26).
Response to Remarks
Applicant argues that claim 14 as amended defines over Haines because Haines does not disclose a wall thickness in the first region which tapers towards the first end with a maximum wall thickness less than a wall thickness of the elongate portion. In response, the examiner disagrees for two reasons: first as noted above the limitation is unclear because the first portion is defined as a portion of the elongate portion so how can it have a maximum wall thickness less than itself; and second, Haines shows the first portion tapering towards the first end.
PNG
media_image1.png
562
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that office action does not meet the prima facie case of obviousness to combine Haines and Nordyke because the office action does not adequately articulate the rational for the combination. Applicant argues that the teaching in Nordyke of both a flange which is perpendicular and one which is offest is insufficient rational for the combination. In response, the examiner disagrees because Nordyke and Haines are from the same field of endeavor as noted in the rejection “Nordyke discloses a fastening collar similar to Haines” where applying rational B under KSR then requires a simple substitution of one element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 B). And Nordyke teaches that simple substitution. Nordyke discloses both the collar with a flange perpendicular to the axis (Fig. 3), as in Haines, and also teaches an alternative flange which is offset relative to the perpendicular (Fig. 6). Nordyke describes the collars are the same except for the flange and additional threads (column 10, paragraph beginning line 34). However, the threads are sheared off so it is only the collars which are different for yielding the same results of providing the high strength clamp to the workpieces. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the flanges as alternatives for the yielding the same results in the same field of endeavor meeting the requirements of the rational.
Applicant argues that in Haines the bead is critical so it would not be obvious to remove the bead for a constant inner diameter at the first portion. In response, the examiner agrees. However, the claims do not preclude the inclusion of the bead, only that the inner diameter remains constant along the first distance. In Haines the bead has the constant inner diameter along the first distance. There is no requirement that the entire inner diameter is constant. Here it should be noted that Smith (US 10,260,547) teaches a collar with a constant inner diameter along its entire length.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FLEMMING SAETHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7071. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 7:00 eastern.
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.
/FLEMMING SAETHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights