DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-8 and 10-24 are rejected and claim 9 is cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16c, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Drawings
The drawings received on 9/25/2023 are no longer objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because the features of claim 19 have been cancelled by Applicant on 9/19/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 23, line 1, “The duct corner flange of claim 1” should be “The duct corner flange of claim 11” because “A duct corner flange” is only present in claim 11.
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 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda (JP-2007010290) in view of Fischer (U.S. Patent No. 8,172,280) and in further view of Willcox (U.S. Patent No. 3,010,126).
In regards to claim 1, Masuda discloses:
A system (see fig. 3 hereinafter unless otherwise noted) for connecting a first HVAC duct section end flange (33) to a second HVAC duct section end flange (331), the system comprising:
a first corner flange (27) and a second corner flange (271),
wherein both the first corner flange and the second corner flange comprise:
a first leg and a second leg (see fig. 4, where both would comprise a first and second leg),
the first and second legs integrally connected to one another at a respective first end (see fig. 4), and
each leg extending outwardly away from the respective first end away from the other leg (see fig. 5);
an interior surface extending along the first and second legs (ex., the surface facing towards gasket 30);
an exterior surface extending along the first and second legs (ex., the opposite surface facing away from gasket 30),
the exterior surface disposed opposite the interior surface;
at least one fastener aperture (22 and 221) extending between the interior surface and the exterior surface,
the fastener aperture including an integrally formed truncated cylinder extending out a height from the exterior surface (see fig. 3, where both are cylinders),
wherein the truncated cylinder has an inner diameter surface (ex., it is inherent that both cylinders have inner diameter surfaces); and
at least one self-threading bolt having a shank and a head (see fig. 3, where the bolt comprising a head and shank is used),
the shank having a threaded section (see fig. 3),
the threaded section having a plurality of first threads with a thread diameter sized to engage the inner diameter surface of the truncated cylinder (ex., see near 221 which shows the threads engaging with threads of the bolt), and
wherein in an assembled form, the first HVAC duct section end flange and the second HVAC duct section end flange are adjacent one another (ex., see fig. 3) and disposed between the first corner flange and the second corner flange (ex., see fig. 3), and
the first corner flange is disposed contiguous with the first HVAC duct section end flange such that the FCF truncated cylinder extends away from the first HVAC duct section end flange (see fig. 3, where 22 projects away from the first duct section), and
the second corner flange is disposed contiguous with the second HVAC duct section end flange (see fig. 3) such that the SCF truncated cylinder extends away from the second HVAC duct section end flange (see fig. 3, where 221 would also do the same as 21 in fig. 3); 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 truncated cylinder of the second corner flange (see 221 in fig. 3) and the threaded section of the self-threading bolt is disposed within the truncated cylinder of the first corner flange (see fig. 3),
but does not disclose:
the fastener aperture including an integrally formed truncated cone,
the shank having an unthreaded section disposed axially between the threaded section and the head,
the unthreaded section of the self-threading bolt is disposed within the truncated cone of the first corner flange,
the unthreaded section having a second diameter that is less than the thread diameter.
In regards to the truncated cone shape, Willcox discloses that it is known technique to form a truncated cone (25, fig. 1) from a cylindrical protrusion (3, fig. 1; 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 outer cylindrical surface of Masuda to be tapered such that the outer cylindrical surface of each of the FCF and SCF is a truncated cone because Willcox discloses that it is known technique to shape a cylindrical shaped protrusion into a truncated cone (ex., see fig. 1, where the cylindrical protrusion 3 is formed into a truncated cone 25 comprising threads 4) and it has been held that a change in shape (ex., cylindrical 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 section, Fischer discloses a similar device comprising a fastener (102, fig. 14) comprising an unthreaded section (106, fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to simply substitute the fastener of Masuda in view of Willcox with the fastener of Fischer comprising an unthreaded portion because Masuda in view of Willcox discloses a device which differs from the claim device by a simple substitution of the cylindrical fastener of Fischer, Fischer discloses a similar device comprising the known fastener used duct connectors, and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the one known fastener for the other known fastener because simply substituting one similar fastener for another similar fastener would have not produced any new or unexpected results.
In regards to claim 2, Masuda in view of Willcox and Fischer 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, Masuda in view of Willcox and Fischer discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the integrally formed truncated cone has an engagement length (see fig. 3) 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,
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 Masuda in view of Willcox and Fischer 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 Masuda in view of Willcox and Fischer 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, Masuda in view of Willcox and Fischer 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, Masuda in view of Willcox and Fischer 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).
In regards to claim 22, Masuda in view of Willcox and Fischer further discloses:
The system of claim 21, wherein the inner diameter surface of the truncated cone defines a bore having a central axis that is perpendicular to the first leg and the second leg (see fig. 1 of Willcox, where the threaded bore central axis is perpendicular to the metal surface 10 similar to the truncated cone).
Claim(s) 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Willcox and Fischer as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Wotton et al. (GB-690543).
In regards to claim 3, Masuda in view of Willcox and Fischer 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 Masuda in view of Willcox and Fischer with a plurality of slits to prevent loosening of the fastener, as taught by Wotton (2:11-27).
In regards to claim 4, Masuda in view of Willcox, Fischer, 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, Masuda in view of Willcox, and Fischer 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 (it is inherent the cone would still be circumferentially continuous as the slits do not go all the way through and only partially as shown by Wotton).
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 Masuda in view of Willcox and Fischer with a plurality of slits to prevent loosening of the fastener, as taught by Wotton (2:11-27).
In regards to claim 6, Masuda in view of Willcox, Fischer, 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, Masuda in view of Willcox, Fischer, 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, Masuda in view of Willcox, Fischer, 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
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).
Claim(s) 11, 18, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Willcox.
In regards to claim 11, Masuda discloses:
A duct corner flange (see fig. 2), comprising:
a first leg(23);
a second leg (24),
the first and second legs integrally connected to one another at a respective first end (see near 26), and
each leg extending outwardly away from the respective first end away from the other leg (see fig. 2);
an interior surface extending along the first and second legs (ex., the opposite side of 25);
an exterior surface (see near 25) extending along the first and second legs,
the exterior surface disposed opposite the interior surface (ex., it is inherent that both surfaces are opposite of each other);
at least one fastener aperture (21) extending between the interior surface and the exterior surface,
the fastener aperture including an integrally formed truncated cylinder (see fig. 2) extending out from the exterior surface;
wherein the truncated cylinder includes a bore extending along a central axis (ex., see fig. 2, where the bore is threaded),
the bore defined by an inner diameter surface that extends along the central axis a distance and is symmetrical about the central axis (see fig. 2), and
wherein the inner diameter surface is configured to be threaded (see fig. 2),
but does not disclose:
the fastener aperture including an integrally formed truncated cone.
In regards to the truncated cone shape, Willcox discloses that it is known technique to form a truncated cone (25, fig. 1) from a cylindrical protrusion (3, fig. 1; 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 truncated cylinder of Masuda to be conical such that the cylinder of the duct corner flange is a truncated cone because Willcox discloses that it is known technique to shape a cylindrical shaped protrusion into a truncated cone (ex., see fig. 1, where the cylindrical protrusion 3 is formed into a truncated cone 25 comprising threads 4) and it has been held that a change in shape (ex., cylindrical to cone) 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 claim 18, Masuda in view of Willcox further discloses:
The duct corner flange of claim 11, wherein the central axis of the truncated cone is perpendicular to the interior surface.
In regards to claim 23, Masuda in view of Willcox further discloses:
The duct corner flange of claim “11”, wherein the truncated cone has an end surface that is circumferentially continuous (ex., see fig. 1 of Willcox and see fig. 2 of Masuda, where both end surfaces are circumferentially continuous).
In regards to claim 24, Masuda in view of Willcox further discloses:
The duct corner flange of claim 23, wherein the end surface is parallel to the first leg and the second leg (ex., see fig. 1 of Willcox and see fig. 2 of Masuda, where both end surfaces are parallel to both legs).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Willcox as applied to claim 11 above and in further view of Ulintz (NPL, 2011).
In regards to claim 12, Masuda in view of Willcox discloses:
The duct corner flange of claim 11,
but does not disclose:
wherein at least a portion of the inner diameter surface extends perpendicular to the interior surface.
In regards to the curved inner surface, Ulintz discloses that hole extensions that comprises threads from self-tapping screws (see page 1 of the NPL provided herein) are known to have an inner diameter surface that extends perpendicular to the inner surface (see fig. 1 of the NPL, where the inner surface is curved and connects to a perpendicular surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the shape of the threaded bore of Masuda in view of Willcox to be tapered such that at least a portion of the inner diameter surface extends perpendicular to the interior surface because Ulintz discloses that tapered inner surfaces of hole extrusions are known (ex., see fig. 1) and it has been held that a change in shape (ex., non-tapered 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)).
Claim(s) 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Willcox as applied to claim 11 above and in further view of Wotton.
In regards to claim 13, Masuda in view of Willcox discloses:
The duct corner flange of claim 11,
but does not disclose:
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 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 Masuda 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 14, Masuda in view of Willcox discloses:
The duct corner flange of claim 11, 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 Masuda 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 15, Masuda in view of Willcox and Wotton further discloses:
The duct corner flange of claim 14, 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 16, Masuda in view of Willcox and Wotton further discloses:
The duct corner flange of claim 14, wherein the truncated cone includes an outer diameter surface (ex., see fig. 1 of Willcox), 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 17, Masuda in view of Willcox and Wotton further discloses:
The duct corner flange of claim 14, wherein the truncated cone includes an outer diameter surface (ex., see fig. 1 of Willcox, where the cone comprises an outer diameter surface), and
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).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Willcox and in further view of Kolesar (U.S. Patent No. 6,502,716).
In regards to claim 19, Masuda discloses:
A duct corner flange (see fig. 2) including:
a first leg (24);
a second leg (23),
the first and second legs integrally connected to one another at a respective first end (see fig. 2), and
each leg extending outwardly away from the respective first end away from the other leg (see fig. 2);
an interior surface extending along the first and second legs (ex., opposite the surface 25);
an exterior surface extending along the first and second legs (see the exterior surface near 25),
the exterior surface disposed opposite the interior surface (it is inherent both surfaces are opposite each other);
at least one fastener aperture (see near 21) extending between the interior surface and the exterior surface,
the fastener aperture including an integrally formed truncated cylinder (21) extending out from the exterior surface;
wherein the truncated cylinder includes a bore (see near 21) extending along a central axis,
the bore defined by an inner diameter surface that extends along the central axis a distance and is symmetrical about the central axis (see fig. 2), and
wherein the inner diameter surface is configured to be threaded (see fig. 2, where the bore is threaded); and
but does not disclose:
A stack of duct corner flanges, comprising:
a plurality of duct corner flanges,
the fastener aperture including an integrally formed truncated cone,
wherein in the stack, the first leg of each duct corner flange is aligned with the first leg of each other duct corner flange in the stack, and the second leg of each duct corner flange is aligned with the second leg of each other duct corner flange in the stack, and the truncated cones of the plurality of duct corner flanges are aligned with one another in the stack.
In regards to the truncated cone shape, Willcox discloses that it is known technique to form a truncated cone (25, fig. 1) from a cylindrical protrusion (3, fig. 1; 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 truncated cylinder of Masuda to be conical such that the cylinder of the duct corner flange is a truncated cone because Willcox discloses that it is known technique to shape a cylindrical shaped protrusion into a truncated cone (ex., see fig. 1, where the cylindrical protrusion 3 is formed into a truncated cone 25 comprising threads 4) and it has been held that a change in shape (ex., cylindrical to cone) 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 plurality of duct corner flanges, Kolesar discloses a similar duct corner flange (see fig. 7) that is stacked with multiple identical duct corner flanges (see fig. 7) such that a first leg of each duct corner flange is aligned with a first leg of each other duct corner flange in the stack (see fig. 7), and
a second leg of each duct corner flange is aligned with a second leg of each other duct corner flange in the stack (see fig. 7), and
a bore (46) of the plurality of duct corner flanges are aligned with one another in the stack (see fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date single duct corner flange of Masuda in view of Willcox to comprise a plurality of duct corner flanges to meet the limitations of claim 19 because Kolesar discloses that it is known to stack multiple duct corner flanges with one another (see fig. 7; 4:37-39) and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, duplicating the duct corner flange of Masuda in view of Willcox to produce a stack would not produce a new and unexpected result.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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