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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “a non-threaded tool feature” is not properly described in the application as filed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schultz (US 2003/0219328.
Regarding claim 1, Schultz discloses a dual-end fastening bolt 20 Fig. 5 comprising: a head 22 at a first end of the dual-end fastening bolt; a tail 46 at a second end of the dual-end fastening bolt opposite the head; and a shank 38 that extends from the head to the tail and comprises an externally threaded portion 40 configured to engage a nut 42, wherein the tail comprises a non-threaded tool feature 44 formed at and exposed at the second end of the dual-end fastening bolt, the non-threaded tool feature being configured to releasably engage a tool 50 to rotate the dual-end fastening bolt or to prevent the dual-end fastening bolt from rotation while the nut is rotated relative to the externally threaded portion (Para. 0029), the tool being removable from the non-threaded tool feature after rotation of the nut.
Regarding claim 2, Schultz discloses wherein the threaded portion 40 extends to the tail 46 of the dual-end fastening bolt 20.
Regarding claim 3, Schultz discloses wherein the head 22 comprises a hexagonal head.
Regarding claim 4, Schultz discloses wherein the tool feature 44 comprises a fastening recess that receives at least a portion of the tool 50, wherein the fastening recess extends to a depth inside the tail 46. Regarding claim 5, Schultz discloses wherein the fastening recess 44 is a hexagonal recess defined by a number of recess walls and a recess bottom surface. Regarding claim 6, Schultz discloses wherein the fastening recess 44 Fig. 4 is beveled at the recess bottom surface.
Regarding claim 15, Schultz discloses a method of securing a first component to a second component, the method comprising: inserting a dual-end fastening bolt 20 Fig. 5 through aligned openings in the first component and the second component, the dual-end fastening bolt comprising a head 22, a tail 46 opposite the head, a shank 38 extending from the head to the tail and comprising an externally threaded portion 40, and a non-threaded tool feature 44 formed at the tail; threading a nut 42 onto the externally threaded portion; releasably engaging the non-threaded tool feature with a tool 50; using the tool to rotate the dual-end fastening bolt or to prevent the dual-end fastening bolt from rotation while rotating the nut relative to the externally threaded portion to secure the first component to the second component; and removing the tool from the non-threaded tool feature after securing the first component to the second component. Regarding claim 16, Schultz discloses wherein the non-threaded tool feature 44 comprises a fastening recess extending into the tail 46, and wherein releasably engaging the non-threaded tool feature comprises inserting at least a portion of the tool 50 into the fastening recess.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2009/0175701).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses a dual-end fastening bolt 4 Fig. 10 comprising: a head 400 at a first end of the dual-end fastening bolt that comprises a first non-threaded tool feature 401 exposed at the first end; a tail 44 at a second end of the dual-end fastening bolt opposite the head that comprises a second non-threaded tool feature 402 exposed at a second end; and a shank 40 that extends from the head to the tail and comprises an externally threaded portion 42 configured to engage a nut, wherein the first tool feature is configured to releasably engage a first tool to rotate the dual-end fastening bolt or to prevent the dual-end fastening bolt from rotation, and the second tool feature is engageable with a second tool 41 to rotate the dual-end fastening bolt or to prevent the dual-end fastening bolt from rotation; wherein each of the first tool and the second tool is removable from the respective first or second non-threaded tool feature.
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses wherein the first tool feature 401 comprises a first fastening recess that receives at least a portion of the first tool, or the second tool feature 402 comprises a second fastening recess that receives at least a portion of the second tool 41, or both.
Regarding claim 12, Wu discloses wherein the first fastening recess 401, the second fastening recess 402, or both, includes a hexagonal recess defined by a number of recess walls and a recess bottom surface.
Regarding claim 13, Wu discloses wherein the first tool feature 412 Fig. 14 comprises a first fastening post 412 that engages at least a portion of the first tool, or the second feature comprises a second fastening post that engages at least a portion of the second tool, or both.
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses wherein the first fastening post 412, the second fastening post, or both, includes a hexagonal post Fig. 14 defined by a number of post walls and a post top surface.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Size in view of Schultz (US 2003/0219328).
Regarding claim 5, Size discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly discloses wherein the fastening recess is a hexagonal recess. Schultz, a dual end fastening bolt 20 Fig. 2, discloses the uses of a fastening recess 44 is a hexagonal recess. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recess of Size to a hexagonal shape as taught by Schultz in order to increase the level of torque between a female threaded device and the fastener, a driving tool, such as a hex-key or Allen wrench, is commonly inserted into a hexagon shape aperture at the distal face of the fastener and applies torsional force in a first direction, such as a counterclockwise direction, while a driving tool is engaged to the female threaded device to apply torsional force in a second direction, such as a clockwise direction. (Para. 0005 of Schultz)
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses wherein the fastening recess (44 of Schultz) is beveled at the recess bottom surface Fig. 2.
1. Claim(s) 7-9 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Owen (US 2018/0335067).
Regarding claim 7, Schultz discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the tool feature comprises a fastening post. Owen, a dual end fastening bolt 100 Fig. 1, discloses the use of a tool feature 160 comprises a fastening post that engages at least a portion of a tool 125, wherein the fastening post extends to a height from a tail bottom surface 162. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool feature of Size with a fastening post as taught by Owen in order to conform to a standard indented hexagonal socket for tightening.
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses wherein the fastening post (160 of Owen) is a hexagonal post (160A Fig. 5A of Owen) defined by a number of post walls and a post top surface.
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses a fastening post (160 of Owen) but fails to explicitly disclose the shape of the top surface being beveled. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 17, the combination discloses wherein the non-threaded tool feature comprises a fastening post (160 of Owen) extending from a tail 46 bottom surface, and wherein releasably engaging the non-threaded tool feature comprises positioning at least a portion of the tool (e.g. TORX socket 0f Owen) about the fastening post. Regarding claim 18, the combination discloses wherein the first component is capable of comprising a seat and the second component comprises a vehicle floor (Para. 0004 of Owen).
Regarding claim 19, Schultz discloses wherein access to the head 22 from a side of the vehicle floor opposite the seat is obstructed by a vehicle component (Para. 0004 of Owen).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 15-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Wu reference does not disclose the claimed second tool feature, stating that combining member 412 is not exposed at an axial end of the completed screw as required by amended claim 10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, in its broadest reasonable interpretation, "tool feature" does not require the feature to be considered only "when assembled" or "after assembly" thus tool feature 402 is therefore considered "a second tool feature" as it does in fact, comprise of a “non-threaded” feature. Moreover, “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch \& Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. \& Inter. 1987)
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 EUGENE G BYRD whose telephone number is (571)270-1824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 5712727376. 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.
/EUGENE G BYRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
