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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 6, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on May 6, 2026. Claims 1-3 and 10-19 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections have been overcome. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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 3, 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 3, discloses “the latch rotates with rotation of the fastening device between a closed position and an open position; and the latch is configured to release a door of a motor control cabinet (MCC) when the latch is in the open position.” However, it is unclear how the latch releases a door of a motor control cabinet (MCC) when the latch is in the open position. What does the latch engage with to release the door? Is the latch a component of the door of the motor control cabinet? Is the fastening device a component of the door of the motor control cabinet? Is the door and the motor control cabinet part of applicant’s invention? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
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, 2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farre Berga (8978525) in view of Ogasawara et al. (EP 2781316, previously cited) and Falkenstien et al. (2018/0347612).
In reference to claim 1, Farre Berga discloses a fastening system (Figures 1-6) comprising:
a spherical bit (6, Figure 5);
a receptacle (3) of a fastening device (i.e. screw 2, Figure 1);
the fastening device, comprising:
complementary geometry (see Claim 1, Lines 11-12 disclosing “complementarily coupleable in a recess on a free base of a screw head”) in the receptacle for coupling with the spherical bit (Figure 5);
the spherical bit comprising:
a shaft end (5) and a coupling end (6), the coupling end comprises an at least partially spherical portion (6) that couples with the receptacle of the fastening device (Figure 5),
the at least partially spherical portion comprises a plurality of teeth (8’) disposed circumferentially on the at least partially spherical portion (Figure 4),
each of the plurality of teeth comprises:
a first end (lower end of 6 in Figure 3) proximate to a tip (8) of the at least partially spherical portion; and
a second end (upper end of 6 in Figure 3) proximate to an edge of the at least partially spherical portion (Figure 3).
Farre Berga lacks,
an automation system comprising a robotic arm that is coupled to a controller and a driver;
the driver being coupled to a shaft end of a bit;
the controller comprising instructions that, upon execution by one or more processors of the controller, cause:
the robotic arm to autonomously move to align and couple the bit with the receptacle of the fastening device;
cause the driver to spin on an axis to rotate the fastening device; and
the receptacle of the fastening device further including a slot, centered at a bottom of the receptacle, and configured to receive a head of a screwdriver for rotating the fastening device without the spherical bit.
However, Ogasawara et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an automation system (Figure 1) comprising;
a robotic arm (10) that is coupled to a controller (50) and a driver (31);
the driver being coupled to a shaft end (i.e. upper end of 32) of a bit (32, Figure 1);
the controller comprising instructions that, upon execution by one or more processors of the controller, cause:
the robotic arm to autonomously move to align and couple the bit with the receptacle of the fastening device (i.e. screw 101, see steps S101 and S102); and
cause the driver to spin on an axis to rotate the fastening device (at S102 and/or S103, Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system, of Farre Berga, with the known technique of providing an automation system including the robotic arm that is coupled to the controller, the driver and the bit, as taught by Ogasawara et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that includes a robotic arm which can perform a screw fastening operation with a simple configuration (see paragraphs 5 and 8).
In addition, Falkenstien et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a receptacle (42) of a fastening device (i.e. screw 40) with a slot (see figure below) that is centered at a bottom (at 84 in Figure 7) of the receptacle (Figures 4 and 6), and configured to receive a head of a screwdriver (10D, Figure 30) for rotating the fastening device without a spherical bit (Figures 1-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the bottom of the receptacle of the fastening device, of Farre Berga, with the known technique of providing a receptacle of a fastening device with the slot that is centered at a bottom of the receptacle, as taught by Falkenstien et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a fastening device/screw that is further capable of being driven by different types of drivers (see paragraphs 3 and 4) thereby increasing the overall versatility of the device.
In reference to claim 2, Farre Berga discloses that the receptacle comprises an at least partially spherical void (Figure 2),
the at least partially spherical void comprises the complementary geometry and the complementary geometry comprises a plurality of grooves (not labeled but formed as the spaces/grooves extending between adjacent projections 4 in recess 3 of screw 2, Figure 1) circumferentially spaced on and extending radially into the at least partially spherical void such that when coupled, each of the plurality of teeth of the spherical bit fit into one of the plurality of grooves of the fastening device (Figure 5).
In reference to claim 4, Farre Berga discloses that the second end of the plurality of teeth are equidistantly spaced about the edge of the at least partially spherical portion (Figure 3).
In reference to claim 5, Farre Berga discloses that each of the plurality of teeth is tapered to a point (8) at the first end (Figure 4).
In reference to claim 6, Farre Berga discloses that;
the tip of the at least partially spherical portion comprises an arcuate surface including the point (8) of the first end of each of the plurality of teeth (Figures 3 and 4).
Farre Berga lacks explicitly disclosing that;
a distance from a center point of the at least partially spherical portion to the point and any other point on the arcuate surface is less than a radius of curvature of the at least partially spherical portion.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the distance from a center point of the at least partially spherical portion to the point, would result in a difference in function of the Farre Berga device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the distance, of Farre Berga, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed distance. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range (i.e. being less than a radius of curvature) solves any stated problem, indicating that the distance “may be less than a radius of curvature 635” (see paragraph 69), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance from a center point of the at least partially spherical portion to the point, of Farre Berga, to have a distance from a center point of the at least partially spherical portion to the point and any other point on the arcuate surface is less than a radius of curvature of the at least partially spherical portion, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Alternatively, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Farre Berga, to have “a distance from a center point of the at least partially spherical portion to the point and any other point on the arcuate surface is less than a radius of curvature of the at least partially spherical portion”, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Farre Berga would not operate differently with the claimed distance and since the spherical portion of the bit is intended to reside within the receptacle at various angles (Figures 5 and 6 and Column 3, Lines 40-44), the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may be less than the radius of curvature” (see paragraph 69 of applicant’s PG-PUB).
In reference to claim 7, Farre Berga discloses that the at least partially spherical portion of the spherical bit further comprises a plurality of grooves (7) positioned between each of the plurality of teeth and extending radially into the at least partially spherical portion (Figures 3 and 4).
In reference to claim 8, Farre Berga discloses that each of the plurality of grooves is tapered in a direction of the edge toward the tip (Figures 3 and 4).
In reference to claim 9, Farre Berga discloses that at least a portion of a surface of each of the plurality of grooves is concavely arcuate (see figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (Inner concavely arcuate surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Another inner concavely arcuate surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image2.png
197
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Another inner concavely arcuate surface)]
In reference to claim 10, Farre Berga discloses that a radius of curvature of the at least partially spherical portion allows for misalignment of up to 24 degrees (i.e. because up to 30 degrees off the axis, is disclosed Column 2, Lines 19-25).
Claim 3, is rejected As Best Understood under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farre Berga (8978525) in view of Ogasawara et al. (EP 2781316, previously cited), Falkenstien et al. (2018/0347612) and Ramsauer (2008/0203736) or Anderson (5251467).
In reference to claim 3, As Best Understood, Farre Berga discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the fastening device further comprises a latch at a fastening end; the latch rotates with rotation of the fastening device between a closed position and an open position; and
the latch is configured to release a door of a motor control cabinet (MCC) when the latch is in the open position.
However, Ramsauer teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a fastening device (20/30) that further comprises a latch (26) at a fastening end (22); the latch rotates with rotation of the fastening device between a closed position and an open position (see Abstract and paragraphs 8, 56 and 79).
In addition, Anderson also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a fastening device (9) that further comprises a latch (45) at a fastening end (upper end thereof in Figure 3); the latch rotates with rotation of the fastening device between a closed position and an open position (see dotted lines in Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the fastening device, of Farre Berga, with the known technique of providing a fastening device that further comprises the latch at the fastening end, as taught by Ramsauer or Anderson, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device, which on the one hand prevents user error and ensures greater operating safety and in which no fastening parts can be lost and which on the other hand enables a substantially simpler mounting, for example, simply by means of snapping in spring-loaded holding elements (see paragraph 8 of Ramsauer) or that provides a more advantageous and versatile device having a lock which can be installed in the front of a panel, such as a cabinet panel, without reaching behind the panel thereby allowing one to more easily lock or unlock during normal operation (Column1, Lines 5-10 of Anderson).
In further reference to claim 3, the examiner notes that this claim recites "Intended use recitation" (i.e. the latch is configured to release a door of a motor control cabinet (MCC)) and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, (see Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). In this situation, the system of Farre Berga, could be used to fasten a door of a motor control cabinet, depending on the particular needs of the user.
Furthermore, Ogasawara et al. also teach that the fastening device/screw (101) can be "fitted into any other objects, without limited to the workpiece 100" (paragraph 16) thereby teaching of using a similar fastening system with "any other objects", which obviously can include a door of a motor control cabinet.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the fastening system, of modified Farre Berga, with the known technique of using a similar fastening system on a door of a motor control cabinet, as further taught by Ogasawara et al, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that can be "fitted into any object" (paragraph 16) depending on the particular needs of the user.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farre Berga (8978525) in view of Falkenstien et al. (2018/0347612).
In reference to claim 11, Farre Berga discloses a fastening system (Figures 1-6) comprising:
a spherical bit (6, Figure 3) for rotating a fastening device (i.e. screw 2, Figure 1), the spherical bit comprising a coupling end (6) and a shaft end (5), wherein:
the spherical bit extends along an axis (i.e. axis extending along 5 and 6) from the coupling end to the shaft end (Figure 3),
the coupling end comprises an at least partially spherical portion (6) centered on the axis such that the axis extends through a tip (8) of the at least partially spherical portion (Figure 4),
the at least partially spherical portion comprises a plurality of teeth (8’) disposed circumferentially on the at least partially spherical portion (Figure 4),
each of the plurality of teeth comprises:
a first end (lower end of 6 in Figure 3) proximate to a tip (8) of the at least partially spherical portion; and
a second end (upper end of 6 in Figure 3) proximate to an edge of the at least partially spherical portion (Figure 3); and
the fastening device, comprising:
complementary geometry (see Claim 1, Lines 11-12 disclosing “complementarily coupleable in a recess on a free base of a screw head”) in the receptacle for coupling with the spherical bit (Figure 5).
Farre Berga lacks,
the receptacle of the fastening device further including a slot, centered at a bottom of the receptacle, and configured to receive a head of a screwdriver for rotating the fastening device without the spherical bit.
However, Falkenstien et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a receptacle (42) of a fastening device (i.e. screw 40) with a slot (see figure below) that is centered at a bottom (at 84 in Figure 7) of the receptacle (Figures 4 and 6), and configured to receive a head of a screwdriver (10D, Figure 30) for rotating the fastening device without a spherical bit (Figures 1-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the bottom of the receptacle of the fastening device, of Farre Berga, with the known technique of providing a receptacle of a fastening device with the slot that is centered at a bottom of the receptacle, as taught by Falkenstien et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a fastening device/screw that is further capable of being driven by different types of drivers (see paragraphs 3 and 4) thereby increasing the overall versatility of the device.
In reference to claim 12, Farre Berga discloses that the second end of the plurality of teeth are equidistantly spaced about the edge of the at least partially spherical portion (Figures 3 and 4).
In reference to claims 13 and 18, Farre Berga discloses that at least a portion of a surface of each of the plurality of grooves is concavely arcuate (see figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (Inner concavely arcuate surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Another inner concavely arcuate surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image2.png
197
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Another inner concavely arcuate surface)]
In reference to claim 14, Farre Berga discloses that each of the plurality of teeth is tapered to a point (8) at the first end.
In reference to claim 15, Farre Berga discloses that;
the tip of the at least partially spherical portion comprises an arcuate surface including the point (8) of the first end of each of the plurality of teeth (Figures 3 and 4).
Farre Berga lacks explicitly disclosing that;
a distance from a center point of the at least partially spherical portion to the point and any other point on the arcuate surface is less than a radius of curvature of the at least partially spherical portion.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the distance from a center point of the at least partially spherical portion to the point, would result in a difference in function of the Farre Berga device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the distance, of Farre Berga, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed distance. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range (i.e. being less than a radius of curvature) solves any stated problem, indicating that the distance “may be less than a radius of curvature 635” (see paragraph 69), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance from a center point of the at least partially spherical portion to the point, of Farre Berga, to have a distance from a center point of the at least partially spherical portion to the point and any other point on the arcuate surface is less than a radius of curvature of the at least partially spherical portion, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Alternatively, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Farre Berga, to have “a distance from a center point of the at least partially spherical portion to the point and any other point on the arcuate surface is less than a radius of curvature of the at least partially spherical portion”, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Farre Berga would not operate differently with the claimed distance and since the spherical portion of the bit is intended to reside within the receptacle at various angles (Figures 5 and 6 and Column 3, Lines 40-44), the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may be less than the radius of curvature” (see paragraph 69 of applicant’s PG-PUB).
In reference to claim 16, Farre Berga discloses that the at least partially spherical portion of the spherical bit further comprises a plurality of grooves (7, Figure 4) positioned between each of the plurality of teeth and extending radially into the at least partially spherical portion (Figures 3-4).
In reference to claim 17, Farre Berga discloses that the plurality of grooves are tapered in a direction (i.e. lower direction in Figure 3) of the edge toward the tip (Figure 3).
In reference to claim 19, Farre Berga discloses a fastening device comprising a body (i.e. screw 2) having a fastening end (lower end of 2) and a receptacle end (3), wherein:
the fastening device extends along an axis (axis along 2) from the fastening end to the receptacle end,
the receptacle end comprises a receptacle (3), the receptacle comprising an at least partially spherical void (see void 3 in Figure 2) formed in the body at the receptacle end (Figure 2),
the at least partially spherical void comprises a plurality of grooves (not labeled but formed as the spaces/grooves extending between adjacent projections 4 in recess 3 of screw 2, Figure 1) circumferentially spaced on and extending radially into the at least partially spherical void and configured to receive a spherical bit (6) comprising complementary geometry for rotating the fastening device (see Claim 1, Lines 11-12 disclosing “complementarily coupleable in a recess on a free base of a screw head”);
each of the plurality of grooves comprises:
a first end (i.e. upper end of 3) proximate to an edge (1) of the at least partially spherical void (Figures 1 and 2); and
a second end (i.e. lower end of 3) proximate to a bottom center of the at least partially spherical void (Figure 2).
Farre Berga lacks,
the at least partially spherical void/receptacle further including a slot, centered at a bottom of the least partially spherical void/receptacle, and configured to receive a head of a screwdriver for rotating the fastening device without the spherical bit.
However, Falkenstien et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a receptacle (42) of a fastening device (i.e. screw 40) with a slot (see figure below) that is centered at a bottom (at 84 in Figure 7) of the receptacle (Figures 4 and 6), and configured to receive a head of a screwdriver (10D, Figure 30) for rotating the fastening device without a spherical bit (Figures 1-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the bottom of the at least partially spherical void/receptacle of the fastening device, of Farre Berga, with the known technique of providing a receptacle of a fastening device with the slot that is centered at a bottom of the receptacle, as taught by Falkenstien et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a fastening device/screw that is further capable of being driven by different types of drivers (see paragraphs 3 and 4) thereby increasing the overall versatility of the device.
In reference to claim 20, Farre Berga discloses that the first end of the plurality of grooves are equidistantly spaced about the edge of the at least partially spherical void (Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed May 6, 2026, with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections have been withdrawn. Furthermore, applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (as discussed above) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LeCompte (D1035431S) also shows that it is known to provide a screw with a receptacle that includes a slot, centered at a bottom of the receptacle (Figure 3).
Schwartzkopf (D888544S) also shows that it is known to provide a screw with a receptacle that includes a slot, centered at a bottom of the receptacle (Figures 2 and 3).
Hammann (3774946) also shows that it is known to attach a lever (9) to an end of a screw (6) for releasing a door (Figures 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights