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 § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 6, 8, 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by LeVey(US 2019/0078604).
Regarding claim 1, LeVey et al. discloses a connector body(fig 5, 32), with a set screw(fig 15A), the connector body having a pressure limitation for mechanically and electrically securing a conductor cable therein(FIG 7), the pressure limitation corresponding to a torque limit applied to the set screw; and a bit having a torque limiting region that separates a body mating portion from a tool mating portion (para 0052 -0053), the body mating portion being configured to operatively mate with the set screw(fig 2), the tool mating portion being configured to operatively mate with a tool(fig 1, 16; para 0061), wherein the torque limiting region shears at the torque limit (para 0007, 0057), and wherein the body and tool mating portions have a common total diameter(para 0066).
Regarding claim 2, LeVey et al. discloses wherein the bit comprises a cross-sectional shape configured to translating a torque from the tool to the set screw(para 0007, 0057).
Regarding claim 3, LeVey et al. discloses wherein the cross-sectional shape is selected from a group consisting of quad shaped, penta shaped, hex shaped, and TORX® shaped (para 0008).
Regarding claim 4, LeVey et al. discloses the tool, wherein the tool comprises a bit securing device configured to operatively secure the tool mating portion of the bit so that a torque provided by the bit securing device is translated to the bit(para002-005, 0009).
Regarding claim 5, LeVey et al. discloses wherein the tool is selected from a group consisting of a wrench, a cordless drill, a corded drill, a corded impact driver, a cordless impact driver, a manually operated drill, a pneumatic drill, and a pneumatic impact drive(para 0049)r.
Regarding claim 6, LeVey et al. discloses wherein the bit securing device is selected from a group consisting of a keyless chuck, a keyed chuck, a collet chuck, a socket, and a bit driver(0070).
Regarding claim 8, LeVey et al. discloses wherein the connector body and/or the set screw are formed of the same or different electrically conductive materials selected from a group consisting of tin, steel, copper, aluminum, silver, gold and alloys and plating thereof(para 0064).
Regarding claim 21, LeVey et al. discloses wherein the torque limiting region has a diameter that is smaller than the common total diameter of the body and tool mating portions(fig 15a, 225).
Regarding claim 22, LeVey et al. discloses wherein the torque limiting region comprises a first angular reduction proximate the body mating portion, a second angular reduction proximate the tool mating portion, and a gap between the first and second angular reductions( fig 15a, 225 and para 0025)).
Regarding claim 23, LeVey et al. discloses a connector body(fig 5, 32) with a set screw(fig 15A), the connector body having a pressure limitation for mechanically and electrically securing a conductor cable therein, the pressure limitation corresponding to a torque limit applied to the set screw(para 0052 -0053); and a bit made from a single cross-sectional shape of stock(para 0064), the bit having a torque limiting region comprising a reduction of the single cross-sectional shape of stock so that the torque limiting region that separates a body mating portion from a tool mating portion(para 0064), the body mating portion being configured to operatively mate with the set screw, the tool mating portion being configured to operatively mate with a tool, wherein the torque limiting region shears at the torque limit(para 0064-0066).
Regarding claim 23, LeVey et al. discloses wherein the bit comprises a cross-sectional shape configured to translating a torque from the tool to the set screw(LeVey inherently has this shape being the tool twists the head which twists the set screw so as to twist until the resistance is greater than the torgue, and the torque limiting section breaks away).
Regarding claim 25, LeVey et al. discloses wherein the cross-sectional shape is selected from a group consisting of quad shaped, penta shaped, hex shaped, and TORX® shaped(para 0008).
Regarding claim 26, LeVey et al. discloses wherein the torque limiting region comprises a first angular reduction proximate the body mating portion, a second angular reduction proximate the tool mating portion, and a gap between the first and second angular reductions(para 0025, 0064-0066).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chadbourne et al.(US 9,160,128) in view of Mahajan et al.(US 2016/0367303).
Regarding claim 1, Chadbourne et al. discloses a connector body(col 3, lines 19-21) with a set screw(fig 7, 72), the connector body having a pressure limitation for mechanically and electrically securing a conductor cable therein, the pressure limitation corresponding to a torque limit applied to the set screw; and a bit having a torque limiting region that separates a body mating portion from a tool mating portion, the body mating portion being configured to operatively mate with the set screw, the tool mating portion being configured to operatively mate with a tool, wherein the torque limiting region shears at the torque limit (col 4, lines 42-53). Chadbourne et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the body and tool mating portions have a common total diameter. Mahajan et al. discloses using wherein the body and tool mating portions have a common total diameter(fig 5, 6, 50; para 0063 states that the post 50 may have the same cross sectional shape as the upper head portion 6, with an outer portion(fig 5, 32) being the screw portion around the lower post 50, stating this shape allows for the set screw to be tightened or loosened without fatiguing the breakaway portion as well as breaking away with less shock(para 011, 0063). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to use a set screw with the body and tool mating portions have a common total diameter with an outer portion as shown by Mahajan et al., with the set screw of Chadbourne et al. , since this allows for the set screw to be tightened or loosened without fatiguing the breakaway portion as well as breaking away with less shock.
Regarding claim 2, Chadbourne et al. discloses wherein the bit comprises a cross-sectional shape configured to translating a torque from the tool to the set screw(col 4, lines 42-53).
Regarding claim 3, Chadbourne et al. discloses wherein the cross-sectional shape is selected from a group consisting of quad shaped, penta shaped, hex shaped, and TORX® shaped(fig 7, 72).
Regarding claim 4, Chadbourne et al. discloses the tool, wherein the tool comprises a bit securing device configured to operatively secure the tool mating portion of the bit so that a torque provided by the bit securing device is translated to the bit(col 4, lines 35-60).
Regarding claim 5, Chadbourne et al. discloses wherein the tool is selected from a group consisting of a wrench, a cordless drill, a corded drill, a corded impact driver, a cordless impact driver, a manually operated drill, a pneumatic drill, and a pneumatic impact driver(COL 4, lines 35-40).
Regarding claims 9-13 Chadbourne et al. discloses wherein the system further comprises a plurality of bits, each bit in the plurality of bits having a torque limiting regions that shears at a different torque limit, wherein the torque limiting regions have different dimensional properties configured to provide the different torque limits, wherein the bit has an indica thereon that corresponds to the torque limit, wherein the connector body has a second indica thereon that corresponds to the torque limit, wherein the indica is selected from a group consisting of a color, text, a pattern, and any combinations thereof. (col 4, lines 24 – col 5, lines 15).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chadbourne et al.(US 9,160,128) in view of Mahajan et al.(US 2016/0367303) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Roehm et al.(US 2021/0390842).
Regarding claim 6, Chadbourne et al. does not disclose wherein the bit securing device is selected from a group consisting of a keyless chuck, a keyed chuck, a collet chuck, a socket, and a bit driver. Although Chadbourne et al. does disclose a chuck(col 4, lines 35-38), Chadbourne et al. does not disclose which type of a chuck. However, Roehm et al. discloses the bit securing device is a collet chuck(para 0036). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to use a collet chuck.as shown by Roehm et al., with the power tool of Chadbourne et al., since as shown by Roehm et al. a collet chuck.is a commonly known chuck that reliably secures the bit.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chadbourne et al.(US 9,160,128) in view of Mahajan et al.(US 2016/0367303) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yuhi et al.(US 5,272,404).
Regarding claim 7, Chadbourne et al. does not disclose wherein the bit securing device is a collet chuck and wherein the bit further comprises a collet notch operatively engageable with the collect chuck. Although Chadbourne et al. does disclose a chuck(col 4, lines 35-38), Chadbourne et al. does not disclose which type of a chuck. However, Roehm et al. discloses wherein the bit securing device is a collet chuck and wherein the bit further comprises a collet notch operatively engageable with the collect chuck. (col 5, lines 40-60). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to use a collet chuck.as shown by Yuhi et al., with the power tool of Chadbourne et al., since as shown by Yuhi et al. wherein the bit securing device is a collet chuck and wherein the bit further comprises a collet notch operatively engageable with the collect chuck .is a commonly known chuck that reliably secures the bit.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeVey(US 2019/0078604). as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yuhi et al.(US 5,272,404).
Regarding claim 7, LeVey does not disclose wherein the bit securing device is a collet chuck and wherein the bit further comprises a collet notch operatively engageable with the collect chuck.. Although Chadbourne et al. does disclose a chuck(col 4, lines 35-38), Chadbourne et al. does not disclose which type of a chuck. However, Roehm et al. discloses wherein the bit securing device is a collet chuck and wherein the bit further comprises a collet notch operatively engageable with the collect chuck. (col 5, lines 40-60). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to use a collet chuck.as shown by Yuhi et al., with the power tool of LeVey, since as shown by Yuhi et al. wherein the bit securing device is a collet chuck and wherein the bit further comprises a collet notch operatively engageable with the collect chuck .is a commonly known chuck that reliably secures the bit.
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeVey(US 2019/0078604). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chadbourne et al.(US 9,160,128).
Regarding claims 9-13, LeVey does not disclose the system further comprises a plurality of bits, each bit in the plurality of bits having a torque limiting regions that shears at a different torque limit, wherein the torque limiting regions have different dimensional properties configured to provide the different torque limits, wherein the bit has an indica thereon that corresponds to the torque limit, wherein the connector body has a second indica thereon that corresponds to the torque limit, wherein the indica is selected from a group consisting of a color, text, a pattern, and any combinations thereof.. However, Chadbourne et al. discloses wherein the system further comprises a plurality of bits, each bit in the plurality of bits having a torque limiting regions that shears at a different torque limit, wherein the torque limiting regions have different dimensional properties configured to provide the different torque limits, wherein the bit has an indica thereon that corresponds to the torque limit, wherein the connector body has a second indica thereon that corresponds to the torque limit, wherein the indica is selected from a group consisting of a color, text, a pattern, and any combinations thereof. (col 4, lines 24 – col 5, lines 15). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to use a plurality of bits, each bit in the plurality of bits having a torque limiting regions that shears at a different torque limit, wherein the torque limiting regions have different dimensional properties configured to provide the different torque limits, wherein the bit has an indica thereon that corresponds to the torque limit, wherein the connector body has a second indica thereon that corresponds to the torque limit, wherein the indica is selected from a group consisting of a color, text, a pattern, and any combinations thereof as shown by Chadbourne et al., with the screw insert device of LeVey, since this allows for multiple torque options as well as easy identification of the torque associated with each set screw.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chadbourne et al.(US 9,160,128) in view of Mahajan et al.(US 2016/0367303) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mccurdy(US 3,869,189).
Regarding claim 8, Chadbourne et al. does not disclose wherein the connector body and/or the set screw are formed of the same or different electrically conductive materials selected from a group consisting of tin, steel, copper, aluminum, silver, gold and alloys and plating thereof. However, McCurdy discloses a connector body and/or the set screw are formed of the same or different electrically conductive materials selected from a group consisting of tin, steel, copper, aluminum, silver, gold and alloys and plating thereof(Col 3 line 43- col 5 line 1, states the connector can be made from copper or aluminum and also discloses a set screw to fix the wire to the connector). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to form the connector body and/or the set screw are formed of the same or different electrically conductive materials selected from a group consisting of tin, steel, copper, aluminum, silver, gold and alloys and plating thereof and to use a set screw as shown by Mccurdy, with the power tool of Chadbourne et al., since as shown by Mccurdy forming the connector body and/or the set screw are formed of the same or different electrically conductive materials selected from a group consisting of tin, steel, copper, aluminum, silver, gold and alloys and plating thereof and to use a set screw.is a commonly done for the conductivity of the connector and to use a setscrew to fix the wires to the connector..
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 Timothy J Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-2342. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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.
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.
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights