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. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the bold is less than 90 degrees.” In claim 6 should be “the bolt is less than 90 degrees.”. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Regarding claim 11 , the phrase "substantially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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. Claim s 8 -9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvey US0154864 (hereinafter, Harvey). Regarding claim 8 , Harvey discloses a fastener (see figure), comprising: a bolt (B, as indicated in annotated figure) having a head (H, as indicated in annotated figure) at a proximal end (end towards head) and a cylindrical shaft b extending from the head to a distal end along a central longitudinal axis (see figure); the head having a diameter larger than the shaft (see figure); the bolt including a plurality of non-helical, uniformly-spaced teeth formed in rings circumferentially around the shaft (see figure); each tooth having a load-bearing surface (a) facing the proximal end; and a nut (N, as indicated in annotated figure) defining a cylindrical bore (see central bore of the nut receiving threaded shaft of the bolt) extending through the nut along the longitudinal axis from a proximal end to a distal end of the nut (see figure); the bore being sized and configured to receive the shaft inside the bore (see figure); the nut including a plurality of non-helical, uniformly-spaced ridges formed in rings circumferentially around the bore (see figure); each ridge having a load-bearing surface facing the distal end (see figure where bottom surface/load bearing surface of each ridge facing towards distal end); each ridge being sized and configured to mate between the teeth such that the load-bearing surfaces of the teeth face the load-bearing surfaces of the ridges (see figure where load bearing surface of the teeth mate with load bearing surface of the ridges); wherein the load-bearing surfaces of the bolt and nut are raked towards the proximal end (see load bearing surfaces of bolt (a) and nut are angled towards the proximal end). Annotated figure Regarding claim 9 , Harvey discloses the fastener of claim 8 wherein each tooth includes a ramped surface facing the distal end forming a triangular shape and intersecting with the load-bearing surface of the tooth at a tip (see figure where the bolt having plurality of teeth includes a ramped surface on bottom side of the tip (T1, as indicated in annotated figure) and forms a triangular shape after intersecting with load bearing surface); each ridge includes a ramped surface facing the proximal end forming a triangular shape (see figure) and intersecting with the load-bearing surface of the ridge at a tip (T2, as indicated in annotated figure). 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 1-7 , 10- 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey . Regarding claim 1 , A fastener (see drawing ) , comprising: a bolt (B, as indicated in annotated figure) having a head (H, as indicated in annotated figure) at a proximal end (end towards head of the bolt in the drawing) and a cylindrical shaft b extending from the h ead to a distal end (end opposite to the head H) along a central longitudinal axis (vertical direction in figure) ; the head having a diameter larger than the shaft (see figure where the head H is bigger than the shaft b) ; the bolt including a plurality of non-helical, uniformly-spaced teeth formed in rings circumferentially around the shaft (see ratchet or barbed threads in shaft of the figure) ; each tooth having a load-bearing surface (see upper side a of the thread) facing the proximal end; and a nut (N, as indicated in annotated figure) defining a cylindrical bore (see cylindrical bore extending vertically in figure receiving shaft of the bolt) extending through the nut along the longitudinal axis from a proximal end to a distal end of the nut (see figure) ; the bore being sized and configured to receive the shaft inside the bore (see figure) ; the nut including a plurality of non-helical, uniformly-spaced ridges formed in rings circumferentially around the bore (see R in annotated figure showing a non-helical, uniformly spaced ridges circumferential to the bore of the nut) ; each ridge having a load-bearing surface facing the distal end (see each ridges R facing down towards distal end) ; each ridge being sized and configured to mate between the teeth such that the load-bearing surfaces of the teeth face the load-bearing surfaces of the ridges (see figure) ; Harvey fails to expressly teach wherein the load-bearing surface of the bolt forms an angle less than 90 degrees with the longitudinal axis. However, angle between the longitudinal axis and the load-bearing surface of the bolt appear to be less than 90 degrees. In any event, changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evident that particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the range of the angle in para. [0071]. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the angle range of the load bearing surface with respect to the longitudinal axis as an obvious change in shape. Regarding claim 2 , Harve teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener of claim 1 , wherein each tooth includes a ramped surface facing the distal end forming a triangular shape and intersecting with the load-bearing surface of the tooth at a tip (see figure where the bolt having plurality of teeth includes a ramped surface on bottom side of the tip (T 1, as indicated in annotated figure) and forms a triangular shape after intersecting with load bearing surface ) ; each ridge includes a ramped surface facing the proximal end forming a triangular shape (see figure) and intersecting with the load-bearing surface of the ridge at a tip (T2, as indicated in annotated figure) . Regarding claim 3 , Harvey teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener of claim 1 wherein the nut is configured to move along the bolt only in a direction toward the head . Harvey fails to expressly teach the functional limitation of claim 3 above, however it is the examiner’s position that the fastener assembly of the Harvey is capable of performing such functional limitation. Please refer to the figure showing angles of the teeth on bolts and ridges on the nut in contact with each other showing the nut may only be screwed up, and resist dislodgment . Regarding claim 4 , Harvey teaches and/or make obvious of t he fastener of claim 1 , but fails to expressly teach wherein the load-bearing surface of the bolt forms an angle of approximately equal to or less than 60 degrees with the longitudinal axis. However, angle between the longitudinal axis and the load-bearing surface of the bolt appear to be approximately equal to or less than 60 degrees. In any event, changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evident that particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the range of the angle. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the angle range of the load bearing surface with respect to the longitudinal axis as an obvious change in shape. Regarding claim 5 , Harvey teaches and/or make obvious of t he fastener of claim 2 , but fails to expressly teach wherein the angle between the load-bearing surface and the ramped surface of the nut is less than 90 degrees. However, angle between the ramped surface of the nut and the load-bearing surface of the bolt appear to be less than 90 degrees. In any event, changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evident that particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the range of the angle. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the angle range of the load bearing surface with respect to the ramped surface as an obvious change in shape. Regarding claim 6 , As best understood, Harvey teaches and/or make obvious o t he fastener of claim 2 , wherein the angle between the load-bearing surface and the ramped surface of the bol t is less than 90 degrees. Changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evident that particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the range of the angle. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the angle range of the load bearing surface with respect to ramped surface of the bolt to be less than 90 degrees as an obvious change in shape. Regarding claim 7 , Harvey teaches and/or make obvious of t he fastener of claim 2 , wherein the ramped surface is longer than the load-bearing surface for the nut and the bolt (see figure where the load bearing surface of either of the nut and the bolt is longer than the ramped surface) . Regarding claim 10 , Harvey teaches and/or make obvious of t he fastener of claim 9 , but fails to expressly teach wherein the angle between the load bearing surface of the tooth and the ramped surface of the tooth is approximately 30 degrees. However, changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evident that particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the range of the angle. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the angle between the load bearing surface of the tooth and the ramped surface of the tooth to be approximately 30 degrees as an obvious change in shape. Regarding claim 11 , Harvey teaches t he fastener of claim 8 , as best understood, Harvey fails to teach wherein the teeth interlock with the ridges such that the load-bearing surfaces of the teeth are substantially parallel to the load-bearing surface of the ridges. However, As the teeth interlock with ridges in Harvey, the mating is parallel to some extent. Further, changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evident that particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the range of the angle. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify shape of the load bearing surface of teeth and the ridges so they are parallel as an obvious change in shape. Regarding claim 12 , Harvey teaches and/or make obvious of t he fastener of claim 8 , but fails to expressly teach wherein translation of the nut relative to the bolt in a direction distal away from the head of the bolt is prevented. However, it is the examiner’s position that the fastener assembly of the Harvey is capable of performing such functional limitation. Please refer to the figure showing angles of the teeth on bolts and ridges on the nut in contact with each other showing the nut may only be screwed up, and resist dislodgment towards distal end away from the head of the bolt. Regarding claim 14 , Harvey teaches and/or make obvious of the fastener of claim 8, but fails to expressly teach wherein the load bearing surfaces of each tooth is angled approximately 60 degrees or less with respect to the longitudinal axis. However, angle between the longitudinal axis and the load-bearing surface of the bolt appear approximately 60 degrees or less. In any event, changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evident that particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the range of the angle in para. [0071]. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the angle range of the load bearing surface with respect to the longitudinal axis as an obvious change in shape. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey in view Janisch, Jr. et al., US6832882 (hereinafter, Janisch). Regarding claim 13 , Harvey teaches and/or make obvious of t he fastener of claim 8 , but fails to teach wherein the teeth are configured to deflect as the nut is moved toward the head of the bolt and spring back into between the ridge with movement of the nut toward the head of the bolt. However, Janisch teaches similar ratcheting fastener system having a bolt 12 and a nut 14 with a plurality of thread, where the thread segments of the nut is permitted to deflect (see column 5, lines 47-65), displaying a thread deflectin g feature in nut-bolt system . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the teeth of bolt in Harvey to deflect as the nut is move towards the head to decrease the force required to install the nut onto the bolt, prevent thread breakage or tripping, and controlled placement of the nut onto the shaft of the bolt. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8180 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Christine Mills can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /DIL K. MAGAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /CHRISTINE M MILLS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675