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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the conical end of the tensioning bolt extends over the entire unthreaded portion as well as a claimed screw nut must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (19) of the unthreaded portion (9) of the retaining bolt (4) 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 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.
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, Joe Thomas can be reached on 571-272-8004. 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