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Claims 15, 22, 25, 28, 32-36, and 38-48 are pending in the application, claim 28 is withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-14, 16-21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29-31, and 37 have been cancelled. Claims 47 and 48 have been added.
Amendments to the claims 15, 22, 25, 28, 33, 38, 40, and 42-45, filed on 1 July 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 1 July 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 and §103 rejections made of record, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 40, 42, and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 15: Instant claim 15 recites --the bolt body-- in line 10, which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read as "the metallic bolt body".
With Regards to Claim 40: Instant claim 40 recites --the bolt body-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read as "the metallic bolt body".
With Regards to Claim 42: Instant claim 42 recites --the bolt body-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read as "the metallic bolt body".
With Regards to Claim 44: Instant claim 44 recites --the bolt body-- in line 2, which appears to be a typographical error; for consistency and clarity, it is recommended to correct this to read as "the metallic bolt body".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 15, 22, 25, 32-36, 39-45, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Wollard (WO 2023/102348 A1), Rice (US 2010/0040429 A1), and Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1), as evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("Pure Red") (referred to herein as "NPL-1") and Non-Patent Literature No. 2 ("Yellow") (referred to herein as "NPL-2"), and Non-Patent Literature No. 3 ("CIE2000 Calculator") (referred to herein as "NPL-3").
Regarding Claim 15: Albertson discloses categorizing fasters and construction connectors by size and type using a color coding system, wherein a different color is pre-selected to define a fastener property, and the colors can be fluorescent colors, visible light spectrum colors, neon colors, and marking materials that fade over time (figure 1B, [Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40], and [Col. 6: li. 31 to Col. 7: li. 35] of Albertson). Albertson also discloses a construction comprising construction connectors (e.g., metal straps) and color coded fasteners applied to color coded corresponding construction connects, wherein the construction connectors are secured by the fasteners (figure 5B, 5D, and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 16] of Albertson). Specifically, Albertson provides for --an assembled structure, comprising a plurality of metallic components; a plurality of groups of fasteners securing the plurality of components together within the assembled structure, each group comprising a plurality of identical fasteners, each fastener comprising: a fastener body; and a coating applied to at least a portion of the fastener body, wherein each group of fasteners has a specific structural characteristic that differs between the groups, and wherein each group of fasteners has a distinct color represented by a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)--. (Note: Albertson discloses that the colored coating can be selected from several kinds of colors (e.g., red, yellow, orange, etc.) (figure 1B of Albertson). Since CIE Lab coordinates are a color mapping system used to identify various colors, each color would have --a set of CIE Lab coordinates (L, a, b)-- as claimed.)
Albertson fails to disclose that --each fastener comprising a metallic fastener body; and the coating comprising a binder and a colorant--.
Wollard discloses a multi-piece fastener system, wherein the multi-piece fastener (ref. #100) comprises a fastening collar (ref. #102) and a pin (ref. #120), wherein a coating (ref. #114) is formed on the outer collar surface (ref. #116B) of the fastening collar, the coating comprising a film-forming resin (binder), a metal pigment (i.e., one or more metals and/or metal alloys), and can comprise various other components and/or additives (i.e., one or both of a fluorescent dye and a fluorescent pigment) (figure 1, [0004]-[0005], [0020]-[0021], [0027]-[0037] of Wollard). Wollard further discloses that the multi-piece fastening system can comprise at least one of a metal, a metal alloy, a composite material, and other suitable material ([0041] of Wollard).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the coating of Wollard with the coating of Albertson in order to have --the coating comprising a binder and a colorant--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the coating of Wollard with the coating of Albertson, from the stand-point of having a coating that can be easily seen by exciting the fluorescent dye and/or fluorescent pigment with a corresponding light source, thereby making indication of installation of the fastener visible in various lighting conditions ([0034] of Wollard). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses that the coating can have a fluorescent color, and be of a marking material that fades over time ([Col. 2: li. 61 to Col. 3: li. 2]), Wollard discloses that the color marking comprises a fluorescent pigment and/or dye that can fluoresce and that the colored coating can be temporary (i.e., that the coating is removed during installation) ([0034], [0051], and [0054] of Wollard). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the colored coating of Wollard as the coating of Albertson. Furthermore, since it is well-known for fasteners (e.g., nails, screw, and bolts) to be of a metal material, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the metal or metal alloy of Wollard as the material of the fastener disclosed by Albertson, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Albertson in view of Wollard further failed to disclose --the coating on the shaft electrically isolates the metallic bolt body from an adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components to reduce galvanic corrosion between the metallic bolt body and the adjacent metallic component--.
Rice discloses a threaded fastener, such as a locking bolt, and one or more coatings on one or more portions of the locking bolt, wherein the coating in combination with the base material [of the bolt] can be used for electrical isolation depending on the desired properties ([0014] and [0024] of Rice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combine the coating of Rice with the coating of Albertson in view of Wollard in order to have --the coating on the shaft electrically isolates the metallic bolt body from an adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components to reduce galvanic corrosion between the metallic bolt body and the adjacent metallic component--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combine the coating of Rice with the coating of Albertson in view of Wollard, from the stand-point of having a coating that can be electrically isolating ([0024] of Rice). (In the instant case, because the coating (which is electrically insulating) covers the portion of the bolt that would contact the metallic component (i.e., provides electrical insulation between the metallic bolt body and the metallic component), the coating electrically isolates the metallic bolt body from any adjacent component, and would subsequently reduce the possibility of "galvanic corrosion" between the two, as claimed.)
Albertson in view of Wollard and Rice failed to disclose --the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant--.
Eibon discloses a multilayer composite coating on a substrate, the multilayer composite coating comprising an opaque coating layer of a coating composition, the coating composition comprising a resinous binder and a pigment composition, wherein the pigment composition comprises: colored inorganic pigment particles; metal and/or metal alloy flake pigment particles (e.g., aluminum flakes); and interference pigment particles ([0001], [0006], [0057]-[0059], [0092], [0105], and [0106] of Eibon). Eibon also discloses that the substrate can be various metallic substrates, such as ferrous metals and non-ferrous metals ([0012] of Eibon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the coating of Eibon with the coating of Albertson in view of Wollard and Rice, respectively, in order to have --the coating comprising a binder, a plurality of aluminum flakes, and a colorant--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the coating of Eibon with the coating of Albertson in view of Wollard and Rice, from the stand-point of having a coating with the appearance of a tri-coat coating system in fewer than three coating layers and a hue angle of 118-158 when measured at a 25° viewing angle ([0001] and [0115] of Eibon). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses that the coating can have a color used to distinguish the physical and other characteristics of the fasteners ([Col. 2: li. 58-61] of Albertson), Eibon discloses a tri-coat layer with a colored, translucent coating that exhibits gonio-apparent properties ([0003] and [0012] of Eibon). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined the coating of Eibon with the coating of Albertson in view of Wollard and Rice to have a distinguishable coating for identifying fasteners.)
Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses the claimed assembled structure, but do not explicitly recite --a color difference ΔE between any two groups of fasteners, calculated using a CIEDE2000 color difference formula, is greater than a predetermined threshold value (T), where T is 3.0--.
Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon do no explicitly disclosed a color difference value that is greater than the predetermined threshold value. However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1)) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2)). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, it has been evidenced by NPL-3 (which provided a color difference calculator that used the CIEDE2000 color difference formula) that they would have a calculated color difference of 64.32 (see [Pg. 1] of NPL-3); which anticipates the claimed ranges of --ΔE is greater than T, wherein T is 3.0--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 22: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses the claimed assembled structure, but does not explicitly recite --the colors of each group of bolts have a vibrancy represented by a chroma value (C) greater than a predetermined minimum chroma threshold (CT) in a CIE LCH color space, wherein the chroma value (C) is calculated using formula C =sqrt(a2 + b2), where a and b are the CIE Lab coordinates of the color, wherein CT is 40--.
However, given that the distinct color of each group of fasteners can be at least yellow or red as disclosed by Albertson (figure 1B), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have chosen "red" (pure red, which has been evidenced by NPL-1 to have CIE LAB color space values of (53.2, 80.1, 67.2) (see [Pg. 4] of NPL-1)) as the distinct color of one group of fasteners and "yellow" (which has been evidenced by NPL-2 to have CIE LAB color space values of (97.14, -21.56, 94.48) (see [Pg. 6] of NPL-2)). In the instant case, when the two distinct colors are pure red and yellow, they would have a chroma value calculated to be about 104.5 [=sqrt((80.1)2+(67.2)2)] and about 96.90 [=sqrt((-21.56)2+(94.48)2)], respectively; which both anticipate the claimed ranges of --C greater than CT, wherein CT is 40--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have chosen one group of fasteners to be red and another group of fasteners to be yellow, since such a change to the color of any group of fasteners would have amounted to a mere aesthetic design choice, and is supported by the teachings of Albertson ([Col. 2: li. 37 to Col. 3: li. 40] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 25: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon teaches that the colorant comprises at least one of dyes and pigments that have luminescent properties ([0034] of Wollard).
Regarding Claim 32: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the specific structural characteristic comprises a difference in at least one of head style, drive type, tread profile, length or body diameter ([Col. 2: li. 47-55], [Col. 6: li. 25-30 and 47-50] and [Col. 7: li. 63-65] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 33: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the specific structural characteristic comprises a different in material composition between groups of bolts ([Col. 2: li. 47-55] of Albertson).
Regarding Claim 34: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the material composition comprises at least one of stainless steel, aluminum, or copper ([0012] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 35: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the binder comprises an epoxy-based binder ([0061], [0063], [0064], and [0091] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 36: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the binder comprises at least one of an acrylic binder, a polyurethane binder, or a polyester binder ([0058]-[0060] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 39: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses the claimed assembled structure, but do not explicitly recite that --that the plurality of aluminum flakes impart a metallic or shimmering appearance to the coating--. However, Eibon does disclose that the pigment imparts color and/or other opacity and/or other visual effects to the composition ([0057] of Eibon). In that Eibon provides the same aluminum flakes as the applicants, they are considered by the examiner to impart a metallic or shimmering appearance to the coating as claimed.
Regarding Claim 40: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the coating comprises a continuous layer covering the metallic bolt body (figures 1B to 1C and [Col. 6: li. 66 to Col. 7: li. 12] of Albertson). (In the instant case, Albertson discloses a portion of the metallic bolt body (e.g., head) is completely covered by the coating (i.e., a continuous coating layer on the head).)
Regarding Claim 41: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the binder further comprises at least one additive selected from a cross-linking agent ([0060] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 42: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the coating is configured to reduce exposure of the metallic bolt body to chemical exposure (figures 1B to 1C and [Col. 6: li. 66 to Col. 7: li. 12] of Albertson). (In the instant case, because the coating entirely covers at least an exposed portion of the metallic bolt body, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, that that coated portion would have reduced chemical exposure to the metallic bolt body due to the presence of the coating.)
Regarding Claim 43: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the plurality of metallic components (figure 5B, 5D, and [Col. 9: li. 40 to Col. 10: li. 16] of Albertson; [0043] of Wollard) can comprise dissimilar metals from the metallic fastener body ([0041] of Wollard; [0012] of Eibon). (In the instant case, the structure (ref. #344) of Wollard can be considered equivalent to one of the metallic components.)
Regarding Claim 44: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the coating provides a barrier between the metallic bolt body and the plurality of metallic components to mitigate galvanic corrosion ([0024] of Rice). (In the instant case, because the coating covers the portion of the metallic bolt body that would contact the metallic component (i.e., the electrical insulation is between the metallic bolt body and the metallic component), the coating electrically isolates the metallic bolt body from any adjacent metallic component of the plurality of metallic components, which would mitigate galvanic corrosion as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 45: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the coating includes at least one pigments selected from titanium dioxide or chromium oxides ([0100]-[0104] of Eibon).
Regarding Claim 47: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the coating on the shaft forms a barrier between the shaft and the adjacent metallic component([0024] of Rice). (In the instant case, because the coating (which provides electrical isolation) covers the portion of the shaft that would contact the adjacent metallic component (i.e., the electrical insulation is between the shaft and the adjacent metallic component), the coating acts as a barrier.)
Regarding Claim 48: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the barrier reduces direct metal-to-metal contact between the shaft and the adjacent metallic component (figure 1B of Albertson; [0024] of Rice). (In the instant case, because the coating covers the portion of the shaft that would contact the adjacent metallic component, the barrier would at least reduce to some extent the metal-to-metal contact as claimed.)
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Wollard (WO 2023/102348 A1), Rice (US 2010/0040429 A1), and Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Millar (US 4,097,639 A).
Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon is relied upon as recited above.
Regarding Claim 38: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon discloses that the metal pigment is in the form of aluminum flakes ([0105] and [0106] of Eibon), but fails to disclose that --the plurality of aluminum flakes are oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the fastener body to form a barrier layer--.
Millar discloses a coating exhibiting a flamboyant finish on a conductive substrate ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar). Millar also discloses that the coating comprises a first coating of a thermosetting film-forming first polymer, a catalytic amount of a blocked catalyst for the first polymer, flake pigments (e.g., leafing aluminum pigment), and other additives ([Col. 1: li. 67 to Col. 2: li. 9] and [Col. 2: li. 31-35] of Millar). Millar further discloses that the first coating is heated to a temperature at which substantially all the pigment flakes are placed in generally the same orientation, and become substantially oriented parallel to the surface of polymer removed from the substrate (i.e., parallel to the substrate surface) ([Col. 3: li. 11-37] and [Col. 5: li. 28-32] of Millar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon in order to have --the plurality of aluminum flakes be oriented substantially parallel to a surface of the fastener body to form a barrier layer--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the polymer and coating of Millar with the coating disclosed by Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon, from the stand-point of having a flamboyant finish ([Col. 1: li. 6-11] of Millar). (In the instant case, Millar discloses that the oriented [light] reflective aluminum flakes are aligned parallel to a surface of the substrate and concentrated below a surface of the coating, ([Col. 1: li. 44-49] of Millar). As such, the concentrated layer of reflective aluminum flakes would constitute a barrier layer with respect to light.)
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albertson et al. (US 6,095,739 A) in view of Wollard (WO 2023/102348 A1), Rice (US 2010/0040429 A1), and Eibon et al. (US 2014/0255608 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Mikami et al. (WO 2009/096492 A1).
Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 46: Albertson in view of Wollard, Rice, and Eibon fails to disclose that --the colorant comprises at least one dye selected from azo dyes, anthraquinone dyes, or triphenylmethane dyes--.
Mikami discloses a flake body composed of a metal oxide, an organic acid, and at least one kind of fluorescent dye of azo compounds ([Pg. 2: li. 31-36], [Pg. 3: li. 3-5 and 12-17], and [Pg. 5: li. 20-25] of Mikami).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the flakes of Mikami into the coating of Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews in order to --the colorant comprises at least one dye selected from azo dyes, anthraquinone dyes, or triphenylmethane dyes--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the flakes of Mikami into the coating of Albertson in view of Eibon and Matthews, from the stand-point of having a flake body containing fluorescent dye with good color developability, and that upon excitation by absorbing ultraviolet let, visible light, or infrared light, emits ultraviolet let, visible light, or infrared light ([Pg. 5: li. 20-21] and [Pg. 6: li. 9-10] of Mikami). (In the instant case, because Eibon discloses a coating comprising metal flake pigment particles and interference pigment particles, it would have been obvious to incorporate or combine the flake body of Mikami so as to have fluorescent capable colorant particles.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verrall (US 2021/0404501 A1) a bolt having a coating that protects against corrosion, a coating that provides decoration, and a coating with indication means.
Stokes (EP 2522862 A1) a bolt having a portion with a coating to protect against corrosion.
Applicants' 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 Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights