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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13 and 20 remain in the application as withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: In each of claims 1 and 14 the first occurrence of “second region” lacks antecedent bases and the next occurrence is a double inclusion. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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; 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 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.
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 and 6-12 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schuster (US 2,955,505) teaches another example the of a fastener collar with a tapered second end smaller than an elongate portion.
Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejections. 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 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