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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5 and 11 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 9-11 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome a majority of objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2026. However, an unaddressed objection and 112(b) rejection are maintained and are as set forth below.
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 features of "an internally threaded hole" and "having a securing female thread offset from a female thread of the internally threaded hole" in claim 1 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.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the thickness (S1, S2)" in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 2 will be read as “the thickness (S1)” and “the thickness (S2)”, in lines 4 and 6, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danforth (US2289828A), hereinafter "Danforth".
Regarding claim 1, Danforth teaches a screw-nut blank (see Fig 5) for producing (see Figs 5-8, Pg 1, Col 1, line 55 - Pg 2, Col 1, line 2) a securing nut (see Fig 8), the securing nut (see Fig 8) having a shaped collar (Fig 8, diaphragm 28) formed in one piece (see Figs 5-8, Pg 1, Col 1, line 55 - Pg 2, Col 1, line 2) with a nut body (see Fig 8, Examiner notes a body of the nut as a nut body) on an end surface (see Fig 8, Examiner notes an end surface of the nut adjacent diaphragm 28 as on an end surface) of the securing nut (see Fig 8), the shaped collar (28) having an inner end surface (see Fig 8, Examiner notes an inner end surface of diaphragm 28 concentric with a threaded bore of the nut body as having an inner end surface) concentric (see Fig 8) with an internally threaded hole (see Fig 8, Pg 1, Col 2, line 45 - Pg 2, Col 1, line 2, Examiner notes the threaded bore of the nut as with an internally threaded hole) of the nut body (see Fig 8), the shaped collar (28) having a distance (see Fig 8) from the internally threaded hole (see Fig 8) in an axial direction (see Fig 8, Examiner notes an axial direction of the nut as in an axial direction) and having a securing female thread (see Fig 8, Examiner notes a female thread of diaphragm 28 as having a securing female thread) offset (see Fig 8) from a female thread (see Fig 8, Pg 1, Col 2, line 45 - Pg 2, Col 1, line 2) of the internally threaded hole (see Fig 8),
the screw-nut blank (see Fig 5) having an axially extending (see Fig 5) ring collar (Fig 5, collar 24) serving to form (see Figs 5-8, Pg 1, Col 2, lines 35-44) the shaped collar (28) by reshaping (see Figs 5-8, Pg 1, Col 2, lines 35-44), and the ring collar (24) having a constant contour (see Fig 4) in a circumferential direction (see Fig 4) and a cross-sectional shape (see Fig 5) which increases (see Fig 5) in the axial direction (see Fig 8) as a distance (see Fig 8) from the end surface (see Fig 8) increases (see Fig 5), wherein
a ratio of a thickness (see Fig 9, Examiner notes a thickness of collar 24 near groove 26 as a thickness) of the ring collar (24) in an area of transition (see Fig 9, Examiner notes an area of the nut between collar 24 and the nut body as in an area of transition) toward the end surface (see Fig 8) to a thickness (see Fig 9, Examiner notes a thickness of collar 24 distal groove 26 as a thickness) of the ring collar (24) at a free end (see Fig 5, Examiner notes an end of collar 24 distal from bore 12 as at a free end) serving to form (see Fig 8) the inner end surface (see Fig 8) is between 0.45 and 0.75 (see Fig 9, Examiner notes a ratio of a thickness of the collar 24 near groove 26 and a thickness of the collar distal groove 26 as a ratio of a thickness of the ring collar in an area of transition toward the end surface to a thickness of the ring collar at a free end serving to form the inner end surface is between 0.45 and 0.75).
Regarding claim 3, Danforth teaches the screw-nut blank (see Fig 5) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the thickness (see Fig 9, Examiner notes the thickness of collar 24 distal groove 26 as the thickness) of the ring collar (24) at the free end (see Fig 5) is 0.8 to 1.5 times (see Fig 8) a pitch (see Fig 8, Examiner notes a pitch of the female thread of diaphragm 28 as a pitch) of the securing female thread (see Fig 8) to be formed (see Figs 5-8) on the ring collar (24) reshaped (see Figs 5-8) into the shaped collar (28).
Regarding claim 4, Danforth teaches the screw-nut blank (see Fig 5) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein in a radial direction (see Fig 4), the ring collar (24) is disposed (see Fig 5) between two shoulder portions (see Fig 5, Examiner notes collar 24 between inner and outer shoulder portions as between two shoulder portions) of the end surface (see Fig 8) which slope (see Fig 5) to both sides (see Fig 5).
Regarding claim 5, Danforth teaches the screw-nut blank (see Fig 5) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the ring collar (24) has a hollow cylindrical end portion (see Figs 4-5) adjacent (see Fig 5) to and/or extending (see Fig 5) from the free end (see Fig 5).
Regarding claim 9, Danforth teaches the screw-nut blank (see Fig 5) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the cross-sectional shape (see Fig 5) is a conical cross-sectional shape (see Fig 5).
Regarding claim 10, Danforth teaches the screw-nut blank (see Fig 5) according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the ratio (see Fig 9) is between 0.5 and 0.7 (see Fig 9, Examiner notes the ratio of the thickness of the collar 24 near groove 26 and the thickness of the collar distal groove 26 as the ratio is between 0.5 and 0.7).
Regarding claim 11, Danforth teaches the screw-nut blank (see Fig 5) according to claim 5 and further teaches wherein the hollow cylindrical end portion (see Figs 4-5) has an axial dimension (see Figs 4-5) of up to half (see Figs 4-5 and 8) a securing thread (see Fig 8) to be formed (see Figs 5-8) later on the ring collar (24) reshaped (see Figs 5-8) into the shaped collar (28).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danforth.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Danforth teaches the screw-nut blank (see Fig 5) according to claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the ratio of the thickness of the ring collar in the area of transition toward the end surface to the thickness of the ring collar at the free end serving to form the inner end surface is between 0.1 per millimeter in length to 0.15 per millimeter in length with respect to a length of the ring collar between the area of transition and the end surface.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the ratio of the thickness of the ring collar in the area of transition toward the end surface to the thickness of the ring collar at the free end serving to form the inner end surface as disclosed by Danforth to be between 0.1 per millimeter in length to 0.15 per millimeter in length with respect to a length of the ring collar between the area of transition and the end surface, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide dimensions based on application and use requirements, e.g. torque requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Pgs 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments filed August 14, 2026, Applicant argues that Danforth does not disclose or suggest at least the ratio S1/S2 as recited in the claims as being between 0.45 and 0.75, specifically, Applicant argues that while Danforth may generally reveal a tapering or widening of a shaped collar, the specific, required ratio between 0.45 and 0.75 cannot be considered to be disclosed from the not-to-scale figures or other disclosures in Danforth. The Examiner agrees that Danforth reveals a tapering or widening of a shaped collar, however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the specific, required ratio between 0.45 and 0.75 cannot be considered to be disclosed from the not-to-scale figures or other disclosures in Danforth. Specifically, the Examiner notes Applicant’s claim 1 merely recites “a ratio of a thickness of the ring collar in an area of transition toward the end surface to a thickness of the ring collar at a free end serving to form the inner end surface is between 0.45 and 0.75”, i.e. thickness S1 can be selected in any area of transition toward the end surface. Accordingly, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 14, 2026 and as set forth above, a ratio of a thickness of the collar 24 near groove 26 and a thickness of the collar distal groove 26 teaches the specific, required ratio between 0.45 and 0.75.
With respect to Pgs 9-10 of Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments, Applicant argues this ratio is not an arbitrary limitation in the claims and that the resulting outer surface and/or inner surface of the formed flange has a flat contour or surface and, in particular, one free of indentations or misalignment over its entire circumference. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., the resulting outer surface and/or inner surface of the formed flange has a flat contour or surface and, in particular, one free of indentations or misalignment over its entire circumference) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (ET).
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights