DETAILED ACTION
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald et al., US5102003 (hereinafter, Oswald) in view of Winikerei WO2018220512 (hereinafter, Winikerei), in further view of Miyamura et al., US20030210968 (hereinafter, Miyamura).
Regarding claim 1, Oswald discloses a system (10, see Fig. 1) for fastening a structure 12 to a portion 44 of a machine, the system comprising:
a fastener 32 defining a head portion 46 and a shank portion (column 2, lines 42-47), the shank portion defining a threaded portion (see column 2, lines 42-47);
a washer piece 14 being retained between the head portion 46 and the threaded portion of the shank portion, wherein the washer piece has an aperture 30;
a flexible tether 37 having a first end (end of tether 37 towards washer 14) and a second end (end of tether 37 opposite to washer);
wherein the second end of the flexible tether includes a retention member 38 for securing the flexible tether to the structure.
Oswald fails to teach wherein the first end is permanently secured to the washer piece and includes a closed loop extending through the aperture of the washer piece.
However, Winikerei teaches a safety clasp 10 having a tether 26 engaging a washer piece 24 to which the first end of the tether is permanently secured and includes a closed loop 26.1 extending through the aperture of the washer piece (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the connection between the washer and the tether end to be permanent as taught by Winikerei to securely tether the safety clasp 10 and prevent the associated fastener from falling (see para. [0037-0038]).
Oswald fails to teach a fastener with unthreaded portion extending between the head portion and the threaded portion, and a washer piece disposed around the unthreaded portion.
Miyamura teaches a system (100, see Figs. 1-2) wherein a screw 102 comprises an unthreaded portion 116 having smaller diameter than threaded portion 118, and the washer piece 110 disposed around the unthreaded portion (see Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the fastener of Oswald with the fastener of Miyamura to allow the fastener flow within a range of motion (see para. [0020]), and/or to allow the washer to flow between the head of the fastener and threaded portion if required.
Regarding claim 4, Oswald in view of Winikerei, in further view of Miyamura teaches and/or make obvious of the system of claim 3, wherein Oswald further teaches the washer piece 14 defines a washer portion (see washer body of washer 14) and a protruded portion 34, wherein the protruded portion extends angularly away from the washer portion with respect to a plane defined by the washer portion (see Figs. 1-2), and wherein the aperture 36 is formed in the protruded portion of the washer piece 14.
Regarding claim 5, Oswald in view of Winikerei, in further view of Miyamura teaches and/or make obvious of the system of claim 1, wherein Oswald further teaches the washer piece defines an opening 30 for passage of the unthreaded portion therethrough, and as established above, Oswald modified by Miyamura further teaches and/or make obvious wherein a diameter of the opening is less than each of a diameter of the threaded portion and a size of the head portion (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6, Oswald in view of Winikerei, in further view of Miyramura teaches and/or make obvious of the system of claim 1, wherein the washer piece is disposed rotatably around the unthreaded portion of the shank portion (please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above for claim 1 and drawings in Miyamura).
Regarding claim 7, Oswald in view of Winikerei, in further view of Miyamura teaches and/or make obvious of the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the washer piece is fixedly coupled to the head portion of the fastener.
However, it is Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system in Oswald where the washer piece is fixedly coupled to the head portion of the fastener in order to prevent misalignment or misplacement of the washer piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (v)(b).
Further, as disclosed by the applicant, Figs. 5-6 & 8 lacks the criticality of the fixed washer piece and, also welding or using glue to couple the washer to the head of the fastener involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Oswald teaches a machine (automotive, see Abstract), comprising:
a portion 44 including a first opening having threads (see column 2, lines 42-47), at least partially surrounding an arrangement (see portion of the crankcase 44 surrounding other parts of the vehicle underbody); and
a guard assembly 10, including:
a structure 12 defining an engagement portion 18; and
a system (system in Fig. 1) for fastening the structure to the portion of the machine, the system including:
a fastener defining a head portion and a shank portion, the shank portion defining a threaded portion and an unthreaded portion, the unthreaded portion extending between the head portion and the threaded portion;
a washer piece disposed around the unthreaded portion and being retained between the head portion and the threaded portion of the shank portion; and
a flexible tether having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is coupled with the washer piece and the second end includes a retention member for securing the flexible tether to the structure.
Oswald fails to teach wherein the structure having a second opening to be aligned with the first opening; and the shank portion of fastener configured to extend in the first and second opening threads of the first opening to fasten the structure to the portion of the machine.
Miyamura teaches a fastener assembly (see Figs. 7-9) where a structure 144 having a second opening (see Figs. 7-9) to be aligned with the first opening 166; and the shank portion of the fastener 102 configured to extend in the first and second opening threads 166 of the first opening to fasten the structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified assembly of Oswald to have structure having a threadless opening as taught by Miyamura as an obvious additional structure to strengthen the assembly and, additionally for secure fastening of the such structures by fastening assembly as disclosed in Miyamura (para. [0029]). See Figs. 7-9 for more detailed structures where the structures/support member 144 with threadless opening is connected/secured to the threaded component 165 via apparatus 100.
(Concerning limitations above in italic, Oswald in view of Winikerei, in further view of Miyamura teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations of the system above. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth in claim 1.)
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald in view of Winikerei, in further view of Miyamura, in further view of Constance US2389344 (hereinafter, Constance).
Regarding claim 2, Oswald in view of Winikerei, in further view of Miyamura teaches and/or make obvious of the system of claim 1, wherein the structure 12 defines an engagement portion 18 including a slot (see Fig. 1), the flexible tether 37 passable through the slot (see Fig. 1).
Oswald in combination with Winikerei and Miyamura fails to teach the retention member defines a surface having a size greater than a cross-sectional area of the slot to keep the retention member from passing through the slot.
However, Constance teaches a retaining device (see Fig. 1) having a retention member 16 defining a surface having a size greater than a cross-section area of the slot (see central slot of washer 17 in Fig. 2) to keep the retention member from passing through the slot.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the second end of the tether in Oswald to have a retention member having greater cross-sectional area than slot as taught by Constance for secured retaining of the tether end to the connection structure and/or to eliminate parts of the system without weakening the system.
Regarding claim 10, The machine of claim 9, wherein the engagement portion includes a slot, the flexible tether passable through the slot, and the retention member defines a surface having a size greater than a cross-sectional area of the slot to keep the retention member from passing through the slot.
(Concerning limitations of claim 10, Oswald in view of Winikerei, in further view of Miyamura, in further view of Constance teaches and/or make obvious of those limitations. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 2.)
Response to Arguments
Argument of 05/27/2026 in response to previous drawing objection has been accepted, therefore drawing objection of previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered, however rejection based on existing and newly found prior art has been set forth above.
Regarding previous interview of 05/21/2026, Previously the examiner had agreed that amended claim overcomes the prior art. However, upon further consideration, the examiner found that amended claim 9 may not completely overcome prior art established in previous Office Action. Brief discussion with Ryan Richter is summarized in interview summary. Also, please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US6290618 (Ring) in Fig. 2 discloses a portable ball batting practice apparatus having a hub assembly 30 comprising a mounting plate 31, a stopper washer 34, a hub bracket 37, a retention nut 39, a bolt like axle element 33, a securing tether 28 and a ball 43 secured by a simple knot 45.
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 DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights