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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 126 and 2160. 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. 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.
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: 1710. 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.
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 features of “a recessed offset cruciform drive feature, a recessed dovetail drive feature, a recessed hexagon key drive feature and a recessed flat tip drive feature” of claim 5, “an offset cruciform drive torquing tool, a dovetail drive torquing tool, a hexagon key torquing tool and a flat tip drive torquing tool” of claim 6, “configured for engagement by a tool for installation of the core bolt” of claim 9, “an end effector on a robotic arm, a handheld power tool and a hand tool” of claim 10, “a recessed spline drive feature, a recessed star drive feature, a recessed square-lobed star drive feature, a recessed 6-point star drive feature, a recessed 6-point square-lobed star drive feature, a recessed hexagon key drive feature, and a recessed cross-tip drive feature” of claim 15, “a spline drive torquing tool, a star drive torquing tool, a square-lobed star drive torquing tool, a 6-point star drive torquing tool, a 6-point square-lobed star drive torquing tool, an opposing flat surface socket torquing tool, a hexagon key torquing tool, a hexagon socket torquing tool, a cross-tip drive torquing tool and a flat tip drive torquing tool” of claim 16, “an elongated hexagonal shape and an elongated shape with multiple facets” of claim 18, “a recessed torquing feature...a frangible drive element” of claims 22 and 58 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 0038, “b” should read “be”
In Paragraph 0084, “Figs. Figs.” should read “Figs.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, “from recessed” should read “from the recessed”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-18, 22, and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Maltby et al. (GB2572401A), hereinafter "Maltby".
Regarding claim 1, Maltby teaches a core bolt (Fig 2a, fastener 2) of a fastener system (see Figs 3a-3d) [for joining multiple substrates (Figs 3a-3d, structures 31, 32) of a workpiece (see Figs 3a-3d) with a working side (see Figs 3a-3d, Examiner notes a side adjacent structure 32 as a working side) and a blind side (see Figs 3a-3d, Examiner notes a side adjacent nut 34 as a blind side)], the core bolt (2) comprising:
a head portion (Fig 2a, head 21) comprising a recessed torquing feature (Fig 2a, recess 213);
a shank portion (Fig 2a, tail 22) axially extending (see Fig 2a) from the head portion (21) along a central longitudinal axis (Fig 2a, axis Y) to a distal end (see Fig 2a, Examiner notes an end of fastener 2 distal head 21 as a distal end) of the core bolt (2), the shank portion (22) comprising a threaded portion (see Fig 2a) between (see Fig 2a) the distal end (see Fig 2a) and the head portion (21); and
a frangible drive element (Fig 2a, section 23) extending (see Fig 2a) from recessed torquing feature (213) of the head portion (21) and protruding outward (see Fig 2a) along the central longitudinal axis (Y) to define a proximal end (see Fig 2a, Examiner notes an end of fastener 2 adjacent head 21 as to define a proximal end) of the core bolt (2).
Claim language set in brackets set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the Examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of a core bolt, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the Examiner maintains that the fastener disclosed by Maltby, is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the recessed torquing feature (213) of the head portion (21) comprises at least one of a recessed offset cruciform drive feature, a recessed dovetail drive feature, a recessed cross-tip drive feature (see Fig 2a, Paragraphs 0045-0046, Maltby indicates cross-shaped), a recessed hexagon key drive feature and a recessed flat tip drive feature.
Regarding claim 6, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein after the frangible drive element (23) separates (see Figs 3a-3d, Paragraph 0052) from the from head portion (21), the recessed torquing feature (213) of the head portion (23) [facilitates rotation (see Figs 3a-3d, Paragraph 0052) of the core bolt (2) using at least one of an offset cruciform drive torquing tool, a dovetail drive torquing tool, a cross-tip drive torquing tool (see Fig 2a, Paragraphs 0045-0046, Maltby indicates cross-shaped and screwdriver), a hexagon key torquing tool and a flat tip drive torquing tool].
Regarding claim 7, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the shank portion (22) opposes (see Fig 2a) the recessed torquing feature (213) of the head portion (21).
Regarding claim 8, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the shank portion (22) comprises at least one (see Fig 2a) of a cylindrical body (see Fig 2a) and a frustoconical body.
Regarding claim 9, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the frangible drive element (23) extends (see Fig 2a) from the head portion (21) at a central base area (see Fig 2a, Examiner notes an area of recess 213 adjacent part 211 as at a central base area) of the recessed torquing feature (213) and is [configured for engagement (capable of engagement, i.e. this is a functional recitation; Paragraphs 0045-0046) by a tool (Paragraphs 0045-0046, Maltby indicates installation tool) for installation (Paragraphs 0045-0046 and 0052) of the core bolt (2)].
Regarding claim 10, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 9 and further teaches wherein [the tool (Paragraph 0046) comprises at least one (Paragraph 0045) of an end effector on a robotic arm, a handheld power tool and a hand tool (Paragraph 0045, Maltby indicates a screwdriver)].
Regarding claim 11, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 9 and further teaches wherein the frangible drive element (23) is separable (see Figs 3a-3d) from the head portion (21) at the central base area (see Fig 2a) of the recessed torquing feature (213) in response to a predetermined torque (see Figs 3a-3d, Paragraph 0052, Examiner notes the predetermined amount of torque to break the frangible section 23 as in response to a predetermined torque) [being applied (see Figs 3a-3d, Paragraph 0052) by the tool (Paragraphs 0045-0046) during the installation (Paragraphs 0045-0046 and 0052) of the core bolt (2)].
Regarding claim 12, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 11 and further teaches wherein the predetermined torque (see Figs 3a-3d, Paragraph 0052) is based at least in part (Paragraph 0042) on at least one (Paragraph 0042) of a diameter (Paragraph 0042, Maltby indicates the diameter of the fastener may be in the range 2-18 mm and the predetermined amount of torque may be in the range 2-500 Nm) of the core bolt (2), a finish coat on internal threads of a nut member into which the core bolt is to be installed, a friction level for the internal threads of the nut member, a friction level between the shank portion of the core bolt and a joining bore through the multiple substrates into which the core bolt is to be installed, a friction level between the shank portion of the core bolt and a sleeve member into which the core bolt is to be inserted, an effect of lubricants on frictions encountered by the core bolt during installation and a preload tension within the core bolt at the proximal end of the frangible drive element.
Regarding claim 13, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 1 and further teaches the frangible drive element (23) comprising:
an interface portion (see Fig 2a, Examiner notes an interface between a surface of part 212 and a surface of section 23, i.e. a surface portion, as an interface portion) extending (see Fig 2) from the head portion (21) and protruding outward (see Fig 2a);
a torquing portion (Fig 2a, part 211) comprising a rotation feature (see Fig 2b, Paragraph 0039, Examiner notes hex shape as comprising a rotation feature) at the proximal end (see Fig 2) of the core bolt (2); and
a stem portion (see Fig 2a, Examiner notes a portion of section 23 between part 211 and part 212 as a stem portion) axially extending (see Fig 2a) between (see Fig 2a) the interface portion (see Fig 2a) and the torquing portion (211) along the central longitudinal axis (Y) of the core bolt (2).
Regarding claim 14, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 13 and further teaches wherein the interface portion (see Fig 2a) of the frangible drive element (23) extends (see Fig 2a) from the head portion (21) at a central base area (see Fig 2a, Examiner notes an area of recess 213 adjacent part 211 as at a central base area) of the recessed torquing feature (213).
Regarding claim 15, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 13 and further teaches wherein the rotation feature (see Fig 2b) of the torquing portion (211) comprises at least one of a recessed spline drive feature, a recessed star drive feature, a recessed square-lobed star drive feature, a recessed 6-point star drive feature, a recessed 6-point square-lobed star drive feature, an opposing flat surface head feature, a recessed hexagon key drive feature, a hexagon head feature (see Fig 2b, Paragraph 0039, Examiner notes hex shape as a hexagon head feature), a recessed cross-tip drive feature and a recessed flat tip drive feature.
Regarding claim 16, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 13 and further teaches wherein the rotation feature (see Fig 2b) of the torquing portion (211) [facilitates rotation (see Figs 3a-3d, Paragraph 0052) of the core bolt (2) using at least one of a spline drive torquing tool, a star drive torquing tool, a square-lobed star drive torquing tool, a 6-point star drive torquing tool, a 6-point square-lobed star drive torquing tool, an opposing flat surface socket torquing tool, a hexagon key torquing tool, a hexagon socket torquing tool (see Figs 3a-3d, Paragraph 0039, Maltby indicates a hex shape and a socket wrench), a cross-tip drive torquing tool and a flat tip drive torquing tool].
Regarding claim 17, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 13 and further teaches wherein the stem portion (see Fig 2a) opposes (see Fig 2a) the rotation feature (see Fig 2b) of the torquing portion (211).
Regarding claim 18, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 13 and further teaches wherein the stem portion (see Fig 2a) comprises at least one (see Figs 2a-2b) of an elongated cylindrical shape (see Figs 2a-2b), an elongated hexagonal shape and an elongated shape with multiple facets.
Regarding claim 22, Maltby teaches a fastener system (see Figs 3a-3d) [for joining multiple substrates (Figs 3a-3d, structures 31, 32) of a workpiece (see Figs 3-3d) with a working side (see Figs 3a-3d, Examiner notes a side adjacent structure 32 as a working side) and a blind side (see Figs 3a-3d, Examiner notes a side adjacent nut 34 as a blind side)], the fastener system (see Figs 3a-3d) comprising:
a nut member (Fig 3d, nut 34) comprising a nut bore (see Figs 3a-3d, Paragraph 0048, Examiner notes nut 34 is configured to be engageable with the tail 22 as comprising a nut bore) with internal threads (see Figs 3a-3d; Paragraph 0048, Maltby indicates nut 34 is threaded); and
a core bolt (Fig 2a, fastener 2) comprising:
a head portion (Fig 2a, head 21) comprising a recessed torquing feature (Fig 2a, recess 213);
a shank portion (Fig 2a, tail 22) axially extending (see Fig 2a) from the head portion (21) along a central longitudinal axis (Fig 2a, axis Y) to a distal end (see Fig 2a, Examiner notes an end of fastener 2 distal head 21 as a distal end) of the core bolt (2), the shank portion (22) comprising a threaded portion (see Fig 2a) between (see Fig 2a) the distal end (see Fig 2a) and the head portion (21); and
a frangible drive element (Fig 2a, section 23) extending (see Fig 2a) from the head portion (21) and protruding outward (see Fig 2a) along the central longitudinal axis (Y) to define a proximal end (see Fig 2a, Examiner notes an end of fastener 2 adjacent head 21 as to define a proximal end) of the core bolt (2).
Regarding claim 58, Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Concerning claim 58, given the structure of a fastener system, the structural elements of the fastener of Maltby (as rejected in claim 22 above) would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltby.
Regarding claim 19, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 13 but fails to teach the interface portion defining a breakneck groove disposed proximate the head portion at a central base area of the recessed torquing feature to facilitate separation of the frangible drive element from the core bolt in response to a predetermined torque being applied at the torquing portion during installation of the core bolt.
However, Maltby in Paragraphs 0041-0042, teaches that in some examples the frangible section 13 may comprise radial holes or recesses, a porous material, or a material which is different to and inherently weaker than a material from which the rest of the fastener 1 is formed (e.g. a bonding agent, or the like).
Therefore, as evidenced by Maltby in Paragraphs 0041-0042, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine adequately sized and shaped radial holes or recesses, i.e. a breakneck groove, as taught by Maltby in Paragraphs 0041-0042 to Maltby. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide the frangible section with a desired predetermined amount of torque to break based on application and use requirements, e.g. fastener sizes, loading requirements, etc.
Regarding claim 20, Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 13 but fails to teach the interface portion comprising: an interface body that tapers from the stem portion to the head portion at a central base area of the recessed torquing feature to facilitate separation of the frangible drive element from the core bolt in response to a predetermined torque being applied at the torquing portion during installation of the core bolt.
However, Maltby in Paragraphs 0041-0042, teaches that in some examples the circumferential recess is formed by the frangible section 13 comprising a tapering section at the base of the first head part, such that an upper end (that is, the end adjacent the first head part 111) of the frangible section 13 has a greater diameter than a lower end (that is, the end adjacent the second head part 112) of the frangible section 13.
Therefore, as evidenced by Maltby in Paragraphs 0041-0042, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped interface body that tapers as taught by Maltby in Paragraphs 0041-0042 to Maltby. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide the frangible section with a desired predetermined amount of torque to break based on application and use requirements, e.g. fastener sizes, loading requirements, etc.
Regarding claim 21, modified Maltby teaches the core bolt (2) of Claim 20 but fails to teach the interface body defining a breakneck groove disposed proximate the head portion at a central base area of the recessed torquing feature to further facilitate separation of the frangible drive element from the core bolt in response to the predetermined torque being applied at the torquing portion during the installation of the core bolt.
However, Maltby in Paragraphs 0041-0042, teaches that in some examples the frangible section 13 may comprise radial holes or recesses, a porous material, or a material which is different to and inherently weaker than a material from which the rest of the fastener 1 is formed (e.g. a bonding agent, or the like).
Therefore, as evidenced by Maltby in Paragraphs 0041-0042, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine adequately sized and shaped radial holes or recesses, i.e. a breakneck groove, as taught by Maltby in Paragraphs 0041-0042 to modified Maltby. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide the frangible section with a desired predetermined amount of torque to break based on application and use requirements, e.g. fastener sizes, loading requirements, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (ET).
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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights