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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the claimed “sections” are not found in the Detailed Description so the disclosure is insufficient in teaching what the sections are.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9 and 14 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. In claims 1, 3, 9 and 14 the “and/or”s are indefinite because it is unclear if one or both are indented to be claimed. The description and drawings only teach both the undercut portion and curved portion are in sections where it is unclear how the device would operate with only one of the undercut or curved portion in sections. Additionally, the dependent claims including the “and/or” are further indefinite because they would lack antecedent basis because they could be interpreted opposite. It is suggested in claim 1 to define --at least one of the undercut portion or curved portion-- and then in the dependent claims refer back to --the at least one of …”. However, then the “or” option is required to be described and shown.
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 1-3, 5-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanstrom (US 3,142,325) in view of Perry (US 2,390,662). In the embodiment shown in Figs. 10-12, Swanstrom discloses a securing nut comprising: a shaped collar (14-15) integrally formed on an end surface of a nut body (12); the shaped collar having a threaded inner surface concentric with the nut threads; the shaped collar forming an undercut portion (at 25) on an outer surface adjacent an axial end surface of the nut body; the shaped collar having a curved portion (25) with a circular contour in cross-section on a radial outer surface forming the undercut; the undercut and curved portion formed in evenly distributed sections in circumferential direction alternating with section (26) that have a reduced cross section; the portions of reduced cross section are formed as slots with a plane in the axial direction (see Fig. 10); the collar having a stepped portion (29) adjacent an outer surface extending axially to a planer end surface; the inner and outer surfaces are free from recesses. Swanstrom does not disclose the inner threaded surface of the collar a distance from the nut threads. Perry discloses a securing nut similar to Swanstrom where a threaded collar is an axial distance from nut threads (Fig. 4) as an alternative to the there being no axial distance (Fig. 3). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the securing nut of Swanstrom with an axial distance between the threaded collar and threaded nut body because Perry teaches them as alternatives for yielding the same results. The shaping and machining of the collar are product-by-process limitations where it is only the final product which is considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 appears would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Remarks
Both the objection to the specification and the rejection under 112 have been maintained for the reasons as better explained above.
After consideration of applicant’s remarks, the rejection over the prior art is maintained unchanged.
Applicant argues that Swanstrom (US 3,142,325) does not disclose the claimed reduced wall thickness but instead discloses slots. In response, the examiner disagrees because the feature equated to the reduced wall thickness in Swanstrom (element 26) does not extend through to the inner bore thus is properly characterized as anticipating a reduced wall thickness. Swanstrom describes “The slots 26 … do not extend into the bore” (column 3, paragraph beginning line 63).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
332
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, in regards to at least claim 1, there is no defining structure provided to the “sections” so simply any part of the undercut portion or curved portion disclosed in the prior art could read on the section. 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).
Applicant argues that the combination Swanstrom in view of Perry (US 2,390,662) would not have been obvious. The person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to modify Swanstrom with an axial distance for offset threads as taught in Perry because Swanstrom already has the bent portion providing the same braking torque. In response, the examiner disagrees because Perry teaches that the bent portion can operate both with and without an axial offset. In Perry the embodiments of Figs. 3 and 5 teach without an axial offset while Figs. 4 and 6 teach the alternative of with an axial offset for providing a breaking torque. Perry discloses that the axial offset only provides a “somewhat different yielding” (pg. 2, first column, lines 22-25) which would have recognized in Swanstrom since both are from the same field of endeavor of locking nuts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 appears would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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