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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 290 and 390. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
For examination purposes Examiner’s interpretation of the means plus function limitations in the claims are listed below per the disclosures in the specification:
The first “drive means” of claim 1 is interpreted as a polygonal outer shaped portion (e.g. a hexagon) and equivalents thereof (i.e. substantially polygonal shapes that a tool and latch onto to spin the hollow screw);
The second “drive means” of claim 1 is interpreted as a polygonal outer shaped portion, a slit, a web, a cross-shaped indentation, or an indentation to fil an Allen key and equivalents thereof (e.g. a shape on the top there of that can receive a corresponding shaped known tightening tool);
The “means of a joint connection” of claim 3 is interpreted as a traditional helical threaded connection or locking arms and equivalents thereof (i.e. known elements the comprise projections on one part interfitting and locking with recesses on the other part);
The “first drive means” of claim 11 is interpreted as a polygonal outer shaped portion (e.g. a hexagon) and equivalents thereof (i.e. substantially polygonal shapes that a tool can latch onto to spin the hollow screw) as it is interpreted to be the same means as in claim 1;
The “second drive means” of claim 11 is interpreted as a plurality of circumferentially spaced indentations in an inner cylindrical wall of the hollow screw capable of receiving a tool and equivalents thereof (though there do not appear to be any known/art recognized equivalents thereof); and
The “drive means” of claim 18 is interpreted as a polygonal outer shaped portion, a slit, a web, a cross-shaped indentation, or an indentation to fil an Allen key and equivalents thereof (e.g. a shape on the top there of that can receive a corresponding shaped known tightening tool).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wandelt (US 2015/0224916).
With regard to claim 1, Wandelt discloses a connecting element (16, 18) of two components (12 and 14) spaced apart one another with tolerance compensation function (as seen in Figs. 3, 4, 6-8, etc. the connecting element of Wandelt is capable of such) comprising the following features: a. a hollow screw (28 comprising 34 and 36) with an outer thread (63), with which a thread connection to a first component (A) is establishable (as seen in Figs. 3, 6-8, etc. it is capable of such as Wandelt actually discloses such), which is adjustable by means of at least one drive means (i.e. the polygonal shaped head of 34) of the hollow screw in its longitudinal direction (as seen in Figs. 3-4, etc.), b. a nut element (32) which is received in a receiving space (48) of the hollow screw (as seen in Fig. 3, etc.) and which comprises a radial inner functional surface (i.e. threaded surface at 77, 78) so that a form-fit and force-fit connection is establishable with a first connecting end (i.e. the right-hand end in Fig. 5) of a connecting bolt (i.e. 30, as seen in Figs. 3, 6-8, etc.), wherein the connecting bolt includes a drive means (i.e. t as seen in Figs. 4-5 the shape at the end of the shaft which is capable of being gripped and is approximately polygonal in cross-section) adjacent to the first connecting end (as seen in Fig. 5), and c. wherein the connecting bolt has a second connecting end (i.e. the end comprising 60), with which a force-fit and/or form-fit connection to a second component (14) is establishable (e.g. depending on which second component it is used with it is capable of such a use (e.g. as it could be installed in a recess of essentially the exact same diameter as 60)) in that the second connecting end of the bolt engages and fastens in a connecting opening of the second component (Examiner notes that that second component is only recited as a recitation of intended use of the connecting element (i.e. Applicant is claiming a connecting element not an assembly with a connecting element installed in a certain manner) and the connecting bolt is capable of such as for example it could be installed in a recess of essentially the exact same diameter as 60)).
With regard to claim 6, Wandelt discloses that the connecting flange comprises a cap-like sealing element (i.e. the right-most portion of the connecting flange as seen in Fig. 5) projecting in the direction of the second connecting end (as seen in Fig. 5 as it has axial thickness) so as to seal a connection to the second component (as seen in Fig. 3, etc. due to the illustrated contact there is at least some amount of sealing therebetween).
With regard to claim 9, Wandelt discloses that the first connecting end of the connecting bolt comprises an outer thread (at 57/58) and the nut element comprises a matching inner thread (77/78) for establishing a thread connection (as seen in Figs. 3, etc.).
With regard to claim 12, Wandelt discloses A connection of a first component (12) and a second component (14) spaced apart from one another (as seen in Figs. 3, etc.) with the connecting element according to claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 16, Wandelt discloses that the connecting bolt comprises a radially outwardly projecting connecting flange (60 and/or the portion projecting radially outward from 60) between the first connecting end and the second connecting end (as seen in Fig. 5, etc.), the connecting flange supporting a force-fit connection with the hollow screw (as seen in Figs. 3, etc. due to the abutment when installed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 4-5, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figge (US 2020/0240459) alone.
With regard to claim 1, Figge discloses a connecting element (1) of two components (as detailed in para. [0011], etc.) spaced apart one another with tolerance compensation function (as s detailed in para. [0011], etc. the connecting element of Figge is capable of such) comprising the following features: a. a hollow screw (10) with an outer thread (as seen in Figs. 1, etc.), with which a thread connection to a first component (A) is establishable (as detailed in para. [0012], etc. the structure is capable of such), which is adjustable by means of at least one drive means (i.e. the polygonal shaped head of 10) of the hollow screw in its longitudinal direction (as seen in Figs. 1, etc.), b. a nut element (32) which is received in a receiving space (as seen in Fig. 1-3, etc.) of the hollow screw (as seen in Fig. 3, etc.) and which comprises a radial inner functional surface (as seen in Fig. 1) so that a form-fit and force-fit connection is establishable with a first connecting end (i.e. an end which would be proximate 32. Additionally see paras. [0014], etc.) of a connecting bolt (as detailed in paras. [0014], etc.), c. wherein the connecting bolt has a second connecting end (i.e. i.e. an end which would be proximate 12/14 when installed as per paras. [0014], etc.), with which a force-fit and/or form fit connection to a second component (e.g. 52) is establishable (e.g. depending on which second component it is used with it is capable of such a use (e.g. as it could be installed in a recess of essentially the exact same diameter as the second end)) in that the second connecting end of the bolt engages and fastens in a connecting opening of the second component (Examiner notes that that second component is only recited as a recitation of intended use of the connecting element (i.e. Applicant is claiming a connecting element not an assembly with a connecting element installed in a certain manner) and the connecting bolt is capable of such as for example it could be installed in a recess of essentially the exact same diameter as the bolt head). Additionally see para. [0041] disclosing the connecting bolt can pass through a connecting opening of the second component).
Figge is silent as to the exact structure of the connecting bolt and thus fails to explicitly discloses that the connecting bolt includes a drive means (as defined per the 112(f) invocation) adjacent to the first connecting end. However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have modified the device of the combination such that the connecting bolt includes a drive means adjacent to the first connecting end as Examiner hereby takes Official Notice that the art is replete with examples of connecting bolts comprising drive means (as defined per the 112(f) invocation) adjacent to the first connecting end. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of providing the bolt with the ability to be easily driven by known tools.
As applicant has not traversed examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement relied upon in examiner’s assertion of official notice is hereby taken to be admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP 2144.03.
With regard to claim 2, the combination (Figge) discloses that a first opening (i.e. proximate 12) of the hollow screw has an opening diameter (i.e. at 12) which is larger than a bolt diameter of the connecting bolt which reaches into the hollow screw (i.e. as seen in Fig. 3 any bolt as per paras. [0014], etc. would have to be smaller in diameter than the opening), so that the connecting bolt is displaceable within the first opening of the hollow screw for compensating tolerances laterally with respect to its longitudinal axis (as seen in Figs. 3, paras. [0047], [0060], etc.).
With regard to claim 4, the combination (Figge) is silent as to the exact structure of the connecting bolt and thus fails to explicitly discloses that the connecting bolt comprises a radially outwardly projecting connecting flange between the first connecting end and the second connecting end, the connecting flange supporting a force-fit connection with the hollow screw. However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have modified the device of Figge such that the connecting bolt comprises a radially outwardly projecting connecting flange between the first connecting end and the second connecting end, the connecting flange supporting a force-fit connection with the hollow screw as Examiner hereby takes Official Notice that the art is replete with examples connecting bolts comprising a radially outwardly projecting connecting flange between the first connecting end and the second connecting end, for use supporting a force-fit connection with an abutting element. Such a modification would provide the expected result of allowing the bolt to contact the components(s) and effect a secure connection.
As applicant has not traversed examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement relied upon in examiner’s assertion of official notice is hereby taken to be admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP 2144.03.
With regard to claim 5, the combination (Figge) is silent as to the exact structure of the connecting bolt and thus fails to explicitly discloses that the connecting flange comprises webs facing the hollow screw which support a connection between the hollow screw and the connecting bolt in a form-fit manner. However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have modified the device of Figge such that the connecting bolt comprises the connecting flange having webs facing the hollow screw which support a connection between the hollow screw and the connecting bolt in a form-fit manner as Examiner hereby takes Official Notice that the art is replete with examples connecting bolts comprising the connecting flange comprises webs facing the element they contact which support a connection between such in a form-fit manner. Such a modification would provide the expected result of more secure fastening therebetween and reduced likelihood of the bolt backing out unintentionally.
As applicant has not traversed examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement relied upon in examiner’s assertion of official notice is hereby taken to be admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP 2144.03.
With regard to claim 12, the combination (Figge) discloses a connection of a first component and a second component spaced apart one another (as described in paras. [0011]-[0014], etc.) with the connecting element according to claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 13, the combination (Figge) discloses a connecting method of a first component and a second component (as described in paras. [0011]-[0014], etc.) at a distance to one another with the connecting element (as described in paras. [0011]-[0014], etc.) according to one of the preceding claims claim 1 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising: a. screwing-in the hollow screw of the connecting element into a first fastening opening at the first component (as disclosed in paras. [0014], etc.), b. fastening the second connecting end of the connecting bolt in a second fastening opening of the second component (as disclosed in paras. [0027], etc.), with radial tolerances being compensated in an axial alignment of the hollow screw and the connecting bolt (as seen in Fig. 3 due to the spacing therein), c. connecting the nut element (and the first connecting end of the connecting bolt so that the connecting bolt is fastened to the hollow screw (as described in paras. [0011]-[0014], etc.).
With regard to claim 14, the combination (Figge) discloses d. rotating the hollow screw in the first component so as to adjust an axial position of the connecting element (as described in the abstract, paras. [0002], [0012], etc.).
With regard to claim 17, the combination is silent as to the exact structure of the connecting bolt and thus fails to explicitly discloses that the connecting flange comprises a cap-like sealing element projecting in the direction of the second connecting end so as to seal a connection to a second component. However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have modified the device of the combination such that the connecting flange comprises a cap-like sealing element projecting in the direction of the second connecting end so as to seal a connection to a second component as Examiner hereby takes Official Notice that the art is replete with examples of connecting bolts comprising the connecting flange comprises a cap-like sealing element projecting in the direction of the second connecting end so as to seal a connection to a second component. Such a modification would provide the expected result of more sealing between the elements, preventing water ingress that could cause corrosion, etc.
As applicant has not traversed examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement relied upon in examiner’s assertion of official notice is hereby taken to be admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP 2144.03.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 10-11, 15, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. In so much as they apply the the current grounds of rejection Applicant's arguments filed 28 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument against the prior rejections is that Wandelt fails to disclose that the connecting bolt includes a drive means adjacent to the first connecting end. This argument is not persuasive as the first connecting end does include a drive means adjacent thereto (as detailed above and in the prior rejection of claim 7). Examiner notes it appears Applicant may be arguing a more specific drive means (e.g. what is shown in Applicant’s Figs.) that what is actually recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s second argument is that Wandelt fails to disclose the new limitation that the second connecting end has a force-fit and/or form fit and with a second component and that such end engages and fastened in a connecting opening of the second component. Examiner notes this is not persuasive as such is fully rejected in the new/amended grounds of rejection above. Specifically Examiner notes that as Applicant is only claiming a connecting element and the second component is only recited as a recitation of the capability/intended use of the connecting element these recitations only require the capability of Wandelt to perform such. As detailed above Wandelt is capable of/configured for such. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s next argument is that Figge fails to disclose that the connecting bolt includes a drive means adjacent to the first connecting end. This argument is not persuasive as the new grounds of rejection of claim 1 makes obvious a first connecting end that does include a drive means adjacent thereto (as detailed above and in the prior rejection of claim 18). Examiner notes it appears Applicant may be arguing a more specific drive means (e.g. what is shown in Applicant’s Figs.) that what is actually recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s next argument is that Figge fails to disclose the new limitation that the second connecting end has a force-fit and/or form fit and with a second component and that such end engages and fastened in a connecting opening of the second component. Examiner notes this is not persuasive as such is fully rejected in the new/amended grounds of rejection above. Specifically Examiner notes that as Applicant is only claiming a connecting element and the second component is only recited as a recitation of the capability/intended use of the connecting element these recitations only require the capability of Figge to perform such. As detailed above Figge is capable of/configured for such. Additionally see para. [0041] disclosing the connecting bolt can pass through a connecting opening of the second component. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In the interest of advancing prosecution Examiner recommends incorporating one or more of the objected to claims into the independent claims. Alternatively if Applicant wishes to positively require the argued subject matter Applicant could claim a connecting element assembly comprising a first component, a second component, and a connecting element, however to avoid an obviousness rejection Applicant should also additionally claim that the second end of the connecting bolt has a sealing element (90) with a circumferentially projecting wall (94) and that is what radially/circumferentially engages an annular wall of the connecting opening of the second component.
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 NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 at (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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights