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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 28 March 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 black coating including a “hard chrome layer between the nickel strike layer and the black PVD” as set forth in claim 9; 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.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 is blurry and indistinct, making it difficult to discern the boundaries of each layer.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "12" and "22" have both been used to designate the same element in 1.
It should be noted that the leader line of a reference character denoting an overall element (such as reference character “12”) should include an arrowhead at the end thereof.
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. 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal terms (See below). 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 “comprising”, “comprises”, “means”, and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0025], the US Application numbers should be replaced by US Publication or Patent numbers, given the fact that a US Application is not a published document readily available to the general public.
In paragraph [0026], reference character “16” should be replaced with reference character - -12- - to correspond the drawings and remainder of the specification.
The term “decoupled” should be replaced with the term - -separate- - or - -distinct- - throughout the specification, to more accurately describe the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “decoupled” should be replaced with the term - -separate- - or - -distinct- - throughout these claims, to more accurately describe the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-12 and 20 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.
Claims 10 and 11 are indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a base material” is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “base material” set forth in line 1 of each claim is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “a crimp area” is a double recitation. This limitation has been previously set forth in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “crimp area” set forth in lines 1-2 of claim 12 is the same element of the invention as previously set forth in the claims, or is an additional element of the invention.
Claim 20 is indefinite due to the fact that line 4 thereof lacks punctuation, making it unclear whether or not the claim is complete.
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) 1-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (6,866,457) in view of Goodrich et al (7,150,923).
Per claims 1 and 19, Figure 16 of Wilson shows a wheel fastener 510 having a body 521 with a threaded portion 527, a wrenching surface 553, and a load-bearing surface 525 that cooperates with a fastener seat. A distinct cap 514 is coupled with the body 521 to define a decorative surface. The cap 514 is secured to the body 521 at a crimp area 534 to thereby cover the wrenching surface 524 without covering the load-bearing surface 525 and threaded portion 527.
Per claim 10, the base material of the cap 514 may be stainless steel.
Per claim 12, the cap 514 has a crimp 556 at the crimp area 534 of the fastener body 521.
Per claim 13, the fastener body 521 includes a flange 533 extending radially outwardly from the wrenching surface 524 with the crimp area 534 adjacent thereto.
Regarding claims 1-20, Wilson does not disclose that the cap 514 includes a black coating covering a base material thereof, nor the details of the black coating. Goodrich et al teaches the use of a coating that may be black (column 7, line 55). This black coating has a nickel strike layer 13 and black chrome passivation layer 14 to define the decorative black surface (per claim 2). A sealant layer 15 covers the black passivation layer 14 (per claim 4). The black passivation layer 14 has a thickness less than 3 microns (per claim 5), and is in the range of 0.1 to 2.1 microns (per claim 6) [see column 7, lines 24-27]. The nickel strike layer 13 has a thickness of less than 11 microns (per claim 7). The black coating may include a black physical vapor deposition (per claim 8) [see column 6, lines 28-29]. The substrate (in this instance a cap body) may be formed of carbon steel (per claim 11). Therefore, from this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form a decorative black appearance surface as taught by Goodrich et al on the cap of the fastener of Wilson, for the purpose of increasing the corrosion resistance of the exposed areas of the fastener, and also dependent upon the desired aesthetics thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Wilson as modified by Goodrich et al does not disclose that a complex trivalent chromium oxide forms the black chrome passivation layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the black chrome passivation layer with complex trivalent chromium oxide, dependent upon the desired chemical and physical characteristics of the chrome layer.
Regarding claim 9, Wilson as modified by Goodrich et al includes a hard chrome layer between the nickel strike layer and black PVD, inasmuch as the Applicant’s invention. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a layer of hard chrome between the nickel strike layer and black PVD, dependent upon the desired chemical and physical characteristics of the chrome layer.
Regarding claim 20, Wilson as modified by Goodrich et al does not disclose the black chrome coating being free of anomalies along the crimp area, such that neither the nickel strike layer or cap material is visible. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to form the black chrome in such a manner, for the purpose of preventing corrosion of either the cap body or the fastener (i.e. nut) body.
Regarding claims 14-18, the fastener of Wilson as modified by Goodrich et al would be formed by the following method: forming the fastener body 521 to include an upper portion (generally at 523) and an opposing threaded portion 527; preforming the cap 514; coating the cap 514 with the decorative appearance surface (as taught by Goodrich et al); and crimping the cap 514 to the upper portion of the fastener body 521 (per claim 14). The cap 514 (Wilson) is coated with the nickel strike layer 13 and the black chrome passivation layer 14 (Goodrich et al) (per claim 15). The thickness of both layers 13-14 are measured and compared to a threshold thickness (per claim 16). The cap 514 is preformed of stainless steel (Wilson) (per claim 17). The black chrome layer is a physical vapor deposition layer (Goodrich et al) (per claim 18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references show wheel lug nuts having caps thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615