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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features “a gear path” described in Claim 1 as well as the “helical-shaped gears” in Claim 2 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a first angle α which is a concave angle” from Claim 6 as described in the specification. The part “concave angle” is not denoted clearly in Figure -3. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 6 recites “a first angle α which is a concave angle” however the explanation to the term “concave angle” is not provided in the specification. Applicant is advised to properly define the term “concave angle” for clarity.
Claim 9 recites “a slot (14) located on a part of the ring” which is similar to what is described in paragraphs 0117 and 0041 in the instant specification. However, Figure 2 denotes that slot (14) belongs to the outer nut (5), not ring (10). Applicant is suggested to make corrections to the specification indicating that the slot (14) is part of the outer nut.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “a slot (14) located on a part of the ring” which is similar to what is described in paragraphs 0117 and 0041 in the instant specification. However, in the drawing of Figure -2 denotes that slot (14) located on the outer nut (5), not ring (10). Additionally, Claim 9 recites “to create a recess on a part of the ring” however the recess is not shown in any of the figures, making it unclear whether the recess is to provide gap between the ring and the slot or the ring and outer nut.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). As written, claim 1 expressly requires a user to place an outer nut on the inner nut. As written, claim 4 expressly requires the user to perform rotation on the inner nut as well determine the torque equivalent to what is indicated by the indicator. As written, claim 5 expressly requires the user to rotate the inner nut by predetermined amount in order to place on the fastener, as well as determine the torque equivalent indicated by the indicator. As written, claim 10 requires the user to grip the ring. Hence it is the position of the examiner that the applicant is claiming a user (i.e. Human Organism) as a part of the claimed process. Claims 2-3, 6-9 and 11 are rejected on virtue of being dependent on claim 1.
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 1-11 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 1 recites “an outer nut that is placed on the inner nut by a user and surrounds the inner nut “. Claim 1 also recites “wherein the ring is rotated around its own direction by the user and compresses the outer nut”. Claim 1 further recites wherein if the user applies a torque on the outer nut, the fastener is fixed”. Claim 4 recites “at least one indicator enables the user to choose the torque to be applied”. Claim 4 also recites “ enables the user to see a level that the ring has been moved by being rotating around a direction it extends”. Claim 5 recites, “wherein the inner nut is rotated by the user by a predetermined amount”. Claim 5 also recites “indicates a level equivalent to the torque determined by the user”. While claim 1, 4-5 and 10 are directed to an apparatus, it appears that the applicant is also claiming the method steps of the user within the apparatus claim. The metes and bounds of the protection sought are unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 1 and therefore including indefinite claim language of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the section with a narrowed cross-sectional area” and while it is dependent on Claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis since Claim 1 introduces “a ring with a plurality of different cross-sectional areas”. Therefore, it is unclear if “the section with a narrowed cross-sectional area” of Claim 2 is intended to refer to one of the pluralities of different cross-sectional areas of ring from Claim 1 or introduces a new cross-sectional area. It is the position of the examiner that the “the section with a narrowed cross-sectional area” of Claim 2 refers to the to one of the pluralities of different cross-sectional areas of ring from Claim 1. Applicant is therefore suggested to amend Claim 2 to recite “the section in the ring with a narrowed cross-sectional area”
Claim 6 recites “a first angle α which is a concave angle” however the term concave angle is not defined in the specification nor is it defined in Claim 1, which Claim 6 claims its dependency on. According to the website Wolfram Math world, a concave polygon is one which has at least one of its internal angles to be more 180 degrees (Concave Polygon -- from Wolfram MathWorld). According to Figure-3 of the instant application, the angle α which is claimed as concave angle by Claim 6, does not look like it is more than 180 degrees. Hence there is insufficient antecedent basis since there is no explanation what the applicant means by concave angle. It is the position of the examiner that angle α is less than 180 degrees and will be deemed as such for examination purposes. Applicant is suggested to provide a proper definition of concave angle to provide more clarity.
Claim 9 recites “comprising a slot located on a part of the ring” which is similar to what is described in paragraphs 0117 and 0041 in the instant specification. However, in the drawing of Figure -2 denotes that slot (14) is located on the outer nut (5), not ring (10). This creates a lack of antecedent basis since it is unclear if there is another slot introduced in the ring or if it is the slot denoted in Figure -2 which is on the outer nut. Additionally, Claim 9 recites “to create a recess on a part of the ring” however from the figures it is not clear regarding the location of the recess and whether the recess is between the ring and the slot or the ring and outer nut. It is the position of the examiner that the slot is located on the outer nut, while the recess is to create a gap between the ring and the outer nut and will be deemed as such for examination purposes.
Applicant is suggested to provide more clarity in this regard.
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) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al (US3273443A, herein Rubin)
Regarding Claim 1, Rubin discloses an adjustable torquing system (Col 1 Line 2, Torque Limiting Nut, 74, Fig.1) comprising a body (structure 71, Fig.1); at least one hole (D) that is located on the body (hole 72 located on structure 71, Fig.1); a fastener (3) that is inserted into the hole (D) (Col 2 Line 27, A structure 71 to which the fastener is applied has a hole 72 through which the bolt 73 passes); an inner nut (4) that is placed on the fastener (3) (Fig.1, the nut (Torque limiting nut) 74 has a base 75 which is placed on the fastener (73), it is the position of the examiner that the combination of base 75 is the inner nut) and holds a body (2) together by keeping the fastener (3) fixed on the body and in the hole (D) (Fig.1, it is the position of the examiner that the base 75 fixes the fastener (bolt 73) and the structure 71 together in the hole 72); an outer nut that is placed on the inner nut by a user and surround the inner nut (Col 2 Line 38, The outer surface of the cylindrical portions serves as a bearing for a rotary member 82 which is formed with hexagon head 83, Fig.1 and Fig.5 (exploded representation of Fig.1), it is the position of the examiner that 82 is the outer nut); an outer surface located at an area of the inner nut that contacts the outer nut (Fig. 5, cylindrical portion 84, it is the position of the examiner that 84 is the outer surface that is located at an area of the inner nut that contacts the outer nut); an inner surface located at an area of the outer nut that contacts the inner nut (Col 2 Line 28, The nut 74 has a base 75 and an elongated, substantially cylindrical portion 76, Fig. 5, it is the position of the examiner that 76 is an inner surface located at an area of the outer nut that contacts the inner nut); a plurality of protrusions located on the outer surface consecutively around a direction that the outer surface extends (Col 2 Line 40, cylindrical portion 84 formed on its end with ratchet teeth 85, Fig.5, it is the position of the examiner that the plurality of protrusions are teeth 85, located on the outer surface area 84 consecutively around the direction 84 extends); a plurality of tabs located on the inner surface, consecutively around a direction that inner surface extends (Col 2 Line 34, The base 75 has on its outer face a ring of ratchet teeth 81 all of which extend beyond the cylindrical portion 76, Fig.5, it is the position of the examiner that teeth 81 is the plurality of tabs); a ring with a plurality of different cross-sectional areas along its length, which is positioned on the outer nut to be concentric with the outer nut ( Col 2 Line 43, A spring washer 86 of the Belleville type having its inner edge engaged with the overturned edge of the body portion 76 and with its outer edge bearing on the upper face of the rotary member(82), Fig. 1 and Fig. 5, it is the position of the examiner that the rotary member 82 is part of the outer nut and washer 86 with rolled collar 80 make up the ring, having plurality of cross-sections, and is positioned concentric on 82, aligned by the fastener 73 (bolt), along the hole 72), wherein the ring is rotated around its own direction by the user and compresses the outer nut towards the inner nut by means of gear path thereon (Col 2 Line 45, its (spring washer 86) outer edge bearing on the upper face of the rotary member (82) controls the pressure exerted by the teeth 85 on the teeth 81, Fig.2, it is the position of the examiner that washer 86 with rolled collar 80 can control the pressure exerted by the rotary member 82 on the base 75, thereby compressing the rotary member 82 on the base 75 when spring washer 86 is rotated), so that the inner surface and the outer surface almost completely contact with each other (Fig.1 the inner surface 76 (cylindrical portion of nut 74) and the outer surface 84 is in contact with each other); wherein the ring enables at least one of the plurality of protrusions and/or the plurality of tabs to be partially deformed (Col 2 Line 61, When the resistance to turning becomes great enough to compress the spring washer 86 (Fig. 3), by causing the teeth 85 to ride over the teeth 81, it is the position of the examiner that teeth 85 and 81 will experience partial deformation when washer 86 is tightened with rolled collar 80); and wherein the outer nut compresses the inner nut by means of the ring, wherein if the user applies a torque on the outer nut, the fastener is fixed (Col 2 Line 58, the rotary member 82 (the outer nut) is turned in the direction shown in Fig.4, the force on the teeth 85 against the teeth 81 turning the nut onto the bolt, it is the position of the examiner that rotation of 82 results in the fastener being fixed, Fig.5).
However, Rubin does not teach a plurality of bodies; at least one hole (D) that is located on the second body (2); a fastener (3) that is inserted into the hole (D) of the second body and making the holes of the two bodies concentric; an inner nut (4) that is placed on the fastener (3) and holds the second body together with the first body and by keeping the fastener (3) fixed on the plurality of bodies (2) and in the hole (D).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Additionally, the instant specification paragraph [0027 and 0029] discusses the plurality of bodies to be the components secured by the instant invention and does not assign any new or unexpected result. Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated structure 71 of Rubin such that the adjustable torqueing system comprised a plurality of bodies to be secured by the torque limiting nut in order to secure glass or frangible ceramic objects (plural bodies) in place without overtightening the nut (Col2 Ln 56).
Hence, with the modification of introducing duplicated body of 71 made above, the modified invention of Rubin teaches the duplicated body is to be configured at least one hole in (Fig.1 along with hole 72 on structure 71, the duplicate body of 71 will also have a hole), a fastener (3) that is inserted into the holes (D) that are concentric with each other (Fig.1 Bolt 73 now goes through both holes that are concentric on one another); an inner nut (4) that is placed on the fastener (3) and holds the plurality of bodies (2) together by keeping the fastener (3) fixed on the plurality of bodies (2) and in the hole (D) (Fig.1 base 75 which is the inner nut has the bolt 73 passing through it and in turn holds the structure 71 and its duplicate together by keeping the bolt 73 fixed on the bodies and the in the holes).
Regarding Claim 2, Rubin discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Rubin also discloses a ring (spring washer 86 with rolled collar 80, Fig.1) that is in contact with a wall located at a section of the outer nut (Fig.1 annotated shows the location of the wall which is located at a section of outer nut that contacts the ring which is the combination of washer 86 and rolled collar 80) and the ring can be rotated (Col 2 Line 60, When the resistance to turning becomes great enough to compress the spring washer 86, Fig.2, it is the position of the examiner that that washer 86 is rotated with rolled collar 80); towards the outer nut while enabling the section with a narrowed cross-sectional area to approach the outer nut (Col 2 Line 45, with its (Spring washer 86) outer edge bearing on the upper face of the rotary member 82, it is the position of the examiner that the section with “a narrowed cross sectional area” is the cross-sectional area of the ring, which is disclosed by Rubin as washer 86); wherein the wall has helical shaped gears on a surface thereof in contact with the ring ( Fig.1 annotated, it is the position of the examiner that the washer 86 with rolled collar 80 is in contact with the wall section and can rotate up and down the threaded portion of the bolt 73, which has helical shape and is in contact with rolled collar 80).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Rubin discloses all limitations of Claim 2. Rubin also discloses the ring has walls approaching each other when ring in conical form is rotated (Fig.2 washer 86 is similar to conical form and is rotated around the thread of 73) so that the wall is compressed (Fig.1 annotated, it is the position of the examiner that when washer 86 is rotated, it compresses the wall section) and inner surface and outer surfaces approach each other upon compression of the wall (Fig.1 annotated and Fig.2, it is the position of the examiner that inner surface 76 and outer surface 84 approaches one another under compression from washer 86 on the wall section).
Regarding Claim 6, Rubin discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Rubin also discloses an axis x located on a face where the tab 9 and outer walls of the protrusions are in contact with each other (Fig.3 annotated from Rubin, it is the position of the examiner that the line 4-4 represents x-axis located on a face where the teeth 85 and teeth 81 are in contact with each other); a first angle α which is an angle less than 180 degrees positioned between the x axis and the opposite face of the protrusion (Fig.3 annotated it is the position of the examiner that the angle α is less than 180 degrees) ; wherein the first angle α approaches zero when the ring is rotated around the direction it extends to compress the outer nut towards the inner nut such that the tab deforms the protrusion elastically during the torquing of the outer nut (Fig.2, it is the position of the examiner that once washer 86 is rotated, 83 which is the hexagon head of the outer nut compresses towards the inner nut 75 and teeth 85 engage and cooperate with teeth 81 and the angle α becomes zero. With further rotation, teeth 85 will ride over teeth 81, indicating elastic deformation for teeth 85).
Regarding Claim 7, Rubin discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Rubin also discloses a second angle β greater than the first angle α, which is located between an axis and a recess between consecutive tabs (Fig.3 annotated it is the position of the examiner that the angle β is greater than α).
PNG
media_image2.png
636
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Rubin as modified by Canning, discloses all limitations of Claim 7. Rubin also discloses wherein the tab fitted on the second angle β and contacting a wall of protrusion when the outer nut is torqued in the opposite direction, thus enabling disassembly of the inner nut (Fig. 3 annotated from Rubin, it is the position of the examiner that once 83 is rotated opposite to the tightening direction, inner nut 75 disassembles from 83 and teeth 85 pulls away from 81).
Regarding Claim 9, Rubin discloses all limitations of Claim 2. Rubin also discloses a slot located on the part of the ring that surrounds the wall (see in 112b rejection of Claim 9, where it is the position of the examiner that the slot is located on the outer nut. Fig.1 annotated from Rubin shows the slot formed due to the space formed by the boundaries of the inner nut and the outer nut and the rolled collar placed on the slot. The outer nut (82) in contact with the washer 86 and the rolled collar 80, surrounding the wall section) to create a recess on a part of the ring that is partially placed on the outer nut (see in 112b rejection of Claim 9, where it is the position of the examiner that the recess is for creating a gap between the ring and the outer nut. Fig.1 annotated from Rubin also shows the recess on rolled collar, that is the rolled collar has a gap between itself and the outer nut, as evidenced by the following “A spring washer 86 of the Belleville type having its inner edge engaged with the overturned edge of the body portion 76 and with its outer edge bearing on the upper face of the rotary member controls the pressure exerted by the teeth 85 on the teeth 81.” This means the washer can be moved by the user to control the pressure exerted on the teeth, hence it is the position of the examiner that there is gap between the outer nut and the washer and rolled collar).
Claims 4-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al (US3273443A, herein Rubin) and in view of Canning et al (US3153974A, herein Canning).
Regarding Claim 4, Rubin discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Rubin however does not disclose the following: at least one indicator that is located on the ring , with a mark thereon indicating the positions to be adopted by the ring when rotated around a direction it extends, wherein the at least one indicator enables the user to choose the torque to be applied; and a thread that is located on the outer nut and enables the user to see a level that the ring has been moved by being rotating around a direction it extends.
However, Canning discloses at least one indicator that is located on the ring (Col 2 Line 52, an incompressible washer 11 is provided with a notch 13, Fig.1 and Fig.2, as well as compressible washer 14 having concentric color rings on its surface adjacent to washer 11); with a mark thereon indicating the positions adopted by the ring when rotated around a direction it extends, wherein at least one indicator enables to choose the torque to be applied ( Col 2 Line 70, the notch 13 and the concentric color rings 15 are so arranged, successive color rings 15 become visible through the notch 13 as illustrated in Fig. 3). The motivation behind the notched washer 11 and the concentric color rings is to indicate a progressively greater predetermined pressure by the fastener when exposed through notch 13. Additionally, a color code is established to select the color ring corresponding to desired pressure (Col 3 Line 8). 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 ring (washer 86) of Rubin with a notch, as well as introduce color coding indicators on the surface of the outer nut (rotary member 82), as taught by Canning, since such modification will enable the washer 86 of Rubin to indicate the level of torque applied on the ring (washer 86) based on the color visible through the notch from the outer nut (rotary member 82) surface, thus establishing an indicator. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03); a thread that is located on the outer nut and enables the user to see a level that ring has been moved by being rotated around a direction it extends (Fig. 5 of Rubin and Fig 3 of Canning, it is the position of the examiner that Rubin, as modified by Canning, discloses color coding indicators on the surface of the rotary member 82 which indicates the torque level applied on the washer 86 thanks to notch that washer 86 has).
Regarding Claim 5, Rubin, as modified by Canning, discloses all the limitations of Claim 4. Rubin, as modified by Canning, also discloses the inner nut is rotated by the user by a predetermined amount as to be placed on the fastener (Fig.1 of Rubin, it is the position of the examiner that base 75 placed on the fastener 73 can be configured to rotate by a predetermined amount); wherein the outer nut is placed on the inner nut ( Fig.5, it is the position of the examiner that rotary member 82 is placed on the base 75) by such that the protrusion and tab at least partially contact thereto (Fig.2 from Rubin, it is the position of the examiner that the teeth 85 from the upper nut and teeth 81 from lower nut is in contact with one another); wherein the ring placed on the outer nut so as to be in contact with a wall and wherein the ring is rotated around the direction it extends to bring the thread to a level on the at least one indicator that indicates a level equivalent to the torque determines by the user (Fig. 1 annotated of Rubin and Fig 3 of Canning, it is the position of the examiner that Rubin, as modified by Canning, discloses color coding indicators on the surface of the rotary member 82 which indicates the torque level applied on the washer 86 while it is in contact with outer nut and the wall section, attributed to the notch that washer 86 has).
Regarding Claim 10, Rubin as modified by Canning, discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Rubin however does not disclose that the ring has serrated surface, thereby facilitating the user to grip the ring. However, Lamb discloses an operating nut 25 who outer surface is knurled or otherwise roughened (Col 4 Line 55, Fig.1 in Lamb). The motivation behind the knurled surface is to provide a good grip. Hence, 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 surface of the rolled collar 80 and introduce the knurling or roughening of the surface as taught by Lamb, since such modification will enable better grip on the rolled collar and provide better control on the force exerted between the teeth.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubin et al (US3273443A, herein Rubin) further in view of Cheon et al (KR20190139474A, herein Cheon).
Regarding Claim 11, Rubin as modified by Canning, discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Rubin however does not disclose a pin located on the fastener which almost contacts the ring and thereby prevents the ring from coming out of the fastener.
Cheon discloses a pin located on the fastener (paragraph 0011 of Cheon, a locking pin crossing and penetrating the support bolt). The motivation behind using the pin along with the threaded bolt is to prevent the other contents within the assembly detaching from the support bolt.
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 invention of Rubin and replace the rolled collar and include a locking pin to hold the assembly of outer and inner nut within the bolt. By doing so, the invention of Rubin will be able to prevent the disassembly of the nuts and washer from the bolt, in case they are accidentally loosened. Such reasoning is consistent with known engineering principles and represents a predictable design choice (See MPEP 2144.03)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seaman et al (US 8764361 B2) discloses an inner and outer nut with a ring on the outer nut with ratchet mechanism, having teeth interlocking between the inner and outer nut. Seaman however fails to disclose any information regarding an indicator and does not clearly specify the limitations regarding the ring.
Mattershead et al (US 6053681 A) discloses an inner and outer nut with a ring, along with an indicator, however only has 1 pair of teeth on the outer nut and no teeth on the inner nut.
Coffia et al (US 4540322 A) discloses an inner and outer nut with ring, having a pin that fixes the nuts to the fastener. However, Coffia fails to disclose any ratchet mechanism or any indicators.
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 10:00am to 5:30pm 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.
/AHMAD FAROOQ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights