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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Distance adjusting means in Claim 1: (A) the limitation uses the term “means”; (B) the means has the function of “for adjusting a distance between said handle assembly and said first end; (C) there is no further structure in the claim to perform the claimed function. As such, the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as: a grip with internal threading that interacts with threading on the tubular shaft to allow for rotation of the handle element to cause the pin to be shortened or lengthened based on ¶0041. The specification does not define further functional equivalents for this “means”.
Locking means in Claim 3: (A) the limitation uses the term “means”; (B) the means has the function of locking; (C) there is no further structure in the claim to perform the claimed function. As such the limitation will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as: a locking pin based on claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “generally cylindrical”. The specification does not define the degree of which something has to be cylindrical to be “generally cylindrical”. As such, this term will be interpreted as what one of ordinary skill would understand to be “generally cylindrical”.
Claim 1 recites “said endcap assembly bore”. This is interpreted as referring to “a bore” recited previously in relation to “a generally cylindrical endcap assembly”.
Claim 1 recites “workpiece” and “machine tool”. There is no specific structure recited in the claims or known in the art to qualify a structure as a “workpiece” or a “machine tool”. Many different shapes, materials, and sizes of object can be called a workpiece or machine tool as currently claimed, and applicant’s drawings only show the two structures as rectangles with bores passing therethrough. The prior art will be interpreted based on what is required in the claim for the structure of the workpiece and machine tool.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “said tool bore” and “said aligned tool bore”. There has been “a first tool bore” and “a second tool bore” already introduced prior, so it is unclear which “tool bore” is being referred to in the recitation “said tool bore”.
Claim 10 recites “said second side of said workpiece” prior to “a second side of said workpiece”. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the first recitation.
Claim 11 recites “said tool bore”. There has been “a first tool bore” and “a second tool bore” already introduced prior in Claim 10, so it is unclear which “tool bore” is being referred to in the recitation “said tool bore”.
Claim 12 recites “said tool bore”. There has been “a first tool bore” and “a second tool bore” already introduced prior in Claim 10, so it is unclear which “tool bore” is being referred to in the recitation “said tool bore”.
Claim 15 recites “a second side of said workpiece”. This has already been introduced in Claim 10, from which Claim 15 depends. Therefore, it is unclear if the recitation in Claim 15 is a new “second side of said workpiece” or referring to the recitation in Claim 10.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Item 225 is shown in Figures 2-6 but no description of the item was found in the specification. ¶0037 discusses a “threaded element” but does not indicate Item 225. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (CN206280336U; with text citations based on the machine translation attached to this action) in view of Siler (US3509618A), further in view of Frost (US20180274573A1).
Claim 1
Jin teaches a method for clamping a workpiece for machining (Figures 4A and B show a workpiece (the top-most Item 1 in the orientation shown in Figure 4) and another object (the other Item 1) being clamped together using a ball lock pin assembly.) comprising: providing a workpiece comprising a workpiece bore (Figure 4A shows the workpiece (1) has a bore.); providing a machine tool comprising a tool bore (Figure 4A shows a machine tool (the other Item 1) that has a bore. There is no specific structure implied by the term “tool” bore.); providing a captive clamping pin assembly (Items 10, 30 and 50 make up a pin assembly used in clamping.) comprising: an adjustable-length ball-lock pin (Figure 3) comprising: a tubular shaft (10) having a plurality of ball apertures (12) at a first end thereof, each of said ball apertures having a ball (20) disposed therein; a plunger (30) slidingly received in said tubular shaft (Lines 178-179 teach the plunger (30) is received and moved within the hole (11) in the shaft (10).); a handle assembly (50) disposed at a second end opposing said first end (The first end on Figure 3 is at the top, the handle is shown as being located closer to the “second” end, or bottom end.); and a distance-adjusting means (Figures 3A and B show the handle (50) has internal threading (55) that interacts with the external threading (15) on the shaft (10). This meets the requirements for distance adjusting means dictated by the 112(f) interpretation.) for adjusting a distance between said handle assembly and said first end by rotating said handle assembly (Since the handle and shaft are internally and externally threaded (respectively), the handle (50) moves along the shaft (towards the first end) by rotation of the handle. See also Lines 190-191, where the handle (50) is called a “fixing block” in the translation.); wherein said plunger is operable to a first position in which said plunger causes said balls to project through said plurality of apertures a distance greater than the outer radius of said shaft (Figure 4B shows the plunger (30) in the “first position”, where it is forcing the balls through the apertures and out of the shaft.); and wherein said plunger is operable to a second position in which said balls recede inward of said outer radius (Figure 4A shows a second position of the plunger where the balls (20) are receded within the apertures (12) in the shaft.); positioning said machine tool on a first side of said workpiece such that said tool bore and said workpiece bore are generally coaxially aligned (Figure 4A shows the machine tool and workpiece (two instances of Item 1) are placed such that their bores are coaxially aligned. See also Line 214.); receding said balls by moving said plunger to said second position (Figure 4A shows the balls (20) are receded and the plunger is in the second position during the insertion. Based on this, the balls must be receded prior to insertion in order to fit into the aligned bores. In order for the balls to be receded, the plunger has to be in the second position prior to inserting.); after said receding, inserting said first end of said shaft through said aligned tool bore and said workpiece bore (Figure 4A) until said plurality of apertures are disposed beyond said endcap assembly distal side (Figure 4B shows the apertures in the shaft are disposed past the rear/blind surface of the workpiece/machine tool bores after inserting.); after said inserting, projecting said balls by moving said plunger to said first position (Figure 4B); and rotating said handle assembly to cause said distance-adjusting means to shorten said distance between said handle assembly and said first end to a distance effective to cause said captive clamping pin assembly to apply clamping force to said workpiece and said machine tool. (Lines 226-229 describe this step.)
Jin does not explicitly disclose a generally cylindrical endcap assembly having a proximal side and an opposing distal side, and a bore extending generally coaxially therethrough; disposing said endcap assembly such that said tool bore, said workpiece bore, and said endcap assembly bore are generally coaxially aligned and said proximal side of said endcap assembly is adjacent a second side of said workpiece opposing said first side; inserting said first end of said shaft through said aligned tool bore, said workpiece bore, and said endcap assembly bore until said plurality of apertures are disposed beyond said endcap assembly distal side and are distal said workpiece. Jin does disclose that the balls protrude on the rear/blind side of the workpiece and machine tool setup.
However, Siler teaches a ball lock pin that fits into aligned bores (Figures 2, 3 and 6 teach a system where a ball lock pin (Figure 3) passes through openings in two structures (11, 13).); a generally cylindrical endcap assembly having a proximal side and an opposing distal side (Figures 1, 2, and 6 teach a bushing (17) that has a generally cylindrical endcap portion (enlarged head, 21) that has a proximal side.), and a bore (23) extending generally coaxially therethrough (Figure 1); disposing said endcap assembly such that said tool bore, said workpiece bore, and said endcap assembly bore are generally coaxially aligned and said proximal side of said endcap assembly is adjacent a second side of said workpiece opposite said first side (Figure 2 shows the endcap (17) is positioned such that the bores in the workpiece, tool, and endcap are aligned. The endcap (17) is positioned such that the proximal side of the enlarged head is adjacent the workpiece second side (side away from the machine tool (13).); inserting said first end of said shaft through said aligned tool bore, said workpiece bore, and said endcap assembly bore (Figures 2, 3, 6 alongside Col. 2, Lines 70-Col. 3, Line 4 teach the shaft (35) is inserted through the aligned bore of the two objects (37) and the bushing (17).) until said plurality of apertures are disposed beyond said endcap assembly distal side and are distal said workpiece. (Figure 6 shows the shaft is inserted until the latch elements (67) protrude on the opposite side of the endcap (17). This location is beyond the endcap assembly distal side. Col. 2, Lines 15-35 teach that the latch elements are a known alternative to balls. Figure 4 shows that when balls are used, they extend into apertures in the shaft. These teachings, plus Jin explicitly teaching that the apertures are located on the rear/blind side of the workpiece assembly, obviate the claimed location of the apertures.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known blind side bushing (teaching of an endcap) of Siler with the assembly of Jin in order to: provide the tool the ability to work on mismatched, yet aligned, bores (See Siler Col. 1 Lines 30-35); provide a bushing/endcap structure that facilitates the retraction of the balls/latch elements (Siler Col. 3, Lines 30-35); or one of ordinary skill would understand that having a spacer/bushing/endcap in between the tool and the workpiece/machine tool bore would prevent marring of the surface of said workpiece/machine tool based on teachings from Frost, specifically ¶0036. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 2
Jin in view of Siler and Frost teaches the teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a bushing assembly having an axial bore configured to receive said adjustable-length ball-lock pin (Frost teaches a bushing (201) that has a bore (209) where the system (101) is inserted (See ¶0051).); before said inserting, seating said bushing assembly in said tool bore (Frost ¶0051) such that said tool bore, said workpiece bore, said endcap assembly bore, and said axial bore are generally coaxially aligned (Frost, Figure 6 shows the bores of the workpieces and the bushing are aligned. Although not relied upon for a bushing assembly, Siler teaches that when using two bushings (55, 17) with two workpieces (11, 13), all of the bores are aligned in use, including the “endcap assembly bore”.); said inserting comprising inserting said first end of said shaft through said axial bore, said tool bore, said workpiece bore, and said endcap assembly bore. (Frost teaches the first end of a shaft (103) is inserted through an axial bore in the bushing (201), and two bores in two workpieces. Siler teaches that when using the analogous “endcap assembly”, the shaft is inserted through that as well.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known bushing of Frost to the system of Jin in view of Siler in order to provide the benefit of preventing marring of the top surface (in addition to the already prevented marring of the blind side) of the stack of workpieces (Frost ¶0036 teaches the washer (105) provides this benefit, and Figure 6 indicates that the bushing is both Item 105 and 201 in that embodiment.); and also allow for the incorporation of the locking pin (Item 203 of Frost) in order to hold the inserted shaft in place (See Frost ¶0049). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 3
Jin in view of Siler and Frost teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: in said providing a bushing assembly, said bushing assembly further comprising a locking means; after said seating said bushing assembly in said tool bore, locking said adjustable-length ball-lock pin to said bushing assembly with said locking means. (Frost ¶0048 and Figure 3 teach a locking means (203) used with the bushing (201). ¶0049 teaches the locking pin (203) holds the inserted pin in place after the shaft has been inserted into the bore of the bushing (201).)
Claim 4
Jin in view of Siler and Frost teaches the method of claim 3, wherein said locking means is a locking pin. (Frost ¶0048 and Figure 3 teach a locking pin (203) used with the bushing (201).)
Claim 5
Jin in view of Siler and Frost teaches the method of claim 3, wherein said locking comprising locking said shaft to said bushing assembly. (Frost ¶0048 and Figure 3 teach a locking means (203) used with the bushing (201). ¶0049 teaches the locking pin (203) holds the inserted pin in place after the shaft has been inserted into the bore of the bushing (201).)
Claim 6
Jin in view of Siler and Frost teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said disposing further comprises disposing said endcap assembly on the second side of said workpiece such that said endcap assembly proximal side is adjacent said workpiece second side. (Siler, Figure 3 teaches the endcap (17) proximal side (proximal side of the enlarged head (21)) is located on a second side of the workpiece (11), opposite the side adjacent the machine tool (13).)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin (CN206280336U; with text citations based on the machine translation attached to this action) in view of Siler (US3509618A), and Frost (US20180274573A1), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Kulesha (US8142124B2).
Claim 8
Jin in view of Siler and Frost teaches the method of Claim 1.
Jin in view of Siler and Frost does not disclose wherein said endcap assembly further comprises a lanyard pivotably attached to said endcap assembly.
However, Kulesha teaches a fastener system where said endcap assembly further comprises a lanyard pivotably attached to said endcap assembly. (Figure 3 teaches the endcap (110) has a lanyard (208) attached to it.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known lanyard connection of Kulesha to the endcap of Jin in view of Siler and Frost in order to prevent the endcap from floating away or being dropped. (See Kulesha, Col. 3, Lines 20-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known lanyard connection of Kulesha to the endcap of Jin in view of Siler and Frost because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provides general discussion of 35 USC 103 on Pages 8-10
On Pages 10-12 of the remarks, Applicant asserts that the rejection is premised on an unreasonable broad interpretation of the claims, specifically that Siler’s bushing is not an endcap as claimed.
It is respectfully asserted that the bushing of Siler (See Figures 1 and 2, Item 17) meets all of the claimed structure and functionality required of the claimed endcap assembly and therefore can be interpreted as such.
On Page 12 of the remarks, Applicant asserts that the bushing of Siler does not meet the spatial relationship between the endcap assembly and workpiece.
It is respectfully asserted that the rejection of Claim 1 has been updated to suit applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 regarding the spatial relationship.
On Pages 12-13 of the remarks, Applicant asserts that the motivation to modify or combine references is deficient and does not make logical sense.
It is respectfully asserted that simply because a reference (in this case Jin) does not discuss a deficiency or problem in need of solving, that a secondary reference (in this case Silar) does not provide an improvement. Silar’s bushing (interpreted as the claimed endcap) provides several improvements to a ball lock pin structure as discussed within the written description and cited above in the motivation statement. One of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when combining the bushing (or claimed endcap assembly) of Silar with the device of Jin in order to achieve the discussed advantages. The combination does not disrupt the operation of Jin or render the device unsuitable for its intended purpose. As to the arguments against Frost’s disclosure, the bushing (or claimed endcap assembly) of Silar is positioned such that the latch elements (analogous to the claimed balls) do not contact the rear side of the workpiece. This combination therefore has a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the stated reduction in marring of the workpiece. Based on the above reasoning, the multiple motivations to combine are relevant to the combination and the rejection is proper.
Examiner Note
Applicant’s Figure 3 shows a structure (Item 225) that has threads that cooperate with threads in the machine tool (205) bore (223). ¶0037 briefly discusses this functionality. It is noted that Silar, which is relied upon for teaching the bushing in Claim 2, does not disclose threads as shown in Applicant’s Figure 3. An amendment of the features of Claim 2 into Claim 1 alongside limitations regarding the threading could be an avenue for advancing prosecution past the Silar reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the most relevant prior art found during the search and examination period for the application does not teach or obviate the limitations of Claims 9 or 10.
Claim 9 requires the lanyard as presented in Claim 8 also be attached to the adjustable length ball lock pin.
The prior art teaches lanyards that connect to parts of a fastener assembly (US12085111 (Figure 3); US8142124 (Figures 2-3); US5340255 (Figure 3); US3101641 (Figure 1); US2324175 (Figure 4); US1209460 (Figure 1-2); US3200690A (Figures 1-2)), yet fails to disclose a singular lanyard that connects an end cap as recited in Claim 1 to the adjustable length ball lock pin with the structure as recited in Claim 1.
Claim 10 requires a second of the “machine tool” structures be placed on the second side of the workpiece and the endcap be placed on the second side of the second machine tool, in addition to the method steps of Claim 10.
The prior art taught references that used adjustable length ball lock pins (See US3117484A (Figure 1); US8549724B2 (Figures 10-12); US20090214319A1 (Figure 1); and US3101641A (Figure 1)) and clamping a number of workpieces together (See US3052148 (Figure 1); US9033609 (Figure 5); and US5042787A (Figure 4)) yet failed to disclose the features of the method of claim in combination with the added method limitations of Claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US3783496A
1972-08-31
Figures 1-2 show a ball lock pin device that cooperates with a blind side bushing (analogous to an endcap assembly as claimed) to lock the pin in place.
US3725993A
1970-12-14
Figures 1-2 show a ball lock pin device that cooperates with a blind side bushing (analogous to an endcap assembly as claimed) to lock the pin in place.
US20110006552A1
2010-03-08
Figure 3 teaches a ball lock pin that cooperates with a blind side lock receiving member (3) to lock the pin in place.
US20150027176A1
2013-07-29
Figures 5C-5D teach a ball lock pin that cooperates with a blind side fastening member (44) to lock the pin in place.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726