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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species V in the reply filed on 27 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that (1) none of the species include Figs. 11A-11B, (2) both Species XI and XII are listed “as seen in Fig. 13”, (3) that none of the Species include Figs, 14A-14B, and (4) there would not have been a serious examination burden. This is not found persuasive. With regard to the first three arguments: none of the claims read on the species shown in Figs. 11A-11B (e.g. as this species does not include the feature of a mount fastener configured for longitudinal insertion into the bore as required by each independent claim); and Species XII clearly contains a typographical error and should have read “as seen in Figs. 14A-14B” (i.e. see Examiner’s written description of Species XII in the restriction requirement as such are the only Figs. that match that description. Regarding the final argument Examiner notes that though there is of course some overlap in the scope of search for each species there would be different search queries for each species (e.g. searching for a flexible tag versus paint dots, expandable disk, corrugated frustoconical element, etc. would all require different keyword searching), certain species would require searching different subclasses (e.g. species shown in 2A-4C, 8A-10D, etc. would require searching F16B21/084 while those shown in 5A-6B would not, those shown in Figs. 1A- 4C, etc. would not require searching in H02 like the species in Figs. 5A-6B, 8A-10D, etc. would, etc.). Accordingly the species are considered to sufficiently have both separate classification and separate fields of search resulting in a serious search burden. Examiner does note that Appllciant’s argument that Species V and VI are sufficiently similar is essentially an argument that they are patently indistinct/obvious variants and is persuasive. Accordingly Species V and VI will be considered one species and will be examined together as Examiner elected species V.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4, 8-17, and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 27 July 2026.
Examiner notes that though Applicant indicated claims 8, 10, and 11 read on the elected species, Examiner notes that claim 8 requires that the visual indicator comprises a compressible disk which does not appear in the elected species V/VI as the visual indicator in the elected species is a corrugated frustoconical element.
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 1-3, 5-7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al. (US2021/0215176).
With regard to claim 1, Hall discloses a fixing (including 150, 140, 130) configured for attaching to a support structure at a bore defined in the support structure (as seen in Figs 2-3, etc. it is capable of this intended use in the preamble as it is shown attached to support structure (i.e. one of 112/114)), the fixing comprising: a mount fastener (including the threaded portion at 154) configured for longitudinal insertion into the bore (as seen in Figs. 2-3, etc. it is capable of such as it is actually shown as such); a body section (e.g. including head 152 and the unthreaded portion between the head and threaded portion) that extends from the mount fastener (as seen in Figs. 2-3, etc.), the body section configured to contact a first side of the support structure to limit the longitudinal insertion of the mount fastener into the bore (as seen in Figs. 2-3, etc. it is capable of such as it is actually shown as such); and at least one visual indicator (130) configured to indicate an installation status of the fixing to a user (as seen in Figs. 2-3, etc. it is capable of such as it is actually shown as such, Additionally see the abstract, para. [0050], etc. describing such).
With regard to claim 2, Hall discloses that the visual indicator has a variable appearance that varies based on the installation status of the fixing (i.e. as seen between Figs. 2 and 3, etc. as it radially expands when installed).
With regard to claim 3, Hall discloses that the variable appearance of the visual indicator includes a length of the visual indicator that varies based on the installation status (i.e. as seen between Figs. 2 and 3, etc. as it radial length expands when installed).
With regard to claim 5, Hall discloses that the visual indicator is attached to the mount fastener before the mount fastener is inserted into the bore (as seen in Figs. 1, etc.. Additionally as Applicant is not claiming the assembly this is considered an intended use limitation that the visual indicator and fixing are capable of as seen in Fig. 1-3, etc.), with at least a portion of the visual indicator received between a bottom side of the body section and the first side of the support structure (as seen in Figs. 2-3, etc.).
With regard to claim 6, Hall discloses that the visual indicator has an annular shape (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.) that includes a first side opposite a second side (i.e. the opposing axial sides as seen in Figs. 1-3, etc.) and an open center (i.e. the through-hole therein as seen in Figs. 1-3, etc.) defined therethrough (as seen in Figs. 1-3, etc.), and wherein the open center is sized to receive a portion of the mount fastener therethrough (as seen in Figs. 1-3, etc.).
With regard to claim 7, Hall discloses that the open center defines a first end of the visual indicator (i.e. a circumferential inner end/periphery thereof as seen in Figs. 1-3, etc.), wherein the visual indicator extends from the first end to a second end (i.e. a circumferential outer end/periphery thereof as seen in Figs. 1-3, etc.), wherein the open center has an inner diameter (as seen in Figs. 1-3, etc.), wherein the second end has an outer diameter (as seen in Figs. 1-3, etc.), and wherein the outer diameter is greater than the inner diameter (as seen in Figs. 1-3, etc.).
With regard to claim 18, Hall discloses an object support (e.g. the head) configured to attach to a component (as seen in Figs. 1-3, etc. it is capable of this intended use limitation as the head is shown as supporting an object (e.g. 120)).
Examiner’s Comments/Recommendations
In the interest of compact prosecution Examiner recommends claiming that the visual indicator is a separate removable element with e corrugated frustoconical shape designed to flatten when compressed between a head portion of the body section and the support structure such that an outer diameter of the visual indicator expands to be more visible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides additional examples of similar fixings with visual indicator elements thereon.
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