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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the Amendment filed on December 3, 2025. Claims 1, 10, 11 and 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 rejections have been overcome however a new rejection is presented herewith and is discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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 “at least a portion of a surface of each of the plurality of grooves is convexly arcuate” (as in claims 9 and 18), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the “at least a portion of a radially outward surface of the plurality of teeth is concavely arcuate” (as in claim 13), 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.
Claims 9, 13 and 18 are Finaly 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 13 discloses, “at least a portion of a radially outward surface of the plurality of teeth is concavely arcuate.” Figure 7 and Paragraph 70 of applicant’s PG-PUB (2024/0391039) appear to be the only portions that provide the support for the teeth being concavely arcuate (see following; “At least a portion of the surface 725 of teeth 115 may be concavely arcuate. In some embodiments, the entire surface 725 of teeth 115 is concavely arcuate, and at least a portion of the radially outward surface 730 of grooves 125 may define a symmetric shard shape that curves and tapers from the second end 720 toward the first end 710.”). However, annotated Figure 7 below clearly shows that the teeth are convexly arcuate, especially at a radially outward surface thereof. Did the applicant mean to disclose that, “at least a portion of a radially outward surface of the plurality of teeth is convexly arcuate”? If not, how is the radially outward surface of each tooth teeth concavely arcuate? In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as disclosing, “at least a portion of a radially outward surface of the plurality of teeth is convexly arcuate.” However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 18 disclose, “at least a portion of a surface of each of the plurality of grooves is convexly arcuate”. Figure 5 and Paragraph 63 of applicant’s PG-PUB (2024/0391039) provide the support for the grooves being convexly arcuate (“In some embodiments, at least a portion of a radially outward surface 540 of grooves 535 may be convexly arcuate. In the example shown, surface 540 of each of the grooves 535 is convexly arcuate.”). However, the examiner has provided annotated Figure 5 below which clearly shows that surface 540 is a concave U-shaped groove. Thus it is unclear how the U-shaped groove is convexly arcuate? In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as disclosing, “at least a portion of a surface of each of the plurality of grooves is concavely arcuate”. However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
PNG
media_image2.png
461
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11-14 and 16-20 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farre Berga (8978525).
In reference to claim 11, Farre Berga discloses a spherical bit (6, Figure 3) for rotating a fastening device (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, wherein the plurality of teeth couple with 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) of the fastening device via an interlocking of complementary geometry of the plurality of teeth and the plurality of grooves (see Figure 5), and
each of the plurality of teeth comprises:
a first end (i.e. lower end of 6 in Figure 3) proximate to the tip of the at least partially spherical portion (Figure 3); and
a second end (i.e. upper end of 6 in Figure 3) proximate to an edge of the at least partially spherical portion (Figure 3).
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 claim 13, As Best Understood, Farre Berga discloses that at least a portion of a radially outward surface of the plurality of teeth is convexly arcuate (see figure below). Assuming arguendo, Farre Berga also shows that at least a portion of a concavely arcuate.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Assuming arguendo, the inner surface of the teeth are concavely arcuate )][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (Radially outward and convexly arcuate surface of the teeth)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
197
281
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 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 18, As Best Understood Farre Berga discloses that at least a portion of a surface of the plurality of grooves is convexly arcuate (see figure below). Assuming arguendo, Farre Berga also shows at least a portion of a surface (i.e. inner side surface) of the plurality of grooves is concavely arcuate.
[AltContent: textbox (Another inner concavely arcuate surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Portion of groove 7 that is Convexly arcuate)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Assuming arguendo, inner side portion of a surface of the groove is concavely arcuate )][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image3.png
197
281
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 19, Farre Berga discloses a fastening device comprising a body (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, wherein the plurality of grooves couple with a plurality of teeth (8’) of a spherical bit (6) via an interlocking of complementary geometry of the plurality of grooves and the plurality of teeth (Figure 5), and
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).
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).
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 1-10 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farre Berga (8978525) in view of Ogasawara et al. (EP 2781316, previously cited).
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);
wherein:
the fastening device comprises a body (2) having a receptacle end (1) and a fastening end (lower end of 2, Figure 1),
the receptacle end comprises the receptacle (Figures 1 and 2), the receptacle comprising an at least partially spherical void (3) 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 such that when coupled, each of a plurality of teeth (8’) of the spherical bit fit into one of the plurality of grooves of the fastening device (Figure 5);
the spherical bit comprising a shaft end (5) and a coupling end (6), wherein:
the coupling end comprises an at least partially spherical portion (6) that couples physically interlocks with the receptacle of the fastening device (Figure 5),
the at least partially spherical portion comprises the plurality of teeth (8’) disposed circumferentially on the at least partially spherical portion, wherein the plurality of grooves and the plurality of teeth couple via an interlocking of complementary geometry of the plurality of teeth and the plurality of grooves (Figure 5), and
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; and
cause the driver to spin on an axis to rotate the fastening device.
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 the 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 reference to claim 2, Farre Berga discloses further comprising the fastening device (Figure 1),
wherein the fastening device comprises a body (2) having a receptacle end (1) and a fastening end (lower end of 2), and wherein:
the receptacle end comprises the receptacle (3), the receptacle comprising an at least partially spherical void 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 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 3, the examiner notes that this claim recites "Intended use recitation" (i.e. fastens a door of a motor control cabinet) 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 Farre Berga, with the known technique of using a similar fastening system on a door of a motor control cabinet, 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 can be "fitted into any object” (paragraph 16) depending on the particular needs of the user.
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, As Best Understood, Farre Berga discloses that at least a portion of a surface of each of the plurality of grooves is convexly arcuate (see figure below). Assuming arguendo, Farre Berga also shows at least a portion of a surface (i.e. inner side surface) of the plurality of grooves is concavely arcuate.
[AltContent: textbox (Another inner concavely arcuate surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Portion of groove 7 that is Convexly arcuate)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Assuming arguendo, inner side portion of a surface of the groove is concavely arcuate )][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image3.png
197
281
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 10, Farre Berga discloses that;
each of the plurality of teeth on the at least partially spherical portion of the spherical bit is tapered in a direction toward the tip of the spherical bit (Figure 3),
each of the plurality of grooves in the at least partially spherical void of the fastening device is tapered in depth toward a bottom center of the at least partially spherical void (Figures 1 and 2),
during an off-axis engagement of the spherical bit and the fastening device (Figure 6), the plurality of teeth enter the plurality of grooves and progressively seat deeper within the at least partially spherical void as rotational force is applied (Column 3, Lines 40-44).
Claim 15, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farre Berga (8978525).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, the independent claims have been amended to further define the interlocking engagement between the screw and the bit.
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 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