DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-8, 10, and 20-21 are rejected and claims 9, 11-19, and 22-24 are cancelled.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10, 20, and 21 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 21, “in the” should be “in the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, and 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (U.S. Patent No. 8,172,280) in view of Willcox (U.S. Patent No. 3,010,126).
In regards to claim 1, Fischer discloses:
A system (see fig. 15A-15C hereinafter unless otherwise noted) for connecting a first HVAC duct section end flange to a second HVAC duct section end flange, the system comprising:
a first corner flange (86, top) and a second corner flange (86, bottom),
wherein both the first corner flange and the second corner flange comprise:
a first leg (ex., 88 in fig. 13) and a second leg (ex., 90 in fig. 13),
the first and second legs integrally connected to one another at a respective first end, and each leg extending outwardly away from the respective first end away from the other leg (ex., see fig. 13);
an interior surface (ex., see fig. 15 where there are two surfaces opposite each other) extending along the first and second legs;
an exterior surface extending along the first and second legs (ex., see fig. 15 where there are two surfaces opposite each other),
the exterior surface disposed opposite the interior surface (ex., see fig. 15 where there are two surfaces opposite each other);
at least one fastener aperture (ex., 94 fig. 13) extending between the interior surface and the exterior surface, and
at least one self-threading bolt (102) having a shank (near 106) and a head (104),
the shank having a threaded section (108) and an unthreaded section (106),
the unthreaded section disposed axially between the threaded section and the head,
the threaded section having a plurality of first threads with a thread diameter sized to engage the inner diameter surface of the fastener aperture (ex., see fig. 15A), and
the unthreaded section having a second diameter that is less than the thread diameter (ex., see fig. 15A); and
wherein in the assembled form,
the first HVAC duct section end flange and the second HVAC duct section end flange are adjacent one another and disposed between the first corner flange and the second corner flange (see fig. 15C), and
the first corner flange is disposed contiguous with the first HVAC duct section end flange (see fig. 15C), and
the second corner flange is disposed contiguous with the second HVAC duct section end flange (see fig. 15C); and
wherein in the assembled form, the central axis of the FCF aperture is aligned with the central axis of the SCF aperture (see fig. 15C); and
wherein in the assembled form, the at least one self-threading bolt is threadably engaged with a plurality of second threads cut into the inner diameter surface of the aperture of the second corner flange by the self-threading bolt (ex., compare figs. 15A-15C), and
the unthreaded section of the self-threading bolt is disposed within the aperture of the first corner flange (ex., see fig. 15C),
but does not disclose:
wherein the fastener aperture of the FCF and SCF comprises an integrally formed truncated cone extending out a height from the exterior surface,
wherein the truncated cone has an inner diameter surface and a central axis and the inner diameter surface is unthreaded prior to the system being disposed in an assembled form;
wherein the FCF truncated cone extends away from the first HVAC duct section end flange and the SCF truncated cone extends away from the second HVAC duct section end flange.
In regards to the truncated cone shape, Willcox discloses that it is known technique to form a truncated cone (25, fig. 1) from a hole (2, fig. 1) via a punching process (ex., see fig. 3, where the cylindrical protrusion goes from Station 1 to final Station 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the shape of the aperture of Fischer to be tapered such that aperture of each of the FCF and SCF is a truncated cone to meet the limitation of the claim because Willcox discloses that it is known technique to shape an aperture into a truncated cone (ex., see fig. 1, where the aperture 2 is formed into a truncated cone 25) and it has been held that a change in shape (ex., aperture to tapered) has been found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
In regards to the unthreaded limitation of the cone, the limitation “the inner diameter surface is unthreaded prior to the system being disposed in an assembled form” is a product-by-process limitation. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It is the patentability of the product that is to be determined and not recited process steps irrespective of whether or not only process steps are set forth.
In regards to claim 2, Fischer in view of Willcox further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the truncated cones of the first corner flange and the second corner flange comprise plastically deformed material (it is inherent that the cones would be plastically deformed material as the cone was formed via dies).
In regards to claim 10, Fischer in view of Willcox discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the integrally formed truncated cone has an engagement length (ex., see fig. 3 of Willcox) where the plurality of first threads of the threaded section of the self-threading bolt engaged with the second threads cut into the inner diameter surface of the truncated cone (ex., see figs. 15A-15C of Fischer),
but does not disclose:
the engagement length that is at least long enough to have two circumferential revolutions.
In regards to the engagement length, while Fischer in view of Willcox does not disclose “the engagement length that is at least long enough to have two circumferential revolutions”, the “engagement length” may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the engagement length of Fischer in view of Willcox to be “at least long enough to have two circumferential revolutions” as the “engagement length” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 20, Fischer in view of Willcox further discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the truncated cone has an end surface that is circumferentially continuous (ex., see fig. 1 of Willcox).
In regards to claim 21, Fischer in view of Willcox further discloses:
The system of claim 20, wherein the end surface is parallel to the first leg and the second leg (see fig. 1 of Willcox, where the end surface is parallel to the surface of the place).
Claim(s) 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Willcox as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Wotton et al. (GB-690543).
In regards to claim 3, Fischer in view of Willcox discloses:
The system of claim 2,
but does not disclose:
wherein the truncated cone comprises at least one slit.
In regards to the slits, Wotton discloses a similar device (see fig. 11) punched out from sheet metal and comprising threads (31) and slits (see near 29) to form a plurality of tangs (29) which provides the benefit of a locking action to prevent loosening of a bolt (2:11-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the truncated cone comprising threads of Fischer in view of Willcox with a plurality of slits to prevent loosening of the fastener, as taught by Wotton (2:11-27).
In regards to claim 4, Fischer in view of Willcox and Wotton further discloses:
The system of claim 3, wherein the truncated cone comprises a plurality of slits and a plurality of cone sections,
wherein adjacent cone sections are separated from one another by a one of said plurality of slits.
In regards to claim 5, Fischer in view of Willcox discloses:
The system of claim 2, wherein the truncated cone is circumferentially continuous (ex., see fig. 1 of Willcox),
but does not disclose:
wherein the truncated cone comprises at least one wall failure element.
In regards to the slits, Wotton discloses a similar device (see fig. 11) punched out from sheet metal and comprising threads (31) and slits (see near 29) to form a plurality of tangs (29) which provides the benefit of a locking action to prevent loosening of a bolt (2:11-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the truncated cone comprising threads of Fischer in view of Willcox with a plurality of slits to prevent loosening of the fastener, as taught by Wotton (2:11-27).
In regards to claim 6, Fischer in view of Willcox and Wotton further discloses:
The system of claim 5, wherein the at least one wall failure element is disposed in the inner diameter surface (ex., slits that extend through the exterior and interior surface would meet the limitation of the claim as the slit extends to the inner diameter surface).
In regards to claim 7, Fischer in view of Willcox and Wotton further discloses:
The system of claim 5, wherein the truncated cone includes an outer diameter surface, and the at least one wall failure element is disposed in the outer diameter surface (ex., slits that extend through the exterior and interior surface would meet the limitation of the claim as the slit extends to the outer diameter surface).
In regards to claim 8, Fischer in view of Willcox and Wotton further discloses:
The system of claim 5, wherein the truncated cone includes an outer diameter surface (ex., see fig. 1 of Willcox, where the cone comprises an outer diameter surface), and
herein the at least one wall failure element is a plurality of wall failure elements (ex., see fig. 11 of Wotton), and
at least one of the wall failure elements is disposed in the inner diameter surface, and at least one of the wall failure elements is disposed in the outer diameter surface (it is inherent that the slits are disposed to both the outer and inner diameter surface as the slit extends from the outer to the inner diameter surface as shown in fig. 11 of Wotton).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights