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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent they apply to the current rejection. Dominguez notes that unthreaded portion (126) is only slightly shorter than the combined height of the washer and the machine foot [Fig 2, 3G-3I, col 6 line 25-40] which would require that the bottom portion is placed on the unthreaded portion of the bolt. As these chamfers are placed identically to applicant they would locate the fastener into place at least to the same extent as instant invention.
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 15 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.
The term “spring-like” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “spring-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 9-11, 15-16, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behle (US 2004/0081533) in view of Nagano (US 2007/0218161) and Dominguez (US 10125800).
As to claim 9, Behle teaches an assembly comprising: a spacer (6) disposed between 2 plates [Fig 4, 6], the spacer having an aperture (10) with an inner diameter sized to be press fitted on an unthreaded portion (see the portion corresponding to 19 in Fig 6) of an outer surface of a fastener [Fig 6], for positioning and/or aligning the fastener within the aperture of the plate and/or for aligning a threaded portion of the fastener with a corresponding threaded aperture of the opposite plate[Fig 6, 0028, 0037]. Behle does not explicitly state the use of this threaded bolt/spacer configuration within a cavity block and backing plate. Behle teaches the spacer has a top surface with an inner portion (19) and an outer portion (7) with a channel between the inner portion and the outer portion (occupied by 3) [Fig 4, 0028, 0037]. Behle teaches the inner portion has an inner biasing force, and the outer portion has an outer biasing force that is different from the inner biasing force due to their different dimensions and shape [Fig 4, 0028, 0037]. Behle teaches the in a vertical direction the inner portion (19) is raised above the outer portion (7) [Fig 4].
Nagano teaches a molding apparatus [Abstract] wherein threaded bolts (23) are utilized to fasten/retain cavity blocks (19a) to backing plates (21, 22c,22b) [Fig 1, 5-7] with unthreaded portion 23a and threaded portion 23b which allow for the cavity block to be retained and secured while allowing movement of the cavity block relative to the other mold [0026-0028, 0036]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Behle and utilized the spacer and threaded bolts of Behle within a mold assembly between the backing plate and cavity block, as suggested by Nagano, as these bolt configurations had proven successful at retaining the cavity block and secured while allowing movement of the cavity block relative to the other mold.
Behl does not explicitly state an internal chamfer, ie extending outward away from the fastener
Dominguez teaches a assembly for bolting a machine [Claim 8] to a foundation wherein the washer for a bolt has internal chamfers that extend away from the fastening bolt on inlet aperture and outlet aperture to allow for the bolt to be tightened flush [col 6 line 27-40, Claim 8, Fig 3H]. Dominguez notes that unthreaded portion (126) is only slightly shorter than the combined height of the washer and the machine foot [Fig 2, 3G-3I, col 6 line 25-40] which would require that the bottom portion is placed on the unthreaded portion of the bolt. As these chamfers are placed identically to applicant they would locate the fastener into place at least to the same extent as instant invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Behl and had the spacer have an internal chamfer extending outward away from the fastener and placed the spacer on the unthreaded portion of the fastener, as suggested by Dominguez, in order to allow the bolt to be tightened flush and this had proven successful for bolting a machine.
As to claim 10, Behle teaches the back-up plate or the cavity block has a recess for receiving the spacer (either the recess that receives 18 or the recess receives 19), and the recess has a dimension that creates a press-fit with an outer surface of the spacer [Fig 6, 0028, 0037].
As to claim 11, Behle teaches the recess in the back- up plate or the cavity block has an inner diameter that creates a press fit with an outer diameter of the spacer (either the recess that receives 18 or the recess receives 19)[Fig 6, 0028, 0037].
As to claim 15, Behle teaches the spacer is of a material that provides a spring-like or biasing force when the spacer is compressed and/or moved as the washer is capable of being compressed and is soft but resilient material [0013, 0011, Fig 6] and these washers are commonly made of rubber [0013, 0002].
As to claim 16, Behle in combination with Dominguez as explained above teaches the spacer has a top surface with a chamfer (the sloped portion of 19 on the exterior surface) encircling the aperture such that the bottom portion of the chamfer is adjacent to the fastener.
As to claim 21, Behle teaches that the height of the washer determines the gap between the components and that its size is configured to allow for tolerances between the components and avoid inaccuracy [0010, 0011]. In other words, the gap size is results effective variable on component tolerance and fitting accuracy. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case gap size, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the gap size to an exact value of 0.003 inch in order to allow for component tolerance and minimize fitting inaccuracy. Furthermore, changes in size, in this case the height of the spacer/washer, are generally recognized to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights