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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 10,328,510), herein referred to as ‘510.
For Claim 16, ‘510 discloses a quick-set fastener (Annotated Figure 7), comprising:
a nut (70) capable of being engaged by a tool to rotate the nut around a threaded shaft (64) along a first axis (axis corresponding to threaded bore) of the nut;
a threaded bore (68) extending through the nut (70) along the first axis of the nut, the threaded bore (68) configured to couple to the threaded shaft (64) passing through the threaded bore (68) along the first axis of the nut;
a non-threaded bore (72) extending through the nut along a second axis (axis corresponding to the non-threaded bore), the non-threaded bore (72) angled away from the threaded bore by an angle (as seen in Figure 7), the non- threaded bore (72) having a diameter configured to receive an outer diameter of the threaded shaft (64) where the threaded shaft (64) can slide freely through the non-threaded bore (72);
an opening (Annotated Figure 7: A) configured to receive the threaded shaft (64); and
wherein, when the threaded shaft (64) is inserted into the nut (70) through the opening (A), the threaded shaft (64) may freely slide along the second axis (axis corresponding to the non-threaded bore) of the nut (70), and wherein, when the nut (70) is rotated to bring the first axis (axis corresponding to the threaded bore) into alignment the threaded shaft (64), the threaded bore (68) engages the threaded shaft (64), and the nut (70) is fastened along the threaded bore (68); and
wherein a smooth section (Annotated Figure 7: B) is defined along an inner surface of the nut (70) at an intersection of the threaded bore (68) and the non-threaded bore (72).
'510 does not disclose wherein the non-threaded bore is angled away from the threaded bore by at least 5 degrees and less than 45 degrees. '216 is instead silent as to the specific angle between the non-threaded bore and the threaded bore.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle between the non-threaded bore and the threaded bore limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP §2144.05.) In the instant case, '510 discloses the general conditions of forming an acute angle between the non-threaded bore and the threaded bore. It would therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the angle between the non-threaded bore and the threaded bore as being at least 5 degrees and less than 45 degrees. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow controlled rotation of the threaded shaft between the threaded bore and the non-threaded bore and to reduce installation time by reducing the angle by which the threaded shaft is required to be rotated from a non-threaded bore installation position to the threaded bore installed position.
For Claim 18, '510 further does not disclose wherein the angle between the non-threaded bore and the threaded bore is less than 30 degrees. '510 is instead silent as to the specific angle between the non-threaded bore and the threaded bore.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle between the non-threaded bore and the threaded bore limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05.) In the instant case, '216 discloses the general conditions of forming an acute angle between the non-threaded bore and the threaded bore. It would therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the angle between the non-threaded bore and the threaded bore as being less than 30 degrees. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to allow controlled rotation of the threaded shaft between the threaded bore and the non-threaded bore and to reduce installation time by reducing the angle by which the threaded shaft is required to be rotated from a non-threaded bore installation position to the threaded bore installed position.
For Claim 19, ‘510 discloses the quick-set fastener of claim 16, wherein the opening (Annotated Figure 7: A) extends at an angle (as seen in Annotated Figure 7) from the threaded bore (68) and parallel to the angle of the non-threaded bore (70).
For Claim 20, ‘510 discloses the quick-set fastener of claim 16, except further comprising a protective coating. Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known to use a zinc or aluminum protective coating on fasteners. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a zinc or aluminum protective coating to the fastener of '216. One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to prevent corrosion and provide greater durability of the fastener.
Examiner's assertion of official notice from the Office Action Mailed 10/28/2025 with regards to using a zinc or aluminum protective coating on fasteners is now taken to be admitted prior art due to Applicant's failure to traverse said official notice (see MPEP § 2144.03).
PNG
media_image1.png
865
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection 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. US 10927878 and US 3878757 each teach a similar fastener that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure but have not been relied upon in the current rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey O'Brien whose telephone number is (571)270-3655. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/Jeffrey O'Brien/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights