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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 10, “the threaded portion” should read “the body threaded portion”, in accordance to its dependency on Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-6 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 5 recites “the receiving plane” and while it is dependent on Claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis since ‘receiving plane’ is not cited in Claim 3. Therefore, it is unclear if ‘the receiving plane’ in Claim 5 is from introduction of a new receiving plane or if it is intended to refer to ‘the receiving plane’ introduced in Claim 4, which Claim 5 does not claim dependency on. It is the position of the examiner that the receiving plane of Claim 5 refers to the receiving plane which was introduced in Claim 4. Applicant is therefore suggested to amend Claim 5 to show dependency to Claim 4 in order to overcome rejection.
Claim 6 recites “the receiving plane” and while it is dependent on Claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis since ‘receiving plane’ is not cited in Claim 3. Therefore, it is unclear if ‘the receiving plane’ in Claim 6 is from introduction of a new receiving plane or if it is intended to refer to ‘the receiving plane’ introduced in Claim 4, which Claim 6 does not claim dependency on. It is the position of the examiner that the receiving plane of Claim 6 refers to the receiving plane which was introduced in Claim 4. Applicant is therefore suggested to amend Claim 6 to show dependency to Claim 4 in order to overcome rejection.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirk et al. (US 20070212192 A1, herein Shirk) and further in view of Dahl (US 4338054A).
Regarding claim 1, Shirk discloses a bolt (Fig.6A, perspective view of bolt 70) provided to reduce undesired rotation (bolts are configured to resist rotation [003]), and to increase contact surface area (head is also shaped to resist the rotation when torque is applied [0016], hence the shape to resist the rotation, as taught by Shirk, also provides the surface area required in the claim) comprising: a head (Fig. 6A. head 74) further comprising: a top head surface (Fig 6B as 74B, described as proximal end of head 74) bounded by a rounded head edge (see Fig. 6A annotated) and at least one straight head edge (see Fig. 6A annotated); a body extending outwardly from the head (Fig. 6B, it is the position of the examiner that 72B, 72, 72A in conjunction makes the body and that this body extends outwardly from the head 74).
Shirk further discloses that the body further comprising: a body shank portion (Shank 72 in Fig.6B) extending outwardly (Fig. 6B shows that the shank 72 portion can be seen extending from the bottom head surface 74A) from a bottom head surface (74A, Fig. 6B) of the head, the body shank portion and a body threaded portion (see Fig. 6A annotated ) extending outwardly from the body shank portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6A of Shirk
However, Shirk fails to explicitly disclose the body shank portion comprising a chamfered segment being substantially planar.
Dahl however teaches a bolt (A Ductbolt 11, Fig. 1a), having a body shank portion (region between shank components 17 and 20, Fig. 1a) comprising a chamfered segment (reduced portion 12, Fig. 1a) being substantially planar ([Col 8 Line 16], transition portions (15) and (16) provide smooth transitions between the reduced portion (12) and respectively the shank components (20) and (17), Fig. 1a). One of ordinary skill in the art may interpret from Fig. 1a that the transition portions (15) and (16) provides a chamfered region for the reduced portion 12 and such region is planar in shape. The purpose for including the reduced portion (12) is such that if the fastener is tightened until it fractures, the failure will occur in the reduced portion rather than in the threaded part or in any other part of the fastener (Col 3 Line 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bolt of Shirk and include the body shank portion comprising a chamfered segment, as taught by Dahl, since such a modification will enable the bolt of Shirk to experience reduced stress distribution around the bolt head and threaded region. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03).
Regarding Claim 2, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Shirk further teaches that the head further comprises: a curved front head side (Fig. 6A annotated) proximate to the rounded head edge, a first linear head side (Fig. 6A annotated) adjacent to the curved front head side, a second linear head side (Fig. 6A annotated) adjacent to the curved front head side and opposite of the first linear head side, and a rear linear head side (Fig.6A annotated) located between the first linear head side and the second linear head side, wherein the rear linear head side is located opposite of the curved front head side (Fig.6A annotated).
Regarding Claim 3, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all limitations of Claim 2. Shirk further teaches that wherein a rear head plane provided by the rear linear head side (Fig.6A annotated, it is the position of the examiner that the surface of the rear linear head side is oriented on a plane surface), a first head plane provided by the first linear head side (Fig. 6A annotated, it is the position of the examiner that the surface of the first linear head side is oriented on a plane surface), and a second head plane provided by the second linear head side (it is the position of the examiner that the surface of the second linear head side is oriented on a plane surface) are nonparallel (Fig. 6a annotated, there can be infinite number of planes provided by the rear linear head side, the first linear head side and the second linear head side, hence Shirk anticipates these planes to be non-parallel to one another) .
Regarding Claim 4, Shirk discloses all limitations of Claim 2. Shirk, as modified by Dahl, further discloses that there is a receiving plane provided by the chamfered segment (Fig. 1a of Dahl, it is the position of the examiner that the surface of the reduced portion is oriented on a plane surface and this is the receiving plane) which is non parallel to a rear head plane (see Fig.6A annotated of Shirk).
Regarding Claim 5, Shirk discloses all limitations of Claim 3. Shirk, as modified by Dahl, further discloses that the receiving plane and at least part of the curved front head side face a first direction (It is the position of the examiner that the reduced portion of Dahl (Fig. 1a) modified into the bolt of Shirk (Fig. 6A annotated) will result in the receiving plane and the curved front head side facing the first direction).
Regarding Claim 6, Shirk discloses all limitations of Claim 3. Shirk, as modified by Dahl, also discloses that the rear head plane (Fig 6a annotated by Shirk) and the receiving plane (Fig. 1a by Dahl) are askew (It is the position of the examiner that there can be infinite number of planes provided by the rear linear head side and the reduced portion, hence Shirk modified by Dahl, anticipates these planes to be angled to one another).
Regarding Claim 7, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all of limitation 1. Shirk also discloses the cylindrical shank segments located between the head and the body threaded portion (Fig 6 A and 6B from Shirk, denotes that the shank 72 has cylindrical shank segments between the head 74 and body threaded portion). Shirk as modified by Dahl, also teaches chamfered segment having chamfered edges transitioning to the cylindrical shank segments between the head and the body threaded portion (Fig. 1a from Dahl, the transition portions 15 and 16 provide smooth transitions between the reduced portion 12 and respectively the shank components 20 and 17).
Regarding Claim 8, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all of limitation 1. Shirk also discloses that the top head surface is substantially flat (Fig. 6A annotated and Fig. 6B showing top head surface being flat).
Regarding Claim 9, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all of limitation 1. Shirk, as modified by Dahl, also discloses that a top head plane provided by the top head surface (Fig 6a annotated by Shirk, it is the position of the examiner that the surface of the top head side is oriented on a plane surface) and a receiving plane provided by the chamfered segment (Fig. 1a by Dahl) is orthogonal (It is the position of the examiner that there can be infinite number of planes provided by the top head surface and chamfered segment, hence Shirk modified by Dahl, anticipates these planes to be orthogonal to one another).
Regarding Claim 10, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Shirk discloses that bolt of Claim 1 (72) in Fig 6A being threaded, however does not disclose the thread size. Dahl however, discloses the bolt to be a 3/8 in.-16 grade 8 (approximately M10 equivalent). The instant application while discussing the M16 parameter, does not state any significance to the thread size. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to Shirk as modified by Dahl, to implement M16 thread size to the bolt, since such a modification would enable the device of Shirk to withstand greater stress before failure (based on standards referenced by Dahl in Col 7 Line 49). Additionally, a modification as such 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. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 11, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all of limitation 1. While shirk does not disclose the materials used to manufacture the bolt, Dahl however discloses that the bolt is manufactured using medium carbon alloy steels. The purpose of using medium carbon alloy steels is to make high strength bolts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the bolt of Shirk and utilize medium carbon alloy steels as the material of choice, as taught by Dahl, since such a modification will enable the bolt of Shirk to experience improved tensile strength and ductility to withstand failure. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03).
Regarding Claim 12, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all of limitation 1. Shirk as modified by Dahl also discloses the chamfered segment (reduced portion 12 Fig. 1a from Dahl) configured to increase the contact surface area (Fig.1a from Dahl, transitional portions 15 and 16 which transition towards head and the thread portion of the shank components 20 and 17 respectively. It is the position of the examiner that based on the location of these transition portions, one of ordinary skill will be able to make sufficient modifications to achieve increased surface contact area) for receiving an aftertreatment strap used with an internal combustion engine (Note that the claim limitation simply require that the chamfered segment is capable of performing the claimed functions without modification; it is the position of the examiner that Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses a system which has the capability to perform the functions claimed).
Regarding claim 13, Shirk discloses a bolt (Fig.6A, perspective view of bolt 70) provided to reduce undesired rotation (bolts are configured to resist rotation [003]) and to increase contact surface area (head is also shaped to resist the rotation when torque is applied [0016], hence the shape to resist the rotation, as taught by Shirk, also provides the surface area required in the claim) comprising: a head (Fig. 6A. head 74) comprising a top head surface (Fig 6B as 74B, described as proximal end of head 74) bounded by a rounded head edge (see Fig. 6A annotated) and at least one straight head edge (see Fig. 6A annotated); and a body extending outwardly from the head (Fig. 6B, it is the position of the examiner that 72B, 72, 72A in conjunction makes the body and that this body extends outwardly from the head 74) comprising: a body shank portion (Shank 72 in Fig.6B) extending outwardly from a bottom head surface of the head (Fig. 6B shows that the shank 72 portion is extending from the bottom head surface 74A), a body threaded portion (see Fig. 6A annotated) extending outwardly from the body shank portion.
However, Shirk fails to explicitly disclose the body shank portion comprising a chamfered segment being substantially planar, and cylindrical shank segments located between the head and the body threaded portion that transition to the chamfered segment via chamfered edges; wherein the body shank portion is longer than the body threaded portion.
Dahl however teaches a bolt (A Ductbolt 11, Fig. 1a), having a body shank portion (region between shank components 17 and 20, Fig. 1a) comprising a chamfered segment (reduced portion 12, Fig. 1a.) and cylindrical shank segments located between the head and the body threaded portion that transition to the chamfered segment via chamfered edges ([Col 8 Line 16], transition portions (15) and (16) provide smooth transitions between the reduced portion (12) and respectively the shank components (20) and (17), Fig. 1a), and the chamfered segment being substantially planar (It is the position of the examiner that in Fig. 1a the transition portions (15) and (16) provides a chamfered region for the reduced portion 12 and such region is planar in shape). Dahl additionally teaches the body shank portion is longer than the body threaded portion (Col 15, Line 20, a Ductbolt of overall length L=4 in. having a reduced portion for which L.r =2.70 in. It is the position of the examiner that in Fig.1a, along with the reduced portion, the non-threaded portion of the shank is longer than the threaded portion). The purpose of the transition to the planar chamfer segments is to relieve stress concentration associated with the thread runout (Col 9 Line 15), while longer non-threaded region enables saving of about 20% steel used to cold form the bolt (Col 15 Line 22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the bolt of Shirk and include the planar chamfer segment with transition portions and the longer non-threaded portion of shank, as taught by Dahl, since such a modification will enable the bolt of Shirk to experience improved fatigue performance and reduce the risk of failure, as well as reduce material waste during manufacturing. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03).
Regarding Claim 14, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all limitations of Claim 13. Shirk further teaches that the head further comprises: a curved front head side (Fig. 6A annotated) proximate to the rounded head edge, a first linear head side (Fig. 6A annotated) adjacent to the curved front head side, a second linear head side (Fig. 6A annotated) adjacent to the curved front head side and opposite of the first linear head side, and a rear linear head side (Fig.6A annotated) located between the first linear head side and the second linear head side, and opposite of the curved front head side (Fig.6A annotated).
Regarding Claim 15, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all limitations of Claim 14. Shirk further teaches that wherein a rear head plane provided by the rear linear head side (Fig.6A annotated, it is the position of the examiner that the surface of the rear linear head side is oriented on a plane surface), a first head plane provided by the first linear head side (Fig. 6A annotated, it is the position of the examiner that the surface of the first linear head side is oriented on a plane surface), and a second head plane provided by the second linear head side (it is the position of the examiner that the surface of the second linear head side is oriented on a plane surface) are nonparallel (Fig. 6a annotated, there can be infinite number of planes provided by the rear linear head side, the first linear head side and the second linear head side, hence Shirk anticipates these planes to be non-parallel to one another).
Regarding Claim 16, Shirk discloses all limitations of Claim 14. Shirk, as modified by Dahl, further discloses that there is a rear head plane (see Fig.6A annotated of Shirk) and a receiving plane provided by the chamfered segment (Fig. 1a of Dahl, it is the position of the examiner that the surface of the reduced portion is oriented on a plane surface and this is the receiving plane) and they are non-parallel.
Regarding Claim 17, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all limitations of Claim 16. Shirk, as modified by Dahl, further discloses that the receiving plane and at least part of the curved front head side face a first direction (It is the position of the examiner that the reduced portion of Dahl (Fig. 1a) modified into the bolt of Shirk (Fig. 6A annotated) will result in the receiving plane and the curved front head side facing the first direction).
Regarding Claim 18, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all limitations of Claim 16. Shirk, as modified by Dahl, also discloses that the rear head plane (Fig 6a annotated by Shirk) and the receiving plane (Fig. 1a by Dahl) are askew (It is the position of the examiner that there can be infinite number of planes provided by the rear linear head side and the reduced portion, hence Shirk modified by Dahl, anticipates these planes to be angled to one another).
Regarding Claim 19, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all of limitation 13. Shirk also discloses that the top head surface is substantially flat (Fig. 6A annotated and Fig. 6B showing top head surface is flat).
Regarding Claim 20, Shirk, as modified by Dahl, discloses all of limitation 13. Shirk, as modified by Dahl, also discloses that a top head plane provided by the top head surface (Fig 6a annotated by Shirk, it is the position of the examiner that the surface of the top head side is oriented on a plane surface) and a receiving plane provided by the chamfered segment (Fig. 1a by Dahl) is orthogonal (It is the position of the examiner that there can be infinite number of planes provided by the top head surface and chamfered segment, hence Shirk modified by Dahl, anticipates these planes to be orthogonal to one another).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s discloser.
Wexell et al (US 3032281 A, herein Wexell) discloses a bolt with a head having 2 rounded head edge and 2 linear head edge, along with a square shaped cross section on the shank portion between the head and the thread.
Holmes et al (WO 2023056504 A1, hereby Holmes) discloses a bolt with a head having 2 round head edges and 2 linear head edges.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD FAROOQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday between 9:00am to 2:00pm EST.
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.
/A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights