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 1-11 are 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 1 is rejected as it recites the limitation “characterized in that the fastening bolt head and/or the fastening bolt shank (13) have/has two fastening elements” in lines 2-3. The limitation “and/or” renders the scope of the claim ambiguous as it is unclear what elements are directly claimed and required for claimed fastening bolt. A bolt head having two fastening elements is an entirely different product than the bolt shank having them, which is entirely different than both having them. Thus, a POSITA is unable to determine whether either individual feature is a required limitation or merely an optional non-limiting feature. For the same reasons, claims 2-5 and 8 which recite the limitation “and/or” for their respective features, and claims 6-7 and 9-11 by virtue of their dependencies, are rejected.
Claim 4 is rejected as it recites the limitation “wing-like” in line 2. The limitation “-like” renders the scope of the claim ambiguous as it is a hedging term, preventing one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what and where the line differentiates a structure from other “ring-like” structures. Thus, it cannot be determined what general features contribute to a “wing-like” fastening segment. For the same reasons, claims 5 and 10 are rejected as they recite the limitation “wing-like” and/or “ring-like”. Furthermore, claims 6-8 and 11 thereof are rejected as well by virtue of their dependencies.
Claim 6 is rejected as it recites the limitations “or” in lines 6 and 10. The limitation “or” renders the claim ambiguous as it fails to particularly point out what the invention claims. Specifically, claim 6 recites an improper Markush alternative grouping, claiming three separate physical features of the fastening bolt and requires only one of the three alternatives. With the addition of claim 1 which claim 6 is dependent upon, the combination claims a wide scope where the metes and bounds of the claim are not reasonably certain to a POSITA. For the same reason, claim 8 is rejected as well by virtue of its dependency.
Claim 7 is rejected as it recites the limitation "the ring-like fastening counter-segment (12’.2)" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is ambiguous which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the limitation refers to the “ring-like fastening counter-segment (12’.2)” mentioned in claim 5, lines 3-4. Since claim 7 is not dependent on claim 5, it is unclear if claim 7’s fastening segment is the same as claim 5’s fastening segment.
Claim 10 is rejected as it recites the limitation "the wing-like fastening segment (11.2)" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is ambiguous which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the limitation refers to the “wing-like fastening counter-segment (11.2)” mentioned in claims 4, 6, and 7. Since claim 10 is not dependent on claims 4, 6, or 7, it is unclear if claim 10’s fastening segment is the same as the fastening segment from those mentioned. For the same reason, the limitations “the wing-like fastening segments (11.2)” in lines 16, 21, and 25 also lack insufficient antecedent basis as it is unclear whether or not they are the same to one another, are different, or their relationship with the fastening segments mentioned in claims 4, 6, or 7.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ash et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200313611 A1) hereinafter Ash.
Regarding claim 1, Ash discloses (Title: Apparatus for Securing and Covering a Clamping Device for Solar Panel Modules) a fastening bolt (10, 10') (clamp assembly 100, ¶22), which has a fastening bolt head (elements comprising: nut end 150, annular ring 160, and T-bolt end 110, ¶22-24) and a fastening bolt shank (13) (elements comprising: male member 130 and female member 140, ¶22), characterized in that the fastening bolt head and/or the fastening bolt shank (13) have/has two fastening elements (11; 12, 12') (T-bolt end 110 and annular ring 160, ¶22-24) which are arranged in two planes (E1, E2) spaced apart from one another (FIG. 1 depicts both elements 110 and 160 separated into separate planes; annotated FIG. 6 below depicts the planes defined), between which a structural part plane (E3) is formed (FIG. 1 depicts a plane/gap between elements 110 and 160) in which, in an assembled state, a structural part (100) (sleeve 200, ¶29) is located to which the fastening bolt (10, 10') is fastened (FIG. 6 depicts the outer cover located between both fastening elements 110 & 160).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
359
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
359
317
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Ash further discloses the fastening bolt (10') according to claim 1, characterized in that the fastening bolt is in two parts (first part consists of elements 140, 150, & 160; second part consists of elements 130 & 110; the two parts connect to each other via male/female connection between elements 130 & 140), wherein a second fastening element (12') (annular ring 160, ¶24) of the two fastening elements (11, 12') is separately reversibly arranged in a form-fitting manner on the fastening bolt head and/or the fastening bolt shank (13) (¶23-25, Ash discloses threaded shank 135 and internal threads inside female element 140 that allow for adjustable interlocking assembly between fastening elements 110 & 160, the threads allowing for reversibility).
Regarding claim 5, Ash further discloses the fastening bolt (10') according to claim 3, characterized in that the two fastening elements (11, 12') are wing-like fastening segments (11.2) (T-bolt end 110, ¶23) and a ring-like fastening counter-segment (12'.2) (annular ring 160, ¶24) extending radially from the fastening bolt head and/or the fastening bolt shank (13) with respect to a fastening bolt longitudinal axis (Z) (FIG. 1 depicts both fastening elements 110 & 160 extending radially away from the shank elements 130/140).
Regarding claim 9, Ash further discloses a fastening arrangement (sleeve 200, ¶29) for fastening a bolt according to claim 1, in particular a ground bolt (clamp assembly 100, ¶22), characterized in that the fastening arrangement comprises a receiving opening (101) (FIG. 5 depicts the sleeve having a receiving opening, allowing to wrap around the clamp assembly 100) in a structural part (100) (sleeve 200, ¶29) and a fastening bolt (10, 10') (clamp assembly 100, ¶22), which has two fastening elements (11, 12) (T-bolt end 110 and annular ring 160, ¶22-24) essentially located in planes (E1, E2) which are spaced apart from one another (FIG. 1 depicts both elements 110 and 160 separated into separate planes) and by means of which the fastening bolt (10, 10') can be reversibly fastened in the receiving opening (101) of the structural part (100) located in the structural part plane (E3) (FIG. 1 depicts a plane/gap between elements 110 and 160) (¶23-25, Ash discloses threaded shank 135 and internal threads inside female element 140 that allow for adjustable interlocking assembly between fastening elements 110 & 160, the threads allowing for reversibility. Loosening the assembly between fastening elements 110 & 160 would allow for the clamp assembly 100 to slip out of the opening of the sleeve 200).
PNG
media_image4.png
372
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ash et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20200313611 A1) hereinafter Ash, and further in view of Oki (C.N. Patent Application Publication 102803757 A).
Regarding claim 2, Ash further discloses the fastening bolt (10) according to claim 1, wherein the two fastening elements (11, 12) (T-bolt end 110 & annular ring 160, ¶23-24) being arranged on the fastening bolt head and/or the fastening bolt shank (13) (as depicted in FIG. 1).
However, Ash fails to disclose the fastening bolt characterized to be one part.
Oki discloses an apparatus (Title: Clip, and Clip Device) is characterized to be one part (FIG. 8 depicts the entire structure of the clip as one piece), the two fastening elements (knob part 2, ¶70; and clamping face 5a, ¶72) being arranged on the fastening bolt head and/or the shank (as depicted in FIG. 8).
PNG
media_image5.png
324
323
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
322
304
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ash discloses a clamping device that contains two fastening elements located on two separate bodies, utilizing a male-female threated shank structure to move both bodies towards/away from one another to hold a structure between the two fastening elements, namely an outer cover. Oki also discloses a clamping device with two fastening elements to hold a structure between the two fastening elements but is composed of one structural body. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the clamping device of Ash and combine both bodies of the device to simulate the one structural body of Oki to prevent the two bodies from separating while holding a structure between due to high stresses, failure of the threaded shank while assembling, and the grip of the clamp from loosening. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to take the plurality of elements making up the fastening assembly of Ash and instead make it of one element, since it has been held that forming in one piece a structure which has formerly been formed in two, or more pieces, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 4, Ash in view of Oki teaches a clamping device according to claim 2.
However, both fail to discloses the fastening bolt (10) characterized in that the two fastening elements (11, 12) are wing-like fastening segments (11.2) and wing-like fastening counter segments (12.2) extending radially from the fastening bolt head and/or the fastening bolt shank (13) with respect to a fastening bolt longitudinal axis (Z).
Though Ash and Oki fail to disclose that both fastening elements are wing-like fastening segments, both teach that one of the two fastening segments are wing-like structures, namely Ash’s T-bolt end 110 structure acting as wing-like fastening segment (11.2) and Oki’s clamping face 5a structure acting as wing-like fastening segment (12.2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the clamp of Ash, take the wing-like fastening segment of Oki and apply a similar wing-like structural shape to the annular ring of Ash’s clamp to allow for reduction of material and material costs during manufacturing. (Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to claim 2, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 4 in the manner of forming a clamp of one part).
Regarding claim 6, Ash in view of Oki teaches a clamping device according to claim 4, and Oki further teaches a clamping device characterized in that on the surface(s) directed towards the structural part plane (E3)
of at least one of the wing-like fastening segments (11.2) (knob part 2, ¶70) a stop (11.3) (base part 6, ¶75, “the base part 6 has the effect of stopping rotation”; FIGS. 6 & 7 depict the element 6 can be inserted further into hole P2a to prevent further rotation of the body) and at least one cutting element (11.4) (elastic sheet 3, ¶70, “it is possible using the elastic sheet 3 around the through-hole Ula or part of through hole P2a scraping the coating film which is produced by the coating, and clip means electrically connected with the metal panel”)
PNG
media_image7.png
352
342
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
366
342
media_image8.png
Greyscale
OR
on one of the wing-like fastening segments (11.2) a stop (11.3) and on the other of the wing-like fastening segments (11.2) at least one cutting element (11.4)
OR
on all wing-like fastening segments (11.2) at least one stop (11.3) as well as at least one cutting element (11.4) are arranged.
Furthermore, Ash does disclose the usage of a stop (raised portion 125 in FIG. 1, ¶23) and at least one cutting element (piercing member 170 in FIG. 8, ¶24), but have both the stop and cutting element structures of separate fastening elements. Though Ash fails to disclose both structures on either of the wing-like fastening segments within the same fastening element, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement both structures on the same fastening element to allow obvious variation and routine optimization for ease of manufacturing or to cut an opposite side of a clamped material to secure electrical connection. (Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 4, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 6 in the manner of modifying a clamp shape for manufacturing purposes).
PNG
media_image9.png
406
441
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Ash in view of Oki teaches a clamping device according to claim 4.
However, both fail to disclose a clamping device characterized in that at least one locking element (12.3) is arranged on the surface of the wing-like fastening counter-segments (12.2) or the ring-like fastening counter-segment (12'.2) directed towards the structural part plane (E3).
Though Ash and Oki fail to directly disclose such a configuration, they both teach that the shape of the fastening segment can be changed, namely between a ring-like structure or a wing-like structure. Ash teaches a locking element (raised portions/teeth 125, ¶23) located on the wing-like fastening segment (T-bolt end 110, ¶23). Oki teaches a locking element (base part 6, ¶75) located on the ring-like fastening element (knob part 2, ¶70). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to rearrange elements of the locking element between fastening elements as well as the fastening element’s generalized shape through obvious variation and routine optimization, allowing for ease of manufacturing and reduction in manufacturing costs. (Regarding the reason to combine references, refer to the rejection of claim 4, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 7 in the manner of modifying a clamp shape for manufacturing purposes).
Regarding claim 8, Ash in view of Oki teaches a clamping device according to claim 6, and Ash further teaches a clamping device characterized in that the at least one cutting element (11.4) (piercing member 170, ¶24) AND/OR the at least one locking element (12.3) (raised portion/teeth 125, ¶23) are formed as ramps (FIG. 8 depicts the piercing member 170 to be in a generalized triangular shape. A triangular projection includes an inclined surface, and a POSITA would have understood such to constitute a ramp).
Regarding claim 10, Ash in view of Oki teaches a clamping device according to claim 1, and Ash further teaches the method for fastening a fastening bolt (clamp assembly 100, ¶22) in a receiving opening (101) of a structural part (100) (sleeve 200, ¶22, FIG. 5 depicts the sleeve having an opening for receiving the clamp assembly 100), the fastening bolt (10, 10') having two fastening elements (11, 12) (T-bolt end 110 and annular ring 160, ¶22-24) essentially located in planes (E1, E2) (FIG. 1 depicts both elements 110 and 160 separated into separate planes) which are spaced apart from one another and by means of which the fastening bolt (10, 10') can be reversibly fastened in the receiving opening (101) of the structural part (100) located in the structural part plane (E3) (FIG. 1 depicts a plane/gap between elements 110 and 160) (¶23-25, Ash discloses threaded shank 135 and internal threads inside female element 140 that allow for adjustable interlocking assembly between fastening elements 110 & 160, the threads allowing for reversibility. Loosening the assembly between fastening elements 110 & 160 would allow for the clamp assembly 100 to slip out of the opening of the sleeve 200), further teaches the method comprising the following steps:
pre-positioning and inserting the wing-like fastening segments (11.2) of the fastening bolt (10, 10') arranged in the first plane (E1) from one side of the structural part (100) into the receiving opening (101) until the fastening counter- segments (12.2; 12'.2) located in the second plane (E2) rest against the structural part (100) and the structural part (100) is arranged in the structural part plane (E3) between the two planes (E1, E2)
(FIGS. 5 & 6a below depict the entire structure of the clamp assembly 100 being preposition, via the threaded shank which modifies the size of the plane E3, and is inserted into a sleeve 200 from a receiving opening through one side, wherein the T-bolt end 110 with wing-like fastening segments (the shape of T-bolt end 110 has a wing-like structure). The clamp assembly 100 is further inserted into the sleeve 200 until the fastening counter-segment (annular ring 160) is directly adjacent to the sleeve 200, such that the sleeve 200 is directly arranged in plane E3 between the two fastening segments (T-bolt end 110 and annular ring 160) which defines planes E1 & E2), and
PNG
media_image10.png
372
358
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
359
317
media_image3.png
Greyscale
b) rotating the fastening bolt (10, 10') from the same side of the structural part (10) (a rotating body is considered to be rotating from any direction. Thus, the clamping device 100 in FIGS. 5 & 6a is rotating from the same side of the sleeve 200 as its opening),
whereby the wing-like fastening segments (11.2) (T-bolt end 110 having wing-like shape, ¶23) of the fastening bolt (10,10') engage behind the structural part (100) (sleeve 200, ¶29) in the first plane (E1) (FIG. 6a depicts T-bolt end 110 located in plane E1 engaging the bottom end of the sleeve 200), the fastening counter-segments (12.2; 12'.2) (annular ring 160, ¶24) located in the second plane (E2) forming counter-bearings on the opposite side of the structural part (100) (FIG. 6a depicts annular ring 160 engaging the top end of the sleeve in plane E2),
until at least one stop (11.3) (raised portion/teeth 120, ¶23) extending into the structural part plane (E3) (FIG. 5 depicts raised portion/teeth 120 extending towards plane E3), which is arranged on at least one of the wing-like fastening segments (11.2) (raised portion/teeth 120 is arranged on T-bolt end 110), abuts against a front side portion of the structural part (100) within the front side (101.3) of the receiving opening (101) (FIG. 6a depicts T-bolt end 110 directly adjacent to a bottom end of the sleeve 200 which incorporates the opening, as seen in FIG. 5),
wherein at least one cutting element (11.4) (piercing member 170, ¶26), which extends into the structural part plane (E3) (FIG. 8 depicts the piercing member 170 extending towards plane E3) and is arranged on at least one of the wing-like fastening segments (11.2) (annular ring 160, ¶24), simultaneously cuts open a coating of the structural part (100) during the rotary movement (P2) thereby forming an electrical contact with the metallic structural part (100) (¶28, “the T-bolt end 110 is adjustable and rotates… the female member is pressed against the rear side 410 of the frame 400 with the penetrating member 170 piercing the surface treatment layers of frame 400”; ¶31, “the piercing member 170 also penetrates the surface of the sleeve 200… electrically bonded”).
(Though Ash fails to disclose the fastening segment containing the cutting element to be wing-like in shape, it is obvious in view of Oki to a POSITA to modify the shape of the fastening segment. Regarding the reason, refer to the rejection of claim 4, supra, as it is applicable to the rejection of claim 10 in the manner of changing the shape of an element for manufacturing purposes).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ash in view of Oki, and further in view of Levin (W.O. Patent Application Publication 2005025005 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ash in view of Oki teaches the method according to claim 10, and both Ash and Oki teach the method characterized in steps a) and b), as detailed above.
However, both Ash and Oki fail to disclose the method characterized in that steps a) and b) are carried out after a cable (300) provided with a connecting part (200) has previously been arranged on the fastening bolt shank (13) and secured by means of a nut/disc connection (2, 2A), so that a fastening bolt unit consisting of fastening bolt (10, 10'), a cable (300), in particular a ground cable, and the nut/disc connection (2, 2A) can be reversibly mounted on the fastening bolt (10, 10').
Levin discloses a method (Title: Grounding Element and Method for Grounding) wherein a cable (300) is provided with a connecting part (200) (FIG. 2, “a mounted grounding element 1 with a ground terminal…” p. 5, ll. 9-10; p. 5, ll. 14, “the ground terminal consists here of a ground cable, in this case mounted by a ring terminal 13”) has previously been arranged on the fastening bolt shank (13) (bolt 11, p. 5, ll. 15) and secured by means of a nut/disc connection (2, 2A) (nut, p. 5, ll. 15), so that a fastening bolt unit consisting of fastening bolt (10, 10'), a cable (300), in particular a ground cable, and the nut/disc connection (2, 2A) can be reversibly mounted on the fastening bolt (10, 10') (p. 5, ll. 14-15) (p. 5, ll. 20-24 discloses the structure of the bolt and nut having a threaded structure, allowing for reversibility of the fastening).
PNG
media_image11.png
413
689
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Ash, in view of Oki, discloses the fastening bolt being of a clamping device that incorporates the usage of two fastening elements arranged on two planes spaced apart such that a structural part is located in a plane between the two fastening elements. As described in the rejection of claim 4, supra, the combination of Ash and Oki teaches the variation of shapes of each of the fastening elements (ring-like or wing-like) and other components such as the cutting element or locking element located on the either of the fastening elements. Ash also discloses the method of claim 10 characterized to fastening the fastening bolt from one side of a structural part, namely a sleeve, to clamp onto opposite ends of the structural part, utilizing raised portions that cut into the material to secure electrical connection. Levin discloses a grounding method that utilizes a bolt, a nut, and importantly a grounding element consisting of a cable and ring terminal that attaches within the bolt assembly. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the grounding elements of Levin and apply them to the fastening bolt of Ash and Oki to allow for a plurality of teeth to cut into the grounding element 1, providing a secure airtight contact connection between a grounding element with a frame while electricity is being provided with said contact. Furthermore, such a connection would allow for protection against possible corrosion of the connection surfaces.
(p. 5, ll. 27-36)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is (571)272-2956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/E.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3729
/THOMAS J HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights