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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to. Paragraph [0018], line 1, “utilizes” should be “utilized”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hyatt US 2014/0056667 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hyatt teaches a connection interface (Example embodiment Spec [0014]; Fig. 11) between components of a turbine engine comprising:
a first component defining a first flange (Fig. 11; First flanged component 62) with a first opening (Fig. 11; One hole 66);
a second component defining a second flange (Fig. 11; Second flanged component 64) with a second opening (Fig. 11; A hole 68);
a bolt (Fig. 11; Fastener 70) including a shaft (Fig. 11; Bolt 72) with external threads (Fig. 11; Threaded portion 74) extending from a bolt head (Fig. 11; Head 76) to a distal end (Distal end of bolt, opposite the bolt head), wherein the shaft extends through both the first opening and the second opening;
a guard (Fig. 7; Shear sleeve 78) including internal threads (Fig. 7; Threaded surface 82), a first end (First end of shear sleeve), a second end (Second end of shear sleeve) and an outer surface shaped to fit within both of the first opening and the second opening;
and a nut (Fig. 11; Securing feature 94) including internal threads secured to the external threads of the bolt.
PNG
media_image1.png
791
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
424
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hyatt teaches the connection interface (Fig. 11) as recited in claim 1, wherein the guard includes a length (Length F; Fig. 7) that is less than a combined thickness of the first flange and the second flange. Figure 11 shows length F of the guard is less than the thickness of the combined flanges.
Regarding claim 3, Hyatt teaches the connection interface as recited in claim 2, wherein the outer surface (Fig. 7; Outer surface 84) of the guard is of a uniform diameter along the entire length between the first end (Fig. 11; First end) and the second end (Fig. 11; Second end).
Regarding claim 9, Hyatt teaches the connection interface as recited in claim 1, wherein the guard and the bolt are formed from a common material (Spec [0013]).
Regarding claim 10, Hyatt teaches a bolt assembly (Fig. 11; Fastener 90) for connecting component sections of an aircraft component (Fig.1 not shown; further supported by Spec[0014]), the bolt assembly comprising: a bolt (70) including a shaft (72) having external threads (74) extending from a bolt head (76) to a distal end (end opposite 76); a guard (78) including internal threads (82) mated to the external threads of the bolt (paragraph [0054]), a first end (left), a second end (right) and an outer surface (84) having a uniform diameter between the first end and the second end (figure 11); and a nut (94) including internal threads (Fig. 11; Internal threads of securing feature; paragraph [0060]) securable to the external threads of the bolt.
Regarding claim 16, Hyatt teaches the bolt assembly as recited in claim 10, wherein the guard and the bolt are formed from a common material (Spec [0013]).
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.
Claim 4-6, 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt US 2014/0056667 A1 (hereinafter Hyatt).
Regarding claim 4, Hyatt teaches the connection interface as recited in claim 3, wherein the uniform outer diameter of the guard is between about 85% and 95% of a diameter of at least one of the first opening and the second opening.
The claimed diameter range recited appears to be a matter of design choice absent of criticality or unexpected results. It is reasonable to one of ordinary skill that the thread guard needs to be smaller than the diameter of the openings and large enough to act as a thread guard for proper protection against shearing. This is further supported by applicant’s own admission (Spec [0026]). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 5, Hyatt teaches the connection interface as recited in claim 3, wherein the uniform outer diameter of the guard is between 60% and 85% of a maximum width of the bolt head.
The claimed diameter range recited appears to be a matter of design choice absent of criticality or unexpected results. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the claimed invention that the outer diameter of the thread should not exceed maximum width of the bolt head. This is further supported but the applicant’s own admission (Spec [0026]). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 6, Hyatt teaches the connection interface as recited in claim 1, wherein a thickness of the guard between a pitch diameter of the internal threads and the outer surface is between 10% and 25% of a pitch diameter of the external threads of the bolt.
The claimed thickness range recited appears to be a matter of design choice absent of criticality or unexpected results. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the claimed invention that the outer diameter of the thread should not exceed maximum width of the bolt head. This is further supported but the applicant’s own admission (Spec [0032]). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 11, Hyatt teaches the bolt assembly as recited in claim 10, wherein a length of the guard between the first end and the second end is between 65% and 85% of the length between the bolt head and the distal end of the bolt.
The claimed length range recited appears to be a matter of design choice absent of criticality or unexpected results. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the claimed invention that the shorter length of the guard should not exceed the length of the bolt (Fig. 11). This is further supported but the applicant’s own admission (Spec [0023]). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 12, Hyatt teaches the bolt assembly as recited in claim 11, wherein a thickness of the guard between a pitch diameter of the internal threads and the outer surface is between 10% and 25% of a pitch diameter of the external threads of the bolt.
The claimed thickness range recited appears to be a matter of design choice absent of criticality or unexpected results. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the claimed invention that the outer diameter of the thread should not exceed maximum width of the bolt head. This is further supported but the applicant’s own admission (Spec [0032]). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 13, Hyatt teaches the bolt assembly as recited in claim 10, wherein an outer diameter of the guard is between 70% and 85% of a width of the bolt head.
The claimed diameter range recited appears to be a matter of design choice absent of criticality or unexpected results. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the claimed invention that the outer diameter of the thread should not exceed maximum width of the bolt head. This is further supported but the applicant’s own admission (Spec [0026]). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 17, Hyatt teaches a method of securing components parts of an aircraft engine (Spec [0045]), the method comprising: aligning a first opening of a first component with a second opening of second component (Spec [0014]); mating internal threads of a guard to external threads of a bolt (Spec [0009],[0012], [0020]); inserting the mated bolt and guard through the first opening and the second opening (Spec [0060]); mating a nut to external threads of the bolt that extend outside of the first opening and the second opening (Spec [0060]); and tightening the nut against a surface of one of the first component and the second component to a predetermined torque (Spec [0060]).
While not explicitly recited as a method, Hyatt teaches a fastener that would be obviously used in the same way as the claimed method steps.
Regarding claim 18, Hyatt teaches the method as recited in claim 17, wherein the guard includes an outer surface corresponding with a shape of an inner surface of each of the first opening and the second opening (Fig. 11, 7).
Regarding claim 19, Hyatt teaches the method as recited in claim 17, wherein the outer surface of the guard is of a uniform diameter that is between 85% and 95% of a diameter of each of the first opening and the second opening. See rationale above
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 7-8, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt US 2014/0056667 A1 (hereinafter Hyatt) further in view of Pudvah US 2011/0142565 A1 (hereinafter Pudvah).
-Regarding claim 7, Hyatt teaches the guard of claim 1 but fails to include an abutment surface. Pudvah teaches this is known in the art. Pudvah teaches wherein the guard (Fig. 3; Bushing 10) includes a head portion (Fig. 3; Bushing shoulder 14) including an abutment surface (Fig. 3; Top surface shoulder) configured to abut a bottom surface (Fig. 3; Bolt shoulder 24) of the bolt head (Fig. 3; Bolt head 22) and an inner surface that defines a spacing (Fig. 3; see figure below) between a first one of the internal threads (figure 2, thread 13; see annotated figure below) and the abutment surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the guard of Pudvah on the Hyatt device in order to provide a fastening system reducing shearing (paragraph 0015).
PNG
media_image3.png
225
184
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Hyatt in view of Pudvah teaches the connection interface as recited in claim 7, wherein the spacing is equal to or greater than a pitch (13) of the external threads of the bolt. As shown above in the figure, the spacing is greater than the pitch of the threads
Regarding claim 20, Hyatt teaches the guard of claim 1 but fails to include an explicit method for use. Pudvah teaches this is known in the art. Pudvah teaches the method as recited in claim 17, wherein the guard includes a head portion with an abutment surface configured to abut a bottom surface of a head of the bolt and an inner surface defining a spacing between a first one of the internal threads and the abutment surface and mating the guard to the bolt includes threading the guard onto the bolt until the abutment surface contacts the bottom surface of the head of the bolt.
Regarding claim 14, Hyatt in view of Pudvah teaches the bolt assembly as recited in claim 10, wherein the guard includes a head portion including an abutment surface configured to abut a bottom surface of the bolt head and an inner surface defining a spacing between a first one of the internal threads and the abutment surface.
Regarding claim 15, Hyatt in view of Pudvah teaches the bolt assembly as recited in claim 14, wherein the spacing is equal to or greater than a pitch of the external threads of the bolt. As shown above the spacing is greater than a pitch of the external threads of the bolt.
PNG
media_image4.png
739
1103
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Fournet whose telephone number is +1 571-272-9129. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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.
/B.P.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675