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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraldsson et al. (US 2004/0028501) in view of Hu (US 2020/0182285).
With regard to claim 21, Haraldsson discloses a self-locking tuning assembly (as seen in Fig. 8), comprising: a tuning screw (200) comprising a head portion (i.e. the upper portion comprising the threaded portion as seen in Figs. 7-8) and a rod portion (i.e. the lower unthreaded portion as seen in Figs. 7-8); the head portion being provided with a first threaded portion (i.e. an upper portion of the threaded portion as seen in Figs. 7-8), a second threaded portion (a lower portion of the threaded portion as seen in Figs. 7-8) along an axial direction of the tuning screw (as seen in Figs. 7-8 along the central axis of the screw); a base seat (400) defining a cavity (as seen in Fig 8); a resonance rod (i.e. the portion sticking up from the bottom wall 420) disposed within the cavity (as seen in Fig. 8), and the resonance rod defining an inner space (i.e. the space therein shown in Fig. 8) in communication with the cavity (as seen in Fig. 8 as they are both open to each other); and a cover plate (410) mounted to the base seat to shield the cavity (as seen in Fig. 8), and the cover plate defining an opening (i.e. the opening receiving 200 as seen in Fig. 8) adapted to the tuning screw (as seen in Fig. 8); wherein the resonance rod is separated a distance from the cover plate along the axial direction (as seen in Fig. 8); and wherein the opening comprises a first hole portion (e.g. an upper portion of the hole) and a second hole portion (e.g. a lower portion of the hole) communicating the first hole portion with the cavity (as seen in Fig. 8); the head portion is at least partially located in the first hole portion (as seen in Fig. 8); and the rod portion at least partially extends through the second hole portion into the inner space along the axial direction of the tuning screw (as seen in Fig. 8, specifically when threaded further therein).
Haraldsson fails to disclose a neck portion disposed between the first threaded portion and second threaded portion along an axial direction of the tuning screw.
Hu discloses a similar self-locking tuning assembly comprising a tuning screw (as seen in Fig. 3) with a neck portion (at C) disposed between a first threaded portion (B) and a second threaded portion (A) along an axial direction of the tuning screw (as seen in Fig. 3).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have modified the device of Haraldsson such that a neck portion is disposed between the first threaded portion and second threaded portion along an axial direction of the tuning screw. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of maintaining strength of the screw while allowing for good self-locking.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 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.
Though it is possible there are other possible amendments that could be incorporated into claim 21, in the interest of compact prosecution Examiner recommends canceling claim 21 as amending such to incorporate allowable subject matter would appear to substantially duplicate present claim 1 or 11, and as it is unclear exactly what additional limitations would be required to place the claim in condition for allowance.
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 NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights