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 Remarks
Applicant's remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks are more limiting than the claim recitations. The Examiner notes that a cylindrical transverse bore does not preclude a conical opening on one side with a small opening on the other side from meeting the claim limitations. The claim does not require a perfect cylinder of constant width passing therethrough as currently recited. Regarding Applicant’s remarks directed to claim 5, Applicant asserts “tubular is generally understood to be a shape that is hollow.” The examiner is interpreting that the claimed limitation of “tubular” does not have to be hollow. Regarding claim 7, the Examiner is interpreting the bottom surface of 14 to meet the claim as currently recited. Ref. [573], bottom surface of 14 meets the limitation of “a further unthreaded portion.” The Examiner notes that “facing away” is a broad limitation that is met by Ref. [573] as currently recited. Regarding claim 9, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The tapering and milling of Ref. [241] meets the claim as currently recited as there is a dimensional aspect running in the longitudinal direction. The Examiner notes that cutting grooves on threads is known in the art, as demonstrated by cited but not relied upon Reference U.S. 2015/0176623, grooves 128. Additionally, U.S. 6,264,677 teaches cutting flutes 46 and 54. Regarding claim 10, Ref. [022] has indentations 224 that meets the claimed limitations of indentations as currently recited. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further interpretation is set forth below in the action.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Fuchs (U.S. 4,116,573) [573].
Regarding Claim 1, Reference [573] discloses a connector for two components (11, 12), of which the first component has a first bore (hole of 11) extending from a first bearing surface for the second component and the second component has an opening (13) which extends from a second bearing surface for the first component and corresponds with the first bore and has a second bore (23) transversing the opening, comprising: a retaining bolt (14, 21) with a threaded portion (17, 21) for screwing into or behind the first bore and an unthreaded portion for inserting into the opening (upper end 14), wherein the unthreaded portion is traversed by a cylindrical transverse bore (15, 32); and a cylindrical tensioning bolt (26) with a conical end (31), which, when the retaining bolt assumes its position is screwed into or behind the first bore and inserted into the opening, can be inserted into the second bore and into the transverse bore in order to align them the second bore and the transverse bore relative to one another and thus tension the first and second bearing surfaces against one another.
Regarding Claim 2, Reference [573] discloses wherein the tensioning bolt has an unthreaded portion (31) comprising the conical end and a threaded portion (threads of 26) with a larger nominal diameter than the unthreaded portion and is configured for applying a screwdriver on an end face facing away from the conical end.
Regarding Claim 3, Reference [573] discloses wherein the conical end of the tensioning bolt extends over the entire unthreaded portion.
Regarding Claim 5, Reference [573] discloses wherein at least one end-face region of the unthreaded portion of the retaining bolt is tubular.
Regarding Claim 6, Reference [573] discloses wherein the unthreaded portion of the retaining bolt has an end-face notch (22) for applying an assembly tool (screwdriver).
Regarding Claim 7, Reference [573] discloses wherein the retaining bolt has on a side of the threaded portion facing away from the said unthreaded portion a further unthreaded portion (lower end, bottom of 14) with a diameter corresponding to or smaller than a core diameter of the threaded portion.
Regarding Claim 8, Reference [573] discloses wherein the threaded portion of the retaining bolt is configured to be screwed to a screw nut (21).
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 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.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (U.S. 4,116,573) [573].
Regarding Claim 4, Reference [573] discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the conical end of the tensioning bolt has a cone opening angle (α) of between 20° and 120°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have had the conical point at an angle of between 20 degrees and 120 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 7-8, paragraph [0033], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Applicant states that “the cone opening angle α may be larger or in particular smaller. It is understood that the tip of the conical end 14 may be blunted.” Id. The Examiner notes that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reference component 31 would have performed equally well with different cone opening angles.
Regarding Claim 11, Reference [573] discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cone opening angle is between 40° and 60°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have had the conical point at an angle of between 40 degrees and 60 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, page 7-8, paragraph [0033], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Applicant states that “the cone opening angle α may be larger or in particular smaller. It is understood that the tip of the conical end 14 may be blunted.” Id. The Examiner notes that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reference component 31 would have performed equally well with different cone opening angles.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (U.S. 4,116,573) [573] in view of Eckert et al. (U.S. 20160146241) [241].
Regarding Claim 9, Reference [573] discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the threaded portion of the retaining bolt has one or more millings distributed around the in circumference direction and running in longitudinal direction of the retaining bolt, which preferably extend up to the core diameter of the threaded portion.
Nevertheless, Reference [241] teaches one or more millings (112).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the rod assembly of Reference [573] with tapering thread portions (carried out by milling) as taught by Reference [241] in order to have a tapering on the thread section for pressure or tension as desired. The Examiner notes that the tapering created by milling as taught by Reference [241] meets the claim limitation as currently recited.
Regarding Claim 12, the previously made combination of Reference [573] / [241] discloses wherein the one or more millings extend up to a core diameter of the threaded portion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (U.S. 4,116,573) [573] in view of Oldberg et al. (U.S. 2,670,022) [022].
Regarding Claim 10, Reference [573] discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the retaining bolt has a circumferential indentation in a region of said unthreaded portion adjoining the threaded portion.
Nevertheless, Reference [022] teaches a circumferential indentation (224).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the rod assembly of Reference [573] with the indentations as taught by Reference [022] in order to have a resilient section with appropriate annular clearance that permits axial deflection on a screwed in rod.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 8,992,114 discloses a similar connector assembly to Applicant’s claimed invention.
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 JASON W SAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6531. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-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, Namrata Boveja can be reached on 571-272-8105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights