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 .
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 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 18/441300 in view of Lanham (US.6017177A). The application 18441300 shows in short, a nut having a structure with four drive protrusions (e.g. 113) on outer diameter, four guide wall portions (e.g. 112) on the outer diameter, straight portions (e.g. 114) connecting ends of each of the drive protrusions and ends of each of the four guide wall portions (see figure 2), a relationship of ratio of 1.16 of lengths and smaller than 180 degrees for arches of the drive protrusions. The application 18441300 does not teach the structure be part of a screw fastener. The reference of Lanham teaches to have a structure be part of a nut (e.g. figures 4 and 10) and at the same time the structure be part of a screw head of a screw (e.g. figure 1 and 7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the structure of the nut of 18441300 to a head of a screw as taught by Lanham with reasonable expectation of success, since having a structure be part of a nut or a screw head is considered to be art equivalent (e.g. see figures of Lanham).
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 18/441284 in view of Lanham (US.6017177A). The application 18441284 shows in short, a screw having a structure with four drive wall sections (e.g. 111) on outer diameter, four guide wall portions (e.g. 112) on the outer diameter, straight portions (e.g. 115) connecting ends of each of the drive wall sections and ends of each of the four guide wall portions (see figures), a relationship of ratio of 1.16 of lengths and smaller than 180 degrees for arches of the drive protrusions. The reference of Lanham teaches to have a structure be part of a nut (e.g. figures), at the same time the structure be part of a screw head of a screw (e.g. figure 1 and 7) and the structure is either a protrusion or a recess of the screw (see all figure of Lanham). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the structure having the recess of 18441284 to a head of a screw as taught by Lanham with reasonable expectation of success, since having a structure be part of a screw head projection or a screw head with recess is considered to be art equivalent (e.g. see figures of Lanham).
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(s) 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US. 20090175702) in view of Amis (US. 6269716).
Lin discloses a fastener comprising a screw head including a driven protrusion (e.g. figure below) that has four driven wall portions (e.g. DW) and four guiding wall portions (e.g. GW) which are disposed about a central axis of the fastener in an alternating arrangement, the driven wall portions being equiangularly spaced apart from each other (see figure below), each of the guiding wall portions being straight (e.g. see straight sections of GW) and having two opposite ends (e.g. ends of each GW) that are respectively connected to two of the driven wall portions (e.g. see figure below) adjacent to the guiding wall portion, a ratio of a longest distance between two of the driven wall portions that are non-adjacent to each other to a longest distance between two of the driven wall portions that are adjacent to each other being greater than 1.16 (e.g. based on geometry and relative distance shown in figure below B is greater than A by at least 1.16 and as much as 1.4+, see Pythagorean theorem, Hypotenuse² = Perpendicular² + Base²), each of the driven wall portions having a curved section (e.g. curved section of DW) that defines an arc of a circle and that has two opposite ends (e.g. ends of the curved section), and two straight sections (e.g. ss) each of which extends from a respective one of the ends of the curved section and interconnects the respective one of the ends of the curved section and a respective one of two of the guiding wall portions adjacent to the driven wall portion, a central angle of the curved section of each of the driven wall portions is defined and a screw shank extending from one side of the screw head that is distal from the drive protrusion of the screw head in an axial direction of the central axis, and having at least one thread (e.g. 4) that helically extends there along (e.g. figure 11). A radius of curvature of the curved section of each of the driven wall portion is greater than a length of each of the straight section of the drive wall portion (e.g. compare length of the curved section of the drive wall portion DW relative to the straight section of GW). The drive protrusion of the screw head has a surface opposite to the screw shank (e.g. see top surface of the drive protrusion). Wherein the screw head further includes an abutment seat (e.g. 225a) that is connected to the screw shank, the drive protrusion protruding from one side of the abutment seat opposite to the screw shank. Wherein a drive tool having similar or same structure of the drive protrusion is shown in figure 22, which have same structure as the drive protrusion except for it being a recess (see description of figures 22-23 and paragraph 0048).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
376
371
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lin discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose that the central angle is being smaller than 180 degrees. Amis discloses a screw head including a driven protrusion (e.g. figure 14) having four drive wall portions (e.g. 296) having a central angle (e.g. angle of curved section of 296) that defines a central angle of a curved section that is smaller than 180 degrees (e.g. 296 extends less than 180 degrees, see figure 14 and statement that 296 or 96 are slightly rounded). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the central angle of Lin to be less than 180 degrees as taught by Amis, with reasonable expectation of success to provide proper torque and also to provide proper clearance of tool used to tighten the screw (e.g. “The high-torque fastener and driver combination of the present invention is constructed to facilitate fast and easy centering of the fastener on the driver. The surface of the head of the high-torque fastener of the present invention is slightly rounded, and the edge forming the opening of the driver has a slight taper corresponding in radius to that of the surface of the head of the high-torque fastener. This centering feature of the present invention can attenuate the occurrence of improper loading of the high-torque fastener within the driver.”, see Amis).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Amis and further in view of Sakamura (US. 20090220321A1).
Lin discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the surface of the driven protrusion having a recess that is recessed from the surface along the axial direction of the central axis and a cross-section of the recess of the screw head on an imaginary plane perpendicular to the central axis is configured to be one of a hexagonal shape, a hexalobular shape, a cruciform shape, an asterisked shape, a quadrilateral shape and a shape of a combination of a cross and a quadrilateral. Sakamura disclose a member having a driven protrusion (e.g. 2 that is capable of being used by a socket figure 10-12), a top surface of the driven protrusion having a recess (e.g. recess having 14 and 14a) in an axial direction of the screw (e.g. figures 10-11) and having a shape as claimed in claim 4. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the screw of Lin to have a recess as taught by Sakamura with reasonable expectation of success which provide plurality of way to extract a member (e.g. see how one can remove member 10 by a wrench or by a key, figure 10-14 and paragraph 0041-0052 in Sakamura).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-7060. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/VISHAL A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights