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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “square crest”, claim 7, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7 recites for a squared crest, which is objected to. The squares crest, is understood by the examiner to define a “flat crest”, thus providing antecedent basis for “the flat end” of claim 8. It is also noted that a flat crest also renders moot the drawing objections, since at least Figs. 4-5 and 7, disclose a flat crest. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejection under 112 (b) or 112, 2nd paragraph for ambiguity is not applied at this time, since it appears that the claim deficiencies are of form and not of clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maffeis et al. (2006/0263168 “Maffeis”) in view of Wessel (5,458,174), Ueda (4,193,216) and Robertson (1,910,182).
Maffeis meets all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a removable tire stud 1 comprising:
a solid 5 portion having a top surface, the head portion being continuous with a shank portion 2, 9, 10;
the shank portion comprising an unthreaded neck 9 proximal to the head 5 and a threaded portion 3 with a blunt tip 10, wherein the thread extends from the blunt tip to the unthreaded neck 9, Fig. 1 and wherein a first portion of the thread 13 is sharpened to cut through rubber of a tire [0029]; and
except for the solid drive head 5 to be hexagonal shaped and for a notched flange having two diametrically opposed notches in an outer edge thereof, and wherein each notch is centered on a vertex of the hexagonal shaped head.
PNG
media_image2.png
291
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wessel teaches a threadably engageable tire stud having a solid hexagonal drive 36, 05:06. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Maffeis with a hexagonal drive head as taught by Wessel in adapting the stud for a hexagonally shaped driving tool.
PNG
media_image3.png
237
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
193
166
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Maffeis modified by Wessel meets the claim, except for a notched flange having two diametrically opposed notches in an outer edge thereof.
Ueda teaches a spike assembly for sport shoes having a head portion 4 with a solid drive head 4a and a flange 5 fixed to the head, wherein the flange has two diametrically opposed notches 10 having claws 9 in an outer edge thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the stud of Maffeis and Wessel with the notches and claws as taught by Ueda so that the claws cut into the workpiece to prevent being unscrewed.
Maffeis modified by Wessel and Ueda meets the claim, except for each notch to be centered on a vertex of the hexagonal shaped head.
PNG
media_image7.png
159
280
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
165
259
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Robertson teaches a slotted socket screw having a female square drive head with grooves or notches 5 on a flange defined by head 1 and wherein the notches may be centered on a side surface of the drive socket Fig. 1 or centered on the vertex of the rectangular head of the drive socket Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the stud of Maffeis, Wessel and Ueda with the notches centered on the vertex of the hexagonal head as taught by Robertson as an alternative arrangement of the notches with the minimum displacement of the metal.
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Maffeis modified by Wessel, Ueda and Robertson) meets the limitations, i.e., the stud of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the thread is the first half (½) turn of the thread Fig. 1, Maffeis @13.
Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the stud of claim 1, wherein the thread of the first portion of the thread 13 has a thinner thickness than the remaining thread Fig. 1, Maffeis.
Regarding claim 4, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the stud of claim 1, except for a crest of the thread to have a diameter substantially the same as a width of the flange. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the stud of PA with a flange the same size as that of the thread, for a stronger engagement with the tire to prevent unscrewing the stud and since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image11.png
255
219
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SQUARE
CREST)] Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the stud of claim 1, wherein the thread 13 having a second portion proximal to the unthreaded neck, the second portion has a squared crest as defined pre Figs. 4-5 of instant application to retain the stud within the rubber of the tire Fig. 1, Maffeis.
Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the stud of claim 7, wherein the flat end of the crest is parallel to the shank.
Regarding claim 9, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the stud of claim 1, wherein construction of the stud is unitary.
CLAIM 10
Maffeis meets all of the limitations of claim 10, i.e., a removable tire stud 1 comprising:
a solid 5 having a top surface, the head portion being continuous with a shank portion 2, 9, 10;
the shank portion comprising an unthreaded neck 9 proximal to the head 5 and a self-tapping threaded portion 12, 13 with a blunt tip 10;
except for a hexagonal head and a notched flange fixed to the head portion proximal to the shank portion; wherein the notched flange has two diametrically opposed notches in an outer edge thereof, and wherein each notch is centered on a vertex of the hexagonal shaped head.
PNG
media_image13.png
263
136
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Wessel teaches a threadably engageable tire stud having a solid hexagonal drive 36, 05:06. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Maffeis with a hexagonal drive head as taught by Wessel in adapting the stud for a hexagonally shaped driving tool.
PNG
media_image3.png
237
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
193
166
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Maffeis modified by Wessel meets the claim, except for a notched flange having two diametrically opposed notches in an outer edge thereof.
Ueda teaches a spike assembly for sport shoes having a head portion 4 with a solid drive 4a and a flange 5 fixed to the head, wherein the flange has two diametrically opposed notches 10 having claws 9 in an outer edge thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the stud of Maffeis and Wessel with the notches and claws as taught by Ueda so that the claws cut into the workpiece to prevent being unscrewed.
Maffeis modified by Wessel and Ueda meets the claim, except for each notch to be centered on a vertex of the hexagonal shaped head.
PNG
media_image7.png
159
280
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
165
259
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Robertson teaches a slotted socket screw having a female square drive head with grooves or notches 5 on a flange defined by head 1 and wherein the notches may be centered on a side surface of the drive socket Fig. 1 or centered on the vertex of the rectangular head of the drive socket Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the stud of Maffeis, Wessel and Ueda with the notches centered on the vertex of the hexagonal head as taught by Robertson as an alternative arrangement of the notches with the minimum displacement of the metal.
Regarding claim 11, PA (prior art, Maffeis modified by Wessel, Ueda and Robertson) meets the limitations, i.e., the removable tire stud of claim 10, wherein the self-tapping threaded portion comprises a cutting surface 13.
CLAIM 12
Maffeis meets all of the limitations of claim 12, i.e., a removable tire stud 1 comprising:
a solid 5 having a top surface, the head portion being continuous with a shank portion 2, 9, 10;
the shank portion comprising an unthreaded neck 9 proximal to the head and a thread-forming threaded portion 12, 13 with a blunt tip 10;
except for a hexagonal head and a notched flange fixed to the head portion proximal to the shank portion; wherein the notched flange has two diametrically opposed notches in an outer edge thereof, and wherein each notch is centered on a vertex of the hexagonal shaped head.
PNG
media_image13.png
263
136
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Wessel teaches a threadably engageable tire stud having a solid hexagonal drive 36, 05:06. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Maffeis with a hexagonal drive head as taught by Wessel in adapting the stud for a hexagonally shaped driving tool.
PNG
media_image3.png
237
328
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
193
166
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Maffeis modified by Wessel meets the claim, except for a notched flange having two diametrically opposed notches in an outer edge thereof.
Ueda teaches a spike assembly for sport shoes having a head portion 4 with a solid drive 4a and a flange 5 fixed to the head, wherein the flange has two diametrically opposed notches 10 having claws 9 in an outer edge thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the stud of Maffeis and Wessel with the notches and claws as taught by Ueda so that the claws cut into the workpiece to prevent being unscrewed.
Maffeis modified by Wessel and Ueda meets the claim, except for each notch to be centered on a vertex of the hexagonal shaped head.
PNG
media_image7.png
159
280
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
165
259
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Robertson teaches a slotted socket screw having a female square drive head with grooves or notches 5 on a flange defined by head 1 and wherein the notches may be centered on a side surface of the drive socket Fig. 1 or centered on the vertex of the rectangular head of the drive socket Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the stud of Maffeis, Wessel and Ueda with the notches centered on the vertex of the hexagonal head as taught by Robertson as an alternative arrangement of the notches with the minimum displacement of the metal.
Regarding claim 13, PA (prior art, Maffeis modified by Wessel, Ueda and Robertson) meets the limitations, i.e., the removable tire stud of claim 12, wherein the thread-forming threaded portion PA (prior art, Maffeis modified by Wessel, Ueda and Robertson) 12 comprises a cutting surface 13.
PNG
media_image13.png
263
136
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wessel.
PA (prior art, Maffeis modified by Wessel, Ueda and Robertson) meets all of the limitations of claim 5 as applied to claim 1 above, except for the top surface has a head protrusion.
Wessel teaches a threadably engageable tire stud having a solid hexagonal head 30 including a combination of a unitary elongated steel housing 32 and a carbide pin 34. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of PA with the carbide tip as taught by Wessel to improve traction of the tire.
PNG
media_image14.png
125
212
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, PA (prior art, Maffeis modified by Wessel, Ueda, Robertson and Wessel for the tip) meets the limitations, i.e., the stud of claim 5, wherein the head protrusion is a circular protrusion Fig. 4 Wessel.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-11 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11/255,366. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
For double patenting to exist as between the rejected claims and the reference claims it must be determined that the rejected claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims. In order to make this determination, it first must be determined whether there are any differences between the rejected claims and the reference claims and, if so, whether those differences render the claims patentably distinct.
In this case the kit of USP`366 recites at least one tire stud and an installation and removal device configured to install and remove the tire stud, the tire stud comprising a solid hexagonal shaped head portion continuous with a threaded, pointed shank portion; a notched flange fixed to the hexagonal shaped head portion proximal to the threaded, pointed shank portion; wherein the notched flange has two diametrically opposed notches in its outer edge and wherein each notch is centered on a vertex of the hexagonal shaped head portion and extends from the hexagonal shaped head portion through the flange; and the device comprising: an elongated shaft connected to a wrench head, the wrench head comprising: a neck with two substantially diametrically opposed walls extended therefrom; each wall having an interior face configured to receive a vertex of the hexagonal shaped head portion of the tire stud, each wall further comprising a tip portion that extends from a free end of the wall and is configured to fit in the notch of the tire stud, wherein gaps are provided between the two walls.. It is clear, as underlined above that all of the elements of the instant application claims 1-13 are to be found in the reference claims USP`366, except for a blunt tip. Prior art as applied above teaches this feature. It would have been obvious, to have provided the tire stud of the USP`366 claims 1-11 with the blunt tip and other features in view of prior art applied above, since combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-8 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11/892,022. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
In this case the removable tire stud of claims 1-8 USP`022 recite for a removable tire stud consisting of: a solid hexagonal shaped head portion having a top surface, the head portion being continuous with a threaded, pointed shank portion; a notched flange fixed to the head portion proximal to the threaded, pointed shank portion; wherein the notched flange has two diametrically opposed notches in an outer edge thereof, wherein each notch is centered on a vertex of the hexagonal shaped head, meeting the pending claims, except for that which is old (blunt tip) and within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of art applied above, since combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon at this time, are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. LeCompte et al. female hex drive with grooves at vertex, Barmore interchangeability of a female socket drive to a male drive, Smith center projection b, cone shaped, square or of other convenient form Forslund and Livingston are cited to show related inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
February 5, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723