DETAILED ACTION
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 22, 27, 38, and 39 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 22 recites the limitation “... nut space sidewalls arranged so as to surround a nut space that rotationally restrain the prismatic nut.” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards a “nut restrainer.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘nut space sidewalls’ to “rotationally restrain” the ‘prismatic nut,’ such that the claim is directed towards both the ‘nut restrainer’ and the ‘prismatic nut,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘nut space sidewalls,’ such that the claim is directed only towards the ‘nut restrainer.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... nut space sidewalls arranged so as to surround a nut space that is configured to rotationally restrain the prismatic nut.”
Claim 27 recites the limitations “substantially equiangular hexagon” and “substantially regular hexagon.” “Substantially” is a term of degree which is not expressly defined in the Specification. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitations are indefinite. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “equiangular hexagon” and “regular hexagon,” respectively.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “...nut space sidewalls arranged so as to surround a nut space that rotationally restrain the nut” in the fourth paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards a “nut restrainer.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘nut space sidewalls’ to “rotationally restrain” the ‘nut,’ such that the claim is directed towards both the ‘nut restrainer’ and the ‘nut,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘nut space sidewalls,’ such that the claim is directed only towards the ‘nut restrainer.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... nut space sidewalls arranged so as to surround a nut space that is configured to rotationally restrain the nut.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 28 – 36, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griffet (French Patent Publication Number FR 2881486 A1).
As to claim 21, Griffet teaches a nut restrainer (figure 1, element 1 being the ‘nut restrainer’; machine translation, page 3, eighth paragraph) comprising: a fixed outer portion having a plurality of deformable protrusions configured to resist torque (figure 1, element 2 being the ‘fixed outer portion’ and elements 8 – 11 being the ‘plurality of deformable protrusions’; machine translation, page 3, eight paragraph – page 4, third paragraph); a mobile central portion being configured to engage the plurality of deformable protrusions (figure 1, element 5 being the ‘mobile central portion’; machine translation, page 3, eighth paragraph); and the mobile central portion including a cavity configured to accept insertion of a prismatic nut and prevent the prismatic nut from rotating relative to the mobile central portion (figures 1 and 3, either of elements 27 and 28 being the ‘cavity’ and element 6 being the ‘nut’; machine translation, page 4, fifth paragraph and page 5, second paragraph). Examiner recognizes that the mobile central portion is sized to allow the nut a given degree of rotation (figures 1 and 3, elements 5 and 6; machine translation, page 5, fifth paragraph). However, because the mobile central portion prevents the nut from entire rotation, the mobile central portion at least prevents some degree of rotation of the nut relative to the mobile central portion. Examiner further recognizes that Griffet does not teach the nut being a ‘prismatic nut.’ This is because Griffet teaches the outer surface of the nut being circular (figure 3, element 29; machine translation, page 5, third paragraph), rather than prismatic. However, Examiner notes that the limitation recites functional language of the ‘mobile central portion’ and does not require the ‘nut restrainer’ to positively include the ‘prismatic nut.’ It is the position of the Examiner that the ‘mobile central portion’ is configured for use with a nut which has a prismatic shape, as well as a nut with a circular shape.’ Griffet further teaches that the nut restrainer is configured to accept insertion of the prismatic nut (figure 1, elements 1 and 6; machine translation, page 3, eighth paragraph) and thereafter the nut restrainer, which includes the fixed outer portion, is further configured to be affixed to one side of a substrate plate having two sides, over a bolt hole arranged in the substrate plate, and the bolt hole having a radial tolerance (figure 1, element 1); and wherein the nut restrainer is further configured to allow for subsequent installation of a bolt having a shank and a tip, from another one of the two sides of the substrate plate opposite a side to which the nut retainer is affixed (figures 1 and 2, element 18; machine translation, page 5, fifth paragraph).
As to claim 22, Griffet teaches that the mobile central portion comprises nut space sidewalls arranged so as to surround a nut space that is configured to rotationally restrain the prismatic nut (figure 3, elements 21 and 22 being the ‘nut space sidewalls’ and space between elements 21 and 22 being the ‘nut space’); wherein the plurality of deformable protrusions are configured to contact the mobile central portion (figures 1 and 5, elements 8 – 11 and 5); and wherein the plurality of deformable protrusions are not in contact with the substrate plate (figure 1, elements 8 – 11).
As to claim 28, Griffet teaches that the nut restrainer is configured to limit relative rotation of the mobile central portion and the fixed outer portion (figures 1 and 4, elements 2 and 5); and wherein the plurality of deformable protrusions are configured to engage portion of the mobile central portion (figures 1 – 3, elements 26 being the ‘portion of the mobile central portion’ and elements 8 – 11; machine translation, page 2, first paragraph and page 3, second paragraph).
As to claim 29, Griffet teaches that the mobile central portion includes radial protrusions that engage corresponding recesses in the fixed outer portion to rotationally restrain the prismatic nut in a tightening direction while permitting lateral movement of the prismatic nut (figures 1 – 3, elements 26 being the ‘radial protrusions’ and elements 20 being the ‘corresponding recesses’; machine translation, page 6, second paragraph); and wherein the mobile central portion is structured and configured with a hole configured to allow the tip of the bolt to pass through the hole (page 5, fifth paragraph).
As to claim 30, Griffet teaches that the mobile central portion is configured to allow deformation of the plurality of deformable protrusions in response to lateral movement of the mobile central portion (figure 1, elements 8 – 11; machine translation, page 4, third paragraph).
As to claim 31, Griffet teaches that the cavity is configured to accept insertion of a washer in addition to the prismatic nut (figure 1, elements 5 and 6); and wherein the plurality of deformable protrusions are configured to engage portions of the mobile central portion (figures 1 – 3, elements 26 being the ‘portion of the mobile central portion’ and elements 8 – 11; machine translation, page 2, first paragraph and page 3, second paragraph).
As to claim 32, Griffet teaches that the fixed outer portion is configured to be attached to the substrate plate by welding (figure 1, element 2).
As to claim 33, Griffet teaches that the nut restrainer is configured to allow the prismatic nut or a washer inserted therein to directly contact the substrate plate (figure 1, element 6). This can be found because the nut restrainer of Griffet may be used with a prismatic nut which extends into the central opening of the fixed outer portion (figure 2, element 18), allowing the nut to come into direct contact with the substrate plate.
As to claim 34, Griffet teaches a nut restrainer (figure 1, element 1 being the ‘nut restrainer’; machine translation, page 3, eighth paragraph) comprising: a fixed outer portion having a plurality of deformable protrusions configured to resist torque (figure 1, element 2 being the ‘fixed outer portion’ and elements 8 – 11 being the ‘plurality of deformable protrusions’; machine translation, page 3, eight paragraph – page 4, third paragraph); a mobile central portion being configured to engage the plurality of deformable protrusions (figure 1, element 5 being the ‘mobile central portion’; machine translation, page 3, eighth paragraph); and the mobile central portion including a cavity configured to accept insertion of a nut and prevent the nut from rotating relative to the mobile central portion (figures 1 and 3, elements 5 and 6; machine translation, page 4, fifth paragraph and page 5, second paragraph). Examiner recognizes that the mobile central portion is sized to allow the nut a given degree of rotation (figures 1 and 3, elements 5 and 6; machine translation, page 5, fifth paragraph). However, because the mobile central portion prevents the nut from entire rotation, the mobile central portion at least prevents some degree of rotation of the nut relative to the mobile central portion. Griffet further teaches that the nut restrainer is configured to accept insertion of the nut (figure 1, elements 1 and 6; machine translation, page 3, eighth paragraph) and thereafter the nut restrainer is further configured to be affixed to one side of a substrate plate having two sides, over a bolt hole arranged in the substrate plate, and the bolt hole having a radial tolerance (figure 1, element 1); and wherein the nut restrainer is further configured to allow for subsequent installation of a bolt having a shank and a tip, from another one of the two sides of the substrate plate opposite a side to which the nut retainer is affixed (figures 1 and 2, element 18; machine translation, page 5, fifth paragraph), wherein the nut restrainer is configured to allow the nut or a washer inserted therein to directly contact the substrate plate and is further configured so that no part of the nut restrainer extends past a surface of the substrate plate when attached thereto (figure 1, element 1). This can be found because the nut restrainer of Griffet may be used with a prismatic nut which extends into the central opening of the fixed outer portion (figure 2, element 18), allowing the nut to come into direct contact with the substrate plate.
As to claim 35, Griffet teaches that the nut restrainer is configured to allow the shank of the bolt to directly contact an inner surface of the bolt hole in the substrate plate (figure 1, element 1).
As to claim 36, Griffet teaches that the mobile central portion and the fixed outer portion are distinct portions of material (figures 1 – 3, elements 2 and 5).
As to claim 38, Griffet teaches a nut restrainer (figure 1, element 1 being the ‘nut restrainer’; machine translation, page 3, eighth paragraph) comprising: a fixed outer portion having a plurality of deformable protrusions configured to resist torque (figure 1, element 2 being the ‘fixed outer portion’ and elements 8 – 11 being the ‘plurality of deformable protrusions’; machine translation, page 3, eight paragraph – page 4, third paragraph); a mobile central portion being configured to engage the plurality of deformable protrusions (figure 1, element 5 being the ‘mobile central portion’; machine translation, page 3, eighth paragraph); and the mobile central portion including a cavity configured to accept insertion of a nut and prevent the nut from rotating relative to the mobile central portion (either of elements 27 and 28 being the ‘cavity’ and element 6 being the ‘nut’; machine translation, page 4, fifth paragraph and page 5, second paragraph). Examiner recognizes that the mobile central portion is sized to allow the nut a given degree of rotation (figures 1 and 3, elements 5 and 6; machine translation, page 5, fifth paragraph). However, because the mobile central portion prevents the nut from entire rotation, the mobile central portion at least prevents some degree of rotation of the nut relative to the mobile central portion. Griffet further teaches that mobile central portion comprises nut space sidewalls arranged so as to surround a nut space that is configured to rotationally restrain a nut (figure 3, elements 21 and 22 being the ‘nut space sidewalls’ and space between elements 21 and 22 being the ‘nut space’); wherein the nut restrainer is configured to accept insertion of the nut (figure 1, elements 1 and 6; machine translation, page 3, eighth paragraph) and thereafter the nut restrainer, which includes the fixed outer portion, is further configured to be affixed to a first side of a substrate plate over a bolt hole arranged in the substrate plate (figure 1, element 1); and wherein the nut restrainer is further configured to allow for subsequent installation of a bolt form a second side of the substrate plate opposite a side to which the nut retainer is affixed (figures 1 and 2, element 18; machine translation, page 5, fifth paragraph).
As to claim 39, Griffet teaches that the nut restrainer is configured to allow the nut or a washer inserted therein to directly contact the substrate plate (figure 1, element 6). This can be found because the nut restrainer of Griffet may be used with a nut which extends into the central opening of the fixed outer portion (figure 2, element 18), allowing the nut to come into direct contact with the substrate plate. Griffet further teaches that the plurality of deformable protrusions are configured to contact the mobile central portion (figures 1 and 5, elements 8 – 11 and 5).
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) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffet as applied to claim 21 above.
As to claim 27, Griffet teaches that the fixed outer portion is configured to be attachable to the substrate plate (figure 1, element 2); and wherein the fixed outer portion is configured to confine the mobile central portion against the substrate plate once the fixed outer portion has been attached thereto (figure 1, elements 2 and 5).
However, Griffet teaches that the cavity defines a rectangular shape (figure 3, either of elements 27 and 28). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the cavities of Griffet so as to have a equiangular hexagon or a regular hexagon shape, rather than a rectangular shape, because one skilled in the art would have recognized that either shape would provide the benefit of allowing the nut to become fixed to the mobile central portion, as desired by Griffet (figure 3, elements 6, 5, 27, and 28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues, on page 9, that Griffet does not teach “deformable or elastic centering elements or preservation of direct nut-to-support contact for slip-critical structural joints.” Without address the merits of this assertion, Examiner notes that these elements or features are not recited in the claims of the application.
Applicant next argues, on page 9, that Griffet does not teach the ‘mobile central portion’ having a “cavity.” Examiner disagrees. Griffet expressly teaches a mobile central portion being configured to engage the plurality of deformable protrusions (figure 1, element 5 being the ‘mobile central portion’; machine translation, page 3, eighth paragraph); and the mobile central portion including a cavity configured to accept insertion of a nut and prevent the nut from rotating relative to the mobile central portion (figures 1 and 3, either of elements 27 and 28 being the ‘cavity’ and element 6 being the ‘nut’; machine translation, page 4, fifth paragraph and page 5, second paragraph).
Applicant next generally argues, on pages 9 – 10, that Griffet does not anticipate the ‘nut restrainer’ of claim 21. Examiner disagrees and refers to the above rejection of claim 21 in view of Griffet.
Applicant finally argues, on page 10, that Griffet does not teach a ‘mobile central portion’ that is distinct from a ‘fixed outer portion’ or ‘elastic couplings’ between the mobile central portion and the fixed outer portion. Examiner disagrees. First, Griffet expressly teaches a ‘mobile central portion’ which is distinct and independent from a ‘fixed outer portion’ (figure 1, element 5 being the ‘mobile central portion’ and element 2 being the ‘fixed outer portion’). Regarding the ‘elastic couplings,’ Examiner notes that this is not a limitation required by the claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights