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 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.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst et al., US8057147 (hereinafter, Ernst) in view of Lin US20140314522 (hereinafter, Lin).
Regarding claim 16, Ernst teaches a spacing fastener 10 for spaced fastening of an outer shell to a substructure, comprising
a head (see head having flared end 14 in Figs. 1-2), wherein the head comprises a bottom surface 64, and
a shaft 12 adjoining the bottom surface of the head and ending in a tip 16, wherein the shaft comprises:
an under-head screw thread 19 close to the head, wherein the under-head screw thread is a continuous screw thread that ends at a screw thread end 17 near the head, the screw thread end provides a first contact point (upper side surface of the screw thread end 17 in Figs. 1 and 6) for the outer shell, and the under-head screw thread is defined by an under-head screw thread pitch (pitch of the thread 19) and an outside diameter (circumferential width of the thread 19),
an anchoring screw thread 21 close to the tip 16 of the shaft, wherein the anchoring screw thread anchors in the substructure with tension-resistance (see Figs. 6-7),
a single support element 90 being provided on the shaft between the screw thread end 17 and the head at a circumferential distance, from the screw thread end, wherein, in a top view, the support element 90 overlaps with a part of the under-head screw thread 19 but is spaced apart from the part of the under-head screw thread (see Fig. 1), the support element extends at an angular extent (gamma) of between 100° to 150° around the shaft (see column 12, lines 35-46) and provides a second contact point 91 for the outer shell, and,
wherein the outer shell 7 is held between the bottom surface of the head and the under-head screw thread so that a space is provided between the outer shell and the substructure (see Fig. 6).
Ernst fails to teach a non-threaded shaft portion between the under-head screw thread and the anchoring screw thread.
However, Lin teaches a screw (see Fig. 11) having a non-threaded shaft portion 52 between the under-head screw 46 and the anchoring screw thread 40.
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 fastener of Ernst with the non-threaded portion of the Lin to enhance the strength of the fastener screwed inside the workpieces.
Ernst fails to expressly teach the single support element is being provided on the shaft between the screw thread end and the head at a circumferential distance.
However, Ernst discloses the support element 90 may have a circumferential extent of a between about ¼ turn and about ½ turn. Therefore, Ernst is capable of meeting such limitation where the single support element is between the screw thread end and the head at a circumferential distance upon downsizing of the support element.
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the size of the support element in Ernst to be smaller for intended use, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Ernst fails to teach where a distance from the second contact point of the support element to the bottom surface of the head is equal to or greater than a difference between a distance from the first contact point of the under-head screw thread to the bottom surface of the head and a tolerance distance, and the tolerance distance is at most 15% of the outside diameter of the under-head screw thread.
However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the size of the, distance from the second contact point of the support element to the bottom surface of the head is equal to or greater than a difference between a distance from the first contact point of the under-head screw thread to the bottom surface of the head and a tolerance distance, and the tolerance distance is at most 15% of the outside diameter of the under-head screw thread, in order to accommodate different size of the substrate, and it is considered to be only matter of change in size of the components, therefore such modification would have involved mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 16, wherein Ernst further teaches wherein the beginning of the support element 90 is located at a greater distance from the head than the contact point (upper side surface of the screw thread end 17 in Figs. 1 and 6) of the under-head screw thread 19.
Regarding claim 18, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 16, wherein Ernst further teaches wherein the under-head screw thread 19 is a single-start thread (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the pitch (Pu) of the under-head screw thread (14, 34, 44) is greater than the rise in the support element.
However, it is considered general knowledge to change the size of the pitch to person of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the pitch of the under-head screw thread so it is greater than the rise in the support element for intended purpose, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 20, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 16, wherein the under-head screw thread 17 ends abruptly at the screw thread end (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the angular distance (alpha) between the contact point (As) of the support element (16, 36, 46) and the contact point (Au) of the under-head screw thread (14, 34, 44) is between 110° and 190°.
However, change is size of the support element has been established and made obvious above in claim 16. Therefore, the angular distance between 110° and 190° is expected to meet upon the downsizing of the support element.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the angular distance as claimed above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 22, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 16, but fails to expressly teach wherein the angular distance (beta) between the end of the under-head screw thread and the beginning of the support element is between 50° and 150°.
However, change is size of the support element has been established and made obvious above in claim 16. Therefore, the angular distance between 50° and 150° is expected to meet upon the downsizing and/or obvious modification of the support element.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the angular distance (beta) claimed above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 23, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the minimum distance of the support element (16, 36, 46) from the under-head screw thread in the region in which the support element overlaps with the under-head screw thread in top view defines a clearance height (H) which is greater than 0.4 mm.
Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations of the claimed fastener. Therefore, a clearance height greater than 0.4mm is considered obvious modification in view of obvious matter of design choice resulting change in size, since such change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 16, wherein Ernst further teaches the support element 90 has two flanks (see upper flank and lower flank in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 25, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 24, wherein Ernst further teaches the tip angle of the support element corresponds to that of the under-head screw thread (see tip angles of the support element 90 and the under-head screw thread 19 corresponding each other in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 24, but fails to expressly teach wherein the flank of the support element (16, 36) facing the screw tip forms an angle (sigma_2) with the plane (E), which is orthogonal to the screw axis (A), which angle is smaller than the angle (phi_2) of the flank of the under-head screw thread facing the screw tip.
Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations as claimed, and claimed angles is achieved by changing of size of threads.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the size of the threads for intended purpose, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 27, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 16, but fails to teach wherein the flank of the under-head screw thread (16, 36) facing the screw tip forms an angle (phi_2) with the plane (E), which is orthogonal to the screw axis (A), which angle is greater than the angle (phi_1) of the flank of the under-head screw thread facing the screw tip.
Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations as claimed, and claimed angles is achieved by changing of size of threads.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the size of the threads for intended purpose, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 28, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 24, but fails to expressly teach wherein the support element (16, 36) has a cross-section which corresponds to the cross-section of the under-head screw thread (14, 34) mirrored at the plane (E) which is orthogonal to the screw axis.
Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations of the fastener, 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 evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the shape mirrored cross-sections. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the cross-section of the support element and the under-head screw thread to be mirrored as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Regarding claim 29, Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the spacing fastener according to claim 16, but fails to expressly teach wherein the anchoring screw thread has the same pitch as the under-head screw thread (14, 34, 44).
Ernst in view of Lin teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations of the fastener, 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 evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the same pitch. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchoring screw thread and the under-head screw thread to have same pitch as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Regarding claim 30, An assembly (see Figs. 6-7), comprising
the substructure 2, and
the spacing fastener as described in claim 16 (see claim 16 above), wherein the spacing fastener is anchored in the substructure,
wherein the outer shell 7 is held in place between the head and the under-head screw
thread 19, with the thickness of the outer shell being less than the minimum axial distance between
the support element and the under-head screw thread (see Fig. 6).
Note: The outer shell isn’t positively claimed, therefore the limitations related to outer shell is not given any patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Christine Mills can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights