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 .
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.
Claims 9, 12 and 20 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. In claim 9, it is unclear what “upper thread second” refers to. In claim 12, there is no antecedent basis for “the longitudinal cutout”. In claim 20, the paragraph beginning line 8 is confusing in regards to the thread structure. The claims were examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruca (US 3,478,639) in view of Gong (US 2013/0089389).
Gruca discloses a fastener (10) for securing a substrate (26) to a support (30) comprising: a head (14) defining an uppermost boundary; an elongated shank (12) extending from the head where the head is larger than the shank; the shank comprising an upper thread portion (A) with a first set of threads separated from a lower thread portion (C) having a second set of threads and a plurality of longitudinal projections (18) between the upper and lower thread portion; the first set of threads extend outwardly beyond the second set of threads; the first set of thread is a symmetric thread with a spacing greater than the second set of threads; and a drilling tip (16) includes a conical shape with a cutout defining a longitudinal cutting edge.
Gruca discloses the fastener head to include a sealing washer (34) but does not disclose the fastener head with a dome shape and an undersurface with a depression for the washer. Gong also disclose a fastener with a head and sealing washer but in considering the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7, Gong discloses the head (112) is configured as “low profile” to be substantially flush with a substrate having a dome shape (at 138) and an underside depression (150) for the washer (114); the head includes a cavity (128) for receiving a tool; and an elongated shank includes a buttress thread (118). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the head of Gruca with the dome shaped one as disclosed in Gong because it would yield the same predictable results of providing a seal but with a more ascetic appearance and the asymmetric thread would be preferable for certain substrates.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruca in view of Gong as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Whitesell (US 5,356,253).
Gruca in view of Gong discloses the upper thread portion extends from the head for securing to sheet metal (26) but does not disclose it with a diameter that reducingly tapers from the head. Whitesell also disclose a fastener (10) for securing to sheet metal but with a thread (40) having a diameter that reducingly tapers from a head. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art make the upper thread portion of modified Gruca with a diameter that reducingly tapers from the head as disclose in Whitesell because Whitesell describes the taper as an improvement for preventing stripping the sheet metal (Summary of the Invention).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruca in view of Gong, Whitesell and Waud (US 3,682,507).
Gruca discloses a fastener (10) for securing a substrate (26) to a support (30) comprising: a head (14) defining an uppermost boundary; an elongated shank (12) extending from the head where the head is larger than the shank; the shank comprising an upper thread portion (A) with a first set of threads separated from a lower thread portion (C) having a second set of threads and an intervening portion (B) including a plurality of longitudinal projections (18) between the upper and lower thread portion; the first set of threads extend outwardly beyond the second set of threads; the first set of thread is a symmetric thread with a spacing greater than the second set of threads; and a drilling tip (16) includes a conical shape with a cutout defining a longitudinal cutting edge.
Gruca discloses the fastener head to include a sealing washer (34) but does not disclose the fastener head with a dome shape and an undersurface with a depression for the washer. Gong also disclose a fastener with a head and sealing washer but in considering the embodiment shown in Figs. 5-7, Gong discloses the head (112) is configured as “low profile” to be substantially flush with a substrate having a dome shape (at 138) and an underside depression (150) for the washer (114); the head includes a cavity (128) for receiving a tool; and an elongated shank includes a buttress thread (118). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the head of Gruca with the dome shaped one as disclosed in Gong because it would yield the same predictable results of providing a seal but with a more ascetic appearance and the asymmetric thread would be preferable for certain substrates.
Gruca in view of Gong discloses the upper thread portion extends from the head for securing to sheet metal (26) but does not disclose it with a diameter that reducingly tapers from the head. Whitesell also disclose a fastener (10) for securing to sheet metal but with a thread (40) having a diameter that reducingly tapers from a head. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art make the upper thread portion of modified Gruca with a diameter that reducingly tapers from the head as disclose in Whitesell because Whitesell describes the taper as an improvement for preventing stripping the sheet metal (Summary of the Invention).
Gruca in view of Gong and Whitesell does not disclose the intervening portion having a diameter greater than lower thread portion. Waud discloses a fastener similar to modified Gruca including a upper and lower thread portions (C and B) with an intervening portion (30) including longitudinal projections (18) but in Waud the intervening portion is disclosed to have a larger diameter than the lower thread portion. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the intervening portion of modified Gruca with larger diameter than the lower thread portion as disclosed in Whitesell because both are from the same field of endeavor where the modification would yield the same predicable results.
The examiner takes official notice in regards to the specific thread angles claimed because they are well known in the art.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih (US 9,970,470) in view of Baer (US 8,430,618).
In considering the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-2B, Shih discloses a fastener (100a) for securing a substrate (200) to a support (300) comprising: a head dome shaped (10) defining an uppermost boundary; an elongated shank (20) extending from the head where the head is larger than the shank; the shank comprising an upper thread portion (40) separated from a lower thread portion (50) and an intervening portion (23a) including a plurality of longitudinal projections (231a) between the upper and lower thread portion; the longitudinal projections do not extend beyond second thread on the lower threaded portion and first thread on the upper threaded portion extend beyond the projections (Fig. 2B); the first set of thread is a symmetric thread; and a drilling tip (30) includes a conical shape with a cutout defining a longitudinal cutting edge (60).
Shih does not disclose the underside to the head with an annular depression. Baer discloses a fastener similar to Shih including a head (14) but, teaches an underside of the head to include and annular repression (28). The annular depression would be capable of at least partially receiving a washer. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the head of Shih with an annular depression as disclosed in Baer in order to prevent the substrate, in this case flooring, from mushrooming.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of the rejections as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeHaitre (US 5,516,248). DeHaitre disclose a fastener made of anti-corrosive stainless steel (column 3, paragraph beginning line 39). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art make any fastener of an anti-corrosive stainless steel as disclosed in DeHaitre for the same reason of preventing corrosion.
Response to Remarks
The 102 rejections have all been overcome by way of the amendments.
The 103 rejection of Gruca in view of Gong and Whitesell has been maintained largely unchanged.
Applicant argues that the combination of Gruca in view of Gong would not have been obvious because it would destroy one of the objective of Gruca. Specifically, applicant argues that that the combination would not have been obvious because the combination would negate the “extremely important” feature in Gruca of not compressing the insulating foam. In response, the examiner disagrees because Gong is only relied upon for changing the shape of the head and washer. Both a head and washer are already included in Gruca so it is unclear how changing their shape would affect the compression of the insulating foam. Any compression of the foam in Gruca is a function of the length of the fastener between the head and the wings (column 3, lines 20) and since that length is not being modified in any way by the combination, the compression of the insulating foam would not be affected by the combination.
Applicant also argues the Gruca does not disclosed the claimed plurality of longitudinal projections. Applicant argues the “lug or wing means 18” disclosed in Gruca should not be equated to the disclosed longitudinal depressions. In response the examiner disagrees because 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Langewiesche (US 7,677,854) and Park (US 11,181,138) are cited to teach threads with a diameter greater than longitudinal protrusions.
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 FLEMMING SAETHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7071. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 7:00 eastern.
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.
/FLEMMING SAETHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights