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Claims 7 and 12 remain in the applications as withdrawn.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frieberg (US 4,793,752), Frieberg discloses an assembly comprising: a first part (20); a second part (22); a bolt (12) extending through an orifice in the parts and cooperating with a nut (16); a bearing member (24) comprising a flange (28) between the nut and a first bearing surface on the first part; the flange has a frustoconical shape (Fig. 4) such that only the outer periphery is in contact with the first bearing surface in an untightened state and wherein as the bolt is tightened a larger area would be capable of contacting the first bearing surface (column 3, paragraph beginning line 47); and the flange is shown with a thickness at an outer periphery which is smaller than a thickness at an inner periphery (32).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frieberg as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Purvin (US 5,080,546). Purvin does not disclose the uncompressed angle between the flange bearing surface and complementary bearing surface within the claimed range. Purvin discloses an assembly including a flange (14) with a frustoconical shape similar to Frieberg but, Purvin teaches an angle of 2° with the first bearing (column 2, lines 27-28) such that only the outer periphery is in contact with the first bearing surface in an untightened state (Fig. 3); wherein as the bolt is tightened a larger area would be capable of contacting the first bearing surface (column 2, paragraph beginning line 45). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the uncompressed angle between the flange bearing surface and complementary bearing surface of Frieberg 2° as taught in Purvin because Purvin teaches that as a suitable angle for the proper clamping load.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, and 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Remarks
As applicable to the current rejection, applicant argues that amended claim 1 defines over Frieberg (US 4,793,752).
Applicant argues that Frieberg discloses a standard locking washer that is non-analogous with the turbine engine of the instant invention. In response, the claim to which Frieberg was applied is not claiming any specific structures of a turbine engine which would preclude a standard locking washer. The turbine engine is only included in the preamble of claim without any further context in the body of the claim therefore presenting it only as an intended use for the washer. See MPEP 2111.02. And, a turbine engine has numerous bolted connections were there could be used the standard locking washer disclosed in Frieberg.
Additionally, applicant argues that Frieberg does not disclose the flange with a thickness at the outer periphery is smaller than in inner periphery because the flange in Frieberg is only the outer portion of constant thickness. In response, the examiner disagrees because there is nothing in the claims which would limit the claimed flange to only the flange portion (28) disclosed in Frieberg. There is nothing which precludes the drive hear (26) from being read as a part of claimed flange. 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). The claims simply require a thickness at an outer periphery to be less than a thickness at an inner without any limitation to the intervening structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
259
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The additional arguments are now moot in light of the indication of allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
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