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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 20-21 have been amended. Claim 17 has been cancelled. Claim 22 has been added. Therefore, claims 1-16 and 18-22 remain pending in the in application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 28, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 22, line 10, “planer” should read “planar”
In claim 22, line 11, Examiner suggests amending “and annular” to “and an annular”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the length" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 22 will be read as “a length”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 22, lines 13 and 14, will be read as “a thickness”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, claim 22 will be read as “an axial direction”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henriksen, Jr. (US20120114447A1), hereinafter "Henriksen", in view of Rebish (US4490083A) and Reiland (US3584667A), hereinafter "Rebish" and "Reiland", respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Henriksen teaches a nut (Fig 1, member 18) of a fastener assembly (Fig 1, assembly 16), the fastener assembly (16) including the nut (18) and a screw (Fig 1, member 20) and is assembled (see Fig 1) along a central longitudinal axis (see Fig 1), the screw (20) including an externally threaded shaft (Fig 1, portion 60, Paragraph 0026, Henriksen indicates external threads 62) and a radially enlarged screw head (Fig 1, portion 56), the nut (16) comprising:
a generally cylindrical shank (Fig 1, portion 24) extending (see Fig 1) axially toward (see Fig 1) a first longitudinal end (Fig 1, end 40) of the nut (18) and a nut head (Fig 1, portion 22) that is radially enlarged (see Fig 1) relative to the shank (24) and disposed (see Fig 1) at a second longitudinal end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an end opposite of end 40 as a second longitudinal end) of the nut (18), the shank (24) including a threaded bore (Fig 1, bore 36, Paragraph 0024, Henriksen indicates internally threaded) that is accessible (see Fig 1) at a first end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes end 40 as at a first end) to the externally threaded shaft (60) of the screw (20), the nut head (22) having a flange (see Fig 1, Examiner notes portion 22 having underside 26 as having a flange), the flange (see Fig 1) including a bottom side (Fig 1, underside 26) adjacent (see Fig 1) to the shank (24) and an opposite top side (Fig 1, side 44),
a plastic cover (Fig 1, plastic layer 42), the plastic cover (42) surrounding (see Fig 1) the nut head (22) and at least a portion (see Fig 1) of the shank (24).
Henriksen fails to teach the nut head also including a shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end and the shaped drive projection having an outer radial surface forming an outer perimeter with a non-circular shape.
However, Rebish teaches it is known in the art to provide a nut head formed of a number of convenient and aesthetically pleasing forms, as by internal or external drive means on the face thereof (Col 7, lines 4-18). Thus, Rebish teaches the nut head (Col 7, lines 4-18, Rebish indicates nut head 36) also including a shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end (Col 7, lines 4-18, Examiner notes external drive means on the face thereof as also including a shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end).
Therefore, as evidenced by Rebish, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end as taught by Rebish to Henriksen. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide additional drive means based on application and use requirements, e.g. aiding in assembly and/or disassembly, commonization of components, etc.
Henriksen, in view of Rebish fails to teach the shaped drive projection having an outer radial surface forming an outer perimeter with a non-circular shape.
However, Reiland teaches it is known in the art to provide the shaped drive projection (see Figs 16-17, Examiner notes a projection of nut 106 extending from base 108 as the shaped drive projection) having an outer radial surface (see Figs 16-17) forming an outer perimeter (see Figs 16-17) with a non-circular shape (see Figs 16-17).
Therefore, as evidenced by Reiland, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaped drive projection of modified Henriksen to be have an outer radial surface forming an outer perimeter with a non-circular shape as taught by Reiland. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide the nut with high strength and enable the transmission of higher torques based on application and use requirements, e.g. aiding in assembly and/or disassembly, commonization of components, etc.
Regarding claim 2, modified Henriksen teaches the nut (18) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the cover (42) completely surrounds (see Fig 1) the nut head (22).
Regarding claim 3, modified Henriksen teaches the nut (18) of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein a distance between the flange bottom side and an end of the shaped drive projection is about .1 inches to about .17 inches.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified a distance between the flange bottom side and an end of the shaped drive projection as disclosed by modified Henriksen to be about .1 inches to about .17 inches, since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a distance based on application and use requirements, e.g. packaging, aesthetics, etc.
Regarding claim 4, modified Henriksen teaches the nut (18) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein a diameter (see Fig 1) of the flange (see Fig 1) being at least 3% larger (Reiland, see Figs 16-17) than a major diameter (Reiland, see Figs 16-17) of the shaped drive projection (Reiland, see Figs 16-17).
Regarding claim 5, modified Henriksen teaches the nut (18) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein an upper surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of side 44 as an upper surface) of the flange (see Fig 1) on the top side (44) thereof is configured to limit an axial position of a tool (capable of limiting an axial position of a tool, i.e. this is a functional recitation; Examiner notes the surface of side 44 can limit an axial position of a tool, e.g. hand, plier, etc.) around the shaped drive projection (Reiland, see Figs 16-17).
Regarding claim 6, modified Henriksen teaches the nut (18) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the threaded bore (36) of the nut (18) includes an anti-loosening thread form (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0024, Examiner notes internally threaded as an anti-loosening thread form).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Henriksen teaches the nut (18) of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein an axial thickness (Reiland, see Figs 16-17) of the shaped drive projection (Reiland, see Figs 16-17) is less than [claim 7: two times; claim 8: 3 times] an axial thickness (see Fig 1) of the flange (see Fig 1).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified an axial thickness of the shaped drive projection as disclosed by modified Henriksen to be less than [claim 7: two times; claim 8: 3 times] an axial thickness of the flange, since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide an axial thickness based on application and use requirements, e.g. packaging, aesthetics, etc.
Regarding claim 9, modified Henriksen teaches the nut (18) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein a blind end (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0026, Henriksen indicates a blind hole) of the threaded bore (36) extends (see Fig 1) axially toward (see Fig 1) the second longitudinal end (see Fig 1) but fails to teach past the bottom side of the flange.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified a blind end of the threaded bore as disclosed by modified Henriksen to extend past the bottom side of the flange, since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a dimension based on application and use requirements, e.g. accommodating varying sizes of components and screws, accommodating differing quantities of components, etc.
Regarding claim 10, Henriksen teaches a fastener assembly (Fig 1, assembly 16), comprising:
a screw (Fig 1, member 20) including an externally threaded shaft (Fig 1, portion 60, Paragraph 0026, Henriksen indicates external threads 62) and a radially enlarged head (Fig 1, portion 56);
a nut (Fig 1, member 18) including a generally cylindrical shank (Fig 1, portion 24) extending (see Fig 1) axially toward (see Fig 1) a first longitudinal end (Fig 1, end 40) of the nut (18) and a nut head (Fig 1, portion 22) that is radially enlarged (see Fig 1) relative to the shank (24) and disposed (see Fig 1) at a second longitudinal end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an end opposite of end 40 as a second longitudinal end) of the nut (18), the shank (24) including a threaded bore (Fig 1, bore 36, Paragraph 0024, Henriksen indicates internally threaded) that is accessible (see Fig 1) at a first end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes end 40 as at a first end) to the externally threaded shaft (60) of the screw (20), the nut head (22) having a flange (see Fig 1, Examiner notes portion 22 having underside 26 as having a flange), the flange (see Fig 1) including a bottom side (Fig 1, underside 26) adjacent (see Fig 1) to the shank (24) and an opposite top side (Fig 1, side 44); and
a plastic cover (Fig 1, plastic layer 42), the cover (42) surrounding (see Fig 1) the nut head (22) and at least a portion (see Fig 1) of the shank (24).
Henriksen fails to teach the nut head also including a shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end and the shaped drive projection having an outer radial surface forming an outer perimeter with a non-circular shape.
However, Rebish teaches it is known in the art to provide a nut head formed of a number of convenient and aesthetically pleasing forms, as by internal or external drive means on the face thereof (Col 7, lines 4-18). Thus, Rebish teaches the nut head (Col 7, lines 4-18, Rebish indicates nut head 36) also including a shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end (Col 7, lines 4-18, Examiner notes external drive means on the face thereof as also including a shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end).
Therefore, as evidenced by Rebish, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end as taught by Rebish to Henriksen. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide additional drive means based on application and use requirements, e.g. aiding in assembly and/or disassembly, commonization of components, etc.
Henriksen, in view of Rebish fails to teach the shaped drive projection having an outer radial surface forming an outer perimeter with a non-circular shape.
However, Reiland teaches it is known in the art to provide the shaped drive projection (see Figs 16-17, Examiner notes a projection of nut 106 extending from base 108 as the shaped drive projection) having an outer radial surface (see Figs 16-17) forming an outer perimeter (see Figs 16-17) with a non-circular shape (see Figs 16-17).
Therefore, as evidenced by Reiland, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaped drive projection of modified Henriksen to be have an outer radial surface forming an outer perimeter with a non-circular shape as taught by Reiland. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide the nut with high strength and enable the transmission of higher torques based on application and use requirements, e.g. aiding in assembly and/or disassembly, commonization of components, etc.
Regarding claim 11, modified Henriksen teaches the assembly (16) of claim 10 and further teaches wherein the cover (42) completely surrounds (see Fig 1) the nut head (22).
Regarding claim 12, modified Henriksen teaches the assembly (16) of claim 10 but fails to teach wherein a distance between the flange bottom side and an end of the shaped drive projection is about .1 inches to about .17 inches.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified a distance between the flange bottom side and an end of the shaped drive projection as disclosed by modified Henriksen to be about .1 inches to about .17 inches, since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a distance based on application and use requirements, e.g. packaging, aesthetics, etc.
Regarding claim 13, modified Henriksen teaches the assembly (16) of claim 10 and further teaches wherein a diameter (see Fig 1) of the flange (see Fig 1) being at least 3% larger (Reiland, see Figs 16-17) than a major diameter (Reiland, see Figs 16-17) of the shaped drive projection (Reiland, see Figs 16-17).
Regarding claim 14, modified Henriksen teaches the assembly (16) of claim 10 and further teaches wherein an upper surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of side 44 as an upper surface) of the flange (see Fig 1) of the top side (44) thereof is configured to limit an axial position of a tool (capable of limiting an axial position of a tool, i.e. this is a functional recitation; Examiner notes the surface of side 44 can limit an axial position of a tool, e.g. hand, plier, etc.) around the shaped drive projection (Reiland, see Figs 16-17).
Regarding claim 15, modified Henriksen teaches the assembly (16) of claim 10 and further teaches wherein the threaded bore (36) of the nut (18) includes an anti-loosening thread form (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0024, Examiner notes internally threaded as an anti-loosening thread form).
Regarding claim 16, modified Henriksen teaches the assembly (16) of claim 10 but fails to teach wherein an axial thickness of the shaped drive projection is less than two times an axial thickness of the flange.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified an axial thickness of the shaped drive projection as disclosed by modified Henriksen to be less than two times an axial thickness of the flange, since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide an axial thickness based on application and use requirements, e.g. packaging, aesthetics, etc.
Regarding claim 18, modified Henriksen teaches the assembly (16) of claim 10 and further teaches wherein a blind end (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0026, Henriksen indicates a blind hole) of the threaded bore (36) extends (see Fig 1) axially toward (see Fig 1) the second longitudinal end (see Fig 1) but fails to teach past the bottom side of the flange.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified a blind end of the threaded bore as disclosed by modified Henriksen to extend past the bottom side of the flange, since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a dimension based on application and use requirements, e.g. accommodating varying sizes of components and screws, accommodating differing quantities of components, etc.
Regarding claim 19, modified Henriksen teaches the nut (18) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the shaped drive projection (Reiland, see Figs 16-17) is a six-lobe drive projection (Reiland, see Figs 16-17).
Regarding claim 20, modified Henriksen teaches the nut (18) of claim 1, wherein an upper surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of side 44 as an upper surface) of the flange (see Fig 1) on the top side (44) thereof is planar (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Henriksen teaches the nut (18) of claim 20 and further teaches wherein the flange (see Fig 1) is disk shaped (see Fig 1) with the planar upper surface (see Fig 1) on the top side (44) thereof, a planar lower surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of underside 26 as a planar lower surface) on the bottom side (26) thereof, and an outer radial surface (see Fig 1) forming an outer perimeter (see Fig 1) having a circular shape (see Figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, Henriksen teaches a fastener assembly (Fig 1, assembly 16) comprising:
a screw (Fig 1, member 20) including an externally threaded shaft (Fig 1, portion 60, Paragraph 0026, Henriksen indicates external threads 62) and a radially enlarged head (Fig 1, portion 56);
a nut (Fig 1, member 18) including a generally cylindrical shank (Fig 1, portion 24) extending axially (see Fig 1) toward (see Fig 1) a first longitudinal end (Fig 1, end 40) of the nut (18) and a nut head (Fig 1, portion 22) that is radially enlarged (see Fig 1) relative to the shank (24) and disposed (see Fig 1) at a second longitudinal end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an end opposite of end 40 as a second longitudinal end) of the nut (18), the shank (24) including a threaded bore (Fig 1, bore 36, Paragraph 0024, Henriksen indicates internally threaded) that is accessible (see Fig 1) at a first end (see Fig 1, Examiner notes end 40 as at a first end) to the externally threaded shaft (60) of the screw (20), an exterior (see Fig 1) of the shank (24) including a plurality of knurls (Fig 1, ridges 30) extending radially outward (see Fig 1) and axially along (see Fig 1) the length (see Fig 1) of the shank (24), the nut head (22) having a flange (see Fig 1, Examiner notes portion 22 having underside 26 as having a flange) with a bottom side (Fig 1, underside 26) adjacent (see Fig 1) to the shank (24), a top side (Fig 1, side 44) opposite (see Fig 1) of the bottom side (26), and an outer perimeter (see Fig 1, Examiner notes an outer perimeter of portion 22 as an outer perimeter), wherein the flange (see Fig 1) is disk shaped (see Fig 1) with a planar upper surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of side 44 as a planar upper surface) on the top side (44) thereof, a planer lower surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of underside 26 as a planer lower surface) on the bottom side (26) thereof, and annular outer radial surface (see Fig 1) forming the outer perimeter (see Fig 1) thereof; and
a plastic cover (Fig 1, plastic layer 42) encapsulating (see Fig 1) at least a portion (see Fig 1) of the nut head (22) including the top side (44) of the flange (see Fig 1), the outer perimeter (see Fig 1) of the flange (see Fig 1), and at least a portion (see Fig 1) of the bottom side (26) of the flange (see Fig 1).
Henriksen fails to teach the nut head also including a shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end, wherein the thickness of the shaped drive projection in the axial direction is within a range from two to three times the thickness of the flange in the axial direction, the shaped drive projection having an outer radial surface forming an outer perimeter with a non-circular shape that remains constant as the shaped drive projection extends axially from the top side of the flange; and a plastic cover encapsulating the shaped drive projection.
However, Rebish teaches it is known in the art to provide a nut head formed of a number of convenient and aesthetically pleasing forms, as by internal or external drive means on the face thereof (Col 7, lines 4-18). Thus, Rebish teaches the nut head (Col 7, lines 4-18, Rebish indicates nut head 36) also including a shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end (Col 7, lines 4-18, Examiner notes external drive means on the face thereof as also including a shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end).
Therefore, as evidenced by Rebish, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of the flange and toward the second longitudinal end as taught by Rebish to Henriksen. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide additional drive means based on application and use requirements, e.g. aiding in assembly and/or disassembly, commonization of components, etc.
Accordingly, Henriksen, in view of Rebish teaches the plastic cover (42) encapsulating (see Fig 1) the shaped drive projection (Rebish, Col 7, lines 4-18) but fails to teach wherein the thickness of the shaped drive projection in the axial direction is within a range from two to three times the thickness of the flange in the axial direction, the shaped drive projection having an outer radial surface forming an outer perimeter with a non-circular shape that remains constant as the shaped drive projection extends axially from the top side of the flange.
However, Reiland teaches it is known in the art provide the shaped drive projection (see Figs 16-17, Examiner notes a projection of nut 106 extending from base 108 as the shaped drive projection) having an outer radial surface (see Figs 16-17) forming an outer perimeter (see Figs 16-17) with a non-circular shape (see Figs 16-17) that remains constant (see Figs 16-17) as the shaped drive projection (see Figs 16-17) extends axially (see Figs 16-17) from the top side (see Figs 16-17, Examiner notes a top side of base 108 as from the top side) of the flange (Figs 16-17, base 108).
Therefore, as evidenced by Reiland, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaped drive projection of modified Henriksen to be have an outer radial surface forming an outer perimeter with a non-circular shape that remains constant as the shaped drive projection extends axially from the top side of the flange as taught by Reiland. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide the nut with high strength and enable the transmission of higher torques based on application and use requirements, e.g. aiding in assembly and/or disassembly, commonization of components, etc.
Henriksen, in view of Rebish and Reiland fails to teach wherein the thickness of the shaped drive projection in the axial direction is within a range from two to three times the thickness of the flange in the axial direction.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the thickness of the shaped drive projection in the axial direction as disclosed by modified Henriksen to be within a range from two to three times the thickness of the flange in the axial direction, since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide an axial thickness based on application and use requirements, e.g. packaging, aesthetics, etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to independent claims 1 and 10 on Pgs 8-10 of Applicant’s Remarks filed March 2, 2026, Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify the nut head of Henriksen to include a shaped drive projection extending axially from the top side of its flange in view of the teachings of Rebish. Specifically, Applicant argues modifying the head of Henriksen to include a shaped drive projection would do nothing to make it aesthetically pleasing as taught by Rebish since the shaped drive projection would be hidden by the encapsulating layer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the encapsulating layer would take on a shape of an adequately sized and shaped shaped drive projection. Applicant further argues that modifying the nut head of Henriksen to include a shaped drive projection would not aid in assembly and disassembly as the shaped drive projection would be inaccessible during assembly unless the encapsulating layer was removed rendering the T-nut of Henriksen unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of sealing the bore and Henriksen already includes a head portion adapted to receive a TORX® driving tool for assembling/disassembling, respectively. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes modifying the nut head of Henriksen would aid in assembly and disassembly as the shaped drive projection and corresponding encapsulating layer would provide additional points of contact to assemble and disassemble, e.g. hand, plier, etc. for grasping the fastener assembly to axially insert or remove during assembly or disassembly, respectively. Further, Applicant argues Henriksen discloses longitudinal ridges on the shank portion of the first fastener member that engage the walls of the bore to prevent rotation of the first fastener member as the fastener assembly is assembled or disassembled. The Examiner agrees with Applicant that Henriksen discloses longitudinal ridges on the shank portion of the first fastener member that engage the walls of the bore to prevent rotation of the first fastener member as the fastener assembly is assembled or disassembled, however, the Examiner respectfully notes, as set forth above, the shaped drive projection would provide additional points of contact to assemble and disassemble, i.e. hand, plier, etc. for grasping the fastener assembly to axially insert or remove during assembly or disassembly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (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 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675