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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-8 remain in the application as withdrawn.
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, and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZANG, LIN-LI (TW M304595) in view of Shih (US 11,371,547). ZANG discloses a screw (10) comprising: a shank (20) with a head (11) at one end and a drill portion at an opposite end; a plurality of thread convolutions (21) with a crest formed at a junction of upper and lower flanks; the convolutions are axially spaced along the shank to define surfaces sections between adjacent convolutions; a plural surface sections include knurled portions (22) with a plurality of recessedly-formed troughs (221) crossing one another which are recessed relative to the raised sections (222); and a plurality of notches (221) cut into the thread crest defining cutting edges and cutting units between adjacent notches. In ZANG the orientation of the notches and cutting units of adjacent thread convolutions is unclear. Shih discloses a screw similar to ZANG including notches (33) formed in a thread crest (30) and shows that cutting units formed between adjacent notches are in alternating alignment with the notches in successive convolutions of the thread (see Figs. 2B and 2C). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to orientate the notches and cutting units of ZANG in alternating alignment as disclosed in Shih because both ZANG and Shih are from the same field of field of endeavor, namely self-tapping screws, where the alternating orientation of notches would yield the same predictable results.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZANG in view of Shih as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 7,393,170). Modified ZANG does not disclose the notches are curved in shape. Chen disclose a self-tapping screw similar to modified ZANG including notches but in Chen the notches (331) are curved in shape (column 2, lines 40-41). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to shape the notches of modified ZANG with a curved shape as disclosed in Chen to provide for arcuate tips (332 as shown in Chen) for improved cutting.
Response to Remarks
Applicant argues that the claims define over Zang because Zang does not disclose the knurl portion including a plurality of troughs recessedly formed in the surface section but instead discloses portions 22 protruding from the surface section. In response the examiner agrees with applicant’s understanding of Zang in that knurl portion includes protruding portion. However, between the protruding portions are the troughs which are recessed relative to the protruding portion and, there is nothing which would preclude the protruding portions from reading as the claimed “shank surface”. 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).
So the knurl portion includes a shank surface (223) with a plurality of crossing troughs (221). This is similar to the instant invention where are shank surfaces with crossing troughs. There is nothing claimed which precludes the shank surface from being formed as trapezoidal cones. It is suggested applicant could clarify the structural shape of the shank surfaces to overcome the trapezoidal shape of Zang.
PNG
media_image1.png
306
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues that contrary to the instant invention the troughs in Zang are not for chip exclusion. In response, the examiner does not disagree that Zang and the instant invention may function differently but that is not claimed. The claims in the instant application are directed to the article not how it functions.
Applicant argues the claims define over Zang in view of Shih because does not disclose the each cutting thread aligned with a notch of an adjacent thread pointing to parts of Figs. 2C and 4C which show the notches aligned. In response, the examiner disagrees because parts of Figs. 2C and 4C pointed to by the applicant are simply drawing errors. The totality of the all the drawings in Shih make it clear the notches are not in alignment.
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