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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on July 14, 2026. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. No further claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claims 8-13 were previously withdrawn. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 102(a)(1) rejection has been withdrawn however a new 102(a)(1) rejection is presented herewith and is discussed in greater detail below. The previous 103 rejections have been withdrawn and new 103 rejections are presented herewith and are discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1, 3-7, 14 and 16-22 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ingram (1039751).
In reference to claim 1, Ingram discloses an aircraft panel removal tool and work aid (Figure 1) comprising:
an aircraft component anchor attachment fitting (i.e. formed from at least elements 2 and 3 in Figure 1), the attachment fitting comprising:
a plurality of claws (2), biased open (Page 1, Lines 42-46) and configured to engage an attachment point (i.e. screw head, Figure 6) of an aircraft component anchor (i.e. screw) configured to releasably mount a seat to an aircraft panel (The examiner notes the limitation that the, “an aircraft component anchor [is] configured to releasably mount a seat to an aircraft panel” is considered Intended Use. And a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since, the screw, is capable of being used as the anchor/fastener for releasably mount a seat to an aircraft panel, it meets the claim); and
a collar (3) slidably disposed over and about the plurality of claws configured to:
slide upward to enable biasing of the plurality of claws biased open sufficient to enable the plurality of claws to be disposed around the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor (Page 1, Lines 42-46); and
slide downward (Page 1, Lines 46-50) engaging the plurality of claws with the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor, wherein an outer end of the attachment point has a diameter (see figure below) that is greater than an effective opening diameter (see figure below) of the ends of the claws when they are engaged with the attachment point; and
a handle (6) secured to the attachment fitting and configured to enable application of force, via the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor, to an aircraft panel, in which the aircraft component anchor is mounted, for removal and/or manipulation of the aircraft panel (again because the screw is capable of being used as an aircraft component anchor/fastener configured to releasably mount a seat to an aircraft panel therefore since the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 4, Ingram discloses that the handle comprises a grip (6) configured to enable the application of force, via the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor (i.e. screw), to the aircraft panel, for removal and or manipulation of the aircraft panel (Page 1, Lines 42-50).
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.
Claims are 1, 3, 4, 7, 14, 16, 17 and 20-22 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonati et al. (6860889) in view of Ingram (1039751) and Cosby et al. (10933969).
In further reference to claim 1, Bonati et al. disclose a removal and work aid tool (Figure 7) capable of removing an aircraft panel, the removal and work aid tool comprising:
an aircraft component anchor attachment fitting (72, Figures 7 and 8), the attachment fitting comprising:
a plurality of claws (54), biased open (“expand outward”, see Column 5, Lines 18-19 and Figure 8) and configured/capable to engage (i.e. from surface 58 used for gripping the screw head, see Column 5, Lines 22-25, “Undercuts 78 are formed just beneath each knurled surface 58. These features allow the four jaws 54 to grip a screw head…” thereby being equivalent to the plurality of claws, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6a in the previous Non-final action filed on June 30, 2025) an attachment point (i.e. outer surface of screw head) of a screw (i.e. 14/22, Figure 12, the examiner notes the limitation that the, “an aircraft component anchor [is] configured to releasably mount a seat to an aircraft panel” is considered Intended Use. And a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since, the screw 14/22, is capable of being used as the anchor/fastener for releasably mount a seat to an aircraft panel, it meets the claim.); and
a collar (46) slidably disposed over and about the plurality of claws (see Figures 12-14) configured to:
slide upward to (i.e. when moving from the position of 46 in Figure 14 to the position in Figure 13) enable biasing of the plurality of claws biased open sufficient to enable the plurality of claws to be disposed around the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor (Figures 12-13); and
slide downward (Figure 14) engaging the plurality of claws with the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor (Figure 14); and
a handle (42) secured to the attachment fitting and configured to enable application of force (see Figures 13-15), via the attachment point of the fastener/screw/aircraft component anchor, to an aircraft panel, in which the aircraft component anchor is mounted, for removal and/or manipulation of the aircraft panel (again because the fastener/screw is capable of being used as an aircraft component anchor/fastener configured to releasably mount a seat to an aircraft panel therefore since the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim, see Column 2, Lines 26-27).
Bonati et al. lack,
the anchor component/screw comprising an outer end of the attachment point having a diameter that is greater than an effective opening diameter of the ends of the claws when they are engaged with the attachment point; and
explicitly disclosing that the anchor component/screw is an aircraft component anchor/screw configured to releasably mount a seat to an aircraft panel.
However, Ingram teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an anchor component/screw (see figure below, and note the screw of Ingram is similar to the anchor component/screw 14/22, of Bonati et al.) comprising an outer end of an attachment point (i.e. an outer end of the screw head) having a diameter (see figure below) that is greater than an effective opening diameter (see figure below) of ends of claws (2) when they are engaged with the attachment point (Figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the anchor component/screw, of Bonati et al., with the known technique of providing a similar anchor component/screw comprising an outer end of the attachment point having the diameter that is greater than the effective opening diameter of the ends of the claws when they are engaged with the attachment point, as taught by Ingram, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively holds the anchor component/screw during normal operation (Page 1, Lines 8-11) and/or that more effectively closes the claws/jaws upon the anchor component/screw during normal operation (Page 1, Lines 46-49).
In addition, Cosby et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a workpiece/aircraft panel (308) that includes at least one aircraft component anchor/screw (i.e. screw 304, which is similar to the anchor component/screw 14/22, of Bonati et al.), wherein the aircraft component anchor/screw is configured to releasably mount a seat (Column 5, Line 31) to the aircraft panel (i.e. by unthreading the screw, see Figure 3a and Column 5, Lines 17-33) and the screw includes at least one attachment point (i.e. outer surface of screw head 304, Column 5, Line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the workpiece that the screw engages, of Bonati et al., with the known technique of providing a workpiece/aircraft panel including the similar anchor component/screw for releasably mounting a seat to an aircraft panel, as taught by Cosby et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a screw that more effectively secures various fixtures on a surface of an aircraft (see Column 5, Lines 17-22 for disclosing that the fastener/screw/anchor “may be used as an attachment point for components attached to the surface or structure 308 in which the puck 302 is embedded, such as fixtures installed on a surface of an aircraft”).
In reference to claims 3 and 16, Bonati et al. disclose that the plurality of claws comprise at least four claws (see Figure 10) each sized and shaped to engage the attachment point (i.e. outer surface of screw head) of the aircraft component anchor attachment fitting/screw (“Jaws 54 are capable of engaging an angularly displaced screw head due to the presence of screw head cavity 80 and undercuts 78 on the jaws.”, Column 6, Lines 56-59).
In reference to claims 4 and 17, Bonati et al. disclose that the handle comprises a grip (42) configured to enable the application of force, via the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor, to the aircraft panel, for removal and or manipulation of the aircraft panel (see Figures 12-15 and Column 2, Lines 26-27).
In reference to claims 7 and 20, Bonati et al. lack,
explicitly disclosing that the screw is a screw of an aircraft component anchor that is configured to releasably mount a seat to an aircraft floor panel.
However, Cosby et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an anchor component/screw (304) that is used for anchoring a seat (Column 5, Line 31) to an aircraft floor panel (308, Column 6, Lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the anchor component/screw, of Bonati et al., with the known technique of providing the similar anchor component/screw used as an aircraft component anchor/fastener for releasably mounting a seat to an aircraft floor panel, as taught by Cosby et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a fastener/screw that more effectively secures various fixtures a surface of an aircraft (see Column 5, Lines 17-22 for disclosing that the fastener/screw/anchor “may be used as an attachment point for components attached to the surface or structure 308 in which the puck 302 is embedded, such as fixtures installed on a surface of an aircraft”).
In reference to claim 14, Bonati et al. disclose a removal and work aid tool (Figure 7) capable of removing an aircraft panel, the removal and work aid tool comprising:
an aircraft component anchor attachment fitting (72, Figures 7 and 8), the attachment fitting comprising:
a plurality of claws (54), biased open (“expand outward”, see Column 5, Lines 18-19 and Figure 8) and configured/capable to engage (i.e. from surface 58 used for gripping the screw head, see Column 5, Lines 22-25, “Undercuts 78 are formed just beneath each knurled surface 58. These features allow the four jaws 54 to grip a screw head…” thereby being equivalent to the plurality of claws, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6a in the previous Non-final action filed on June 30, 2025) an attachment point (i.e. outer surface of screw head) of a screw (i.e. 14/22, Figure 12, the examiner notes the limitation that the, “an aircraft component anchor [is] configured to releasably mount a seat to an aircraft panel” is considered Intended Use. And a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since, the screw 14/22, is capable of being used as the anchor/fastener for releasably mount a seat to an aircraft panel, it meets the claim.); and
a collar (46) slidably disposed over and about the plurality of claws (see Figures 12-14) configured to:
slide upward to (i.e. when moving from the position of 46 in Figure 14 to the position in Figure 13) enable biasing of the plurality of claws biased open sufficient to enable the plurality of claws to be disposed around the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor (Figures 12-13); and
slide downward (Figure 14) engaging the plurality of claws with the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor (Figure 14); and
a handle (42) secured to the attachment fitting and configured to enable application of force (see Figures 13-15), via the attachment point of the fastener/screw/aircraft component anchor, to an aircraft panel, in which the aircraft component anchor is mounted, for removal and/or manipulation of the aircraft panel (again because the screw is capable of being used as an aircraft component anchor/fastener configured to releasably mount a seat to an aircraft panel therefore since the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim, see Column 2, Lines 26-27).
Bonati et al. lack,
the anchor component/screw having an outer end of the attachment point having a diameter that is greater than an effective opening diameter of the ends of the claws when they are engaged with the attachment point; and
providing an aircraft panel/workpiece that includes at least one aircraft anchor component/screw, wherein the aircraft anchor component/screw is configured to releasably mount a seat to the aircraft panel.
However, Ingram teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an anchor component/screw (see figure below, and note the screw of Ingram, is similar to the anchor component/screw 14/22, of Bonati et al.) comprising an outer end of an attachment point (i.e. an outer end of the screw head) having a diameter (see figure below) that is greater than an effective opening diameter (see figure below) of ends of claws (2) when they are engaged with the attachment point (Figure 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the anchor component/screw, of Bonati et al., with the known technique of providing the similar anchor component/screw comprising an outer end of the attachment point having the diameter that is greater than the effective opening diameter of the ends of the claws when they are engaged with the attachment point, as taught by Ingram, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively holds the screw during normal operation (Page 1, Lines 8-11) and/or that more effectively closes the claws/jaws upon the screw during normal operation (Page 1, Lines 46-49).
In addition, Cosby et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a workpiece/aircraft panel (308) that includes at least one aircraft component anchor/screw (i.e. screw 304), wherein the aircraft component anchor/screw is configured to releasably mount a seat to the aircraft panel (i.e. by unthreading the screw, see Figure 3a and Column 5, Lines 17-33) and the screw including at least one attachment point (i.e. outer surface of screw head 304, Column 5, Line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the workpiece that the anchor component/screw engages, of Bonati et al., with the known technique of providing a workpiece/aircraft panel including the similar anchor component/screw for releasably mounting a seat to an aircraft panel, as taught by Cosby et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a screw that more effectively secures various fixtures on a surface of an aircraft (see Column 5, Lines 17-22 for disclosing that the fastener/screw/anchor “may be used as an attachment point for components attached to the surface or structure 308 in which the puck 302 is embedded, such as fixtures installed on a surface of an aircraft”).
In reference to claim 21, Bonati et al. disclose that the plurality of claws are configured to engage the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor by being sized and shaped to engage the attachment point (i.e. outer surface of screw head) of the aircraft component anchor attachment fitting/screw (“Jaws 54 are capable of engaging an angularly displaced screw head due to the presence of screw head cavity 80 and undercuts 78 on the jaws.”, Column 6, Lines 56-59).
In reference to claim 22, Bonati et al. disclose that the plurality of claws are configured to engage the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor by being sized and shaped to engage the attachment point (i.e. outer surface of screw head) of the aircraft component anchor attachment fitting/screw (“Jaws 54 are capable of engaging an angularly displaced screw head due to the presence of screw head cavity 80 and undercuts 78 on the jaws.”, Column 6, Lines 56-59).
Claims 5, 6, 18 and 19 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonati et al. (6860889) in view of Ingram (1039751), Cosby et al. (10933969), Disston (5213015) and Ralph (D521349).
In reference to claims 5 and 18, Bonati et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
the grip comprises a hand grip disposed generally parallel with the aircraft panel when the plurality of claws are engaged with the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor.
However, Disston teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar removal tool (formed from elements 14, 40 and 68, see Figure 2) that may be attached to any conventional type of handle (12, see Column 2, Lines 40-41 disclosing, “Handle 12 may be of substantially any conventional type”).
In addition, Ralph shows that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a universal V-shape handle (see Title and Figure 1). And, modifying the handle, of Bonati et al., with the handle as taught by Ralph, the resulting handle/hand grip would be disposed generally parallel with the aircraft panel when the plurality of claws are engaged with the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor (because the handle/hand grip and the aircraft panel both extend horizontally, see annotated figures below).
PNG
media_image2.png
500
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
748
353
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the handle, of Bonati et al., with the known technique of providing the universal V-shaped handle, as taught by Disston and Ralph, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having an ergonomic universal V-shaped handle that can be more easily held and/or manipulated as needed by the user.
In reference to claims 6 and 19, Bonati et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
the handle comprises a hand grip and at least one strut extending from the hand grip to the aircraft component anchor attachment fitting, the at least one strut sized, shaped, and positioned to dispose the hand grip generally parallel with the aircraft panel when the plurality of claws are engaged with the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor.
However, Disston teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar removal tool (formed from elements 14, 40 and 68, see Figure 2) that may be attached to any conventional type of handle (12, see Column 2, Lines 40-41 disclosing, “Handle 12 may be of substantially any conventional type”).
In addition, Ralph shows that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a universal V-shape handle (see Title and Figure 1) that comprises a hand grip (see Figures on pages 9 and 10 above) and at least one strut (see Figures on pages 9 and 10 above) extending from the hand grip to the aircraft component anchor attachment fitting, the at least one strut sized, shaped, and positioned to dispose the hand grip generally parallel with the aircraft panel when the plurality of claws are engaged with the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor (see Figures on pages 9 and 10 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the handle, of Bonati et al., with the known technique of providing the universal V-shaped handle including the at least one strut, as taught by Disston and Ralph, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having an ergonomic universal V-shaped handle that can be more easily held and/or manipulated as needed by the user.
Claims 21 and 22 are also Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonati et al. (6860889) in view of Ingram (1039751), Cosby et al. (10933969) and Bryant et al. (5649931).
In further reference to claim 21, Bonati et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and assuming arguendo that Bonati et al. further lack that,
the plurality of claws are configured to engage the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor by being sized and shaped to engage the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor attachment fitting, than Bryant et al. is used for such a teaching.
Bryant et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar screw removing tool (10) comprising a plurality of claws (30) that are configured to engage an attachment point (i.e. outer surface of the head of screw 12, Figures 4 and 5) of a screw (12, which is similar to the aircraft anchor component/screw, of Bonati et al.) the aircraft anchor component/screw (12) by being sized and shaped to engage the attachment point (Figures 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the plurality of claws, of Bonati et al., with the known technique of providing the plurality of claws sized and shaped to engage the attachment point of the screw, as taught by Bryant et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having claws that more effective receives the screw head (Column 3, Line 67-Column 4, Line 1).
In further reference to claim 22, Bonati et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and assuming arguendo that Bonati et al. further lack,
the plurality of claws are configured to engage the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor by being sized and shaped to engage the attachment point of the aircraft component anchor attachment fitting, than Bryant et al. is used for such a teaching.
Bryant et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar screw removing tool (10) comprising a plurality of claws (30) that are configured to engage an attachment point (i.e. outer surface of the head of screw 12, Figures 4 and 5) of a anchor component/screw (12, which is similar to the aircraft anchor component/screw of Bonati et al.) the aircraft anchor component/screw (12) by being sized and shaped to engage the attachment point (Figures 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the plurality of claws, of Bonati et al., with the known technique of providing the plurality of claws sized and shaped to engage the attachment point of the anchor component/screw, as taught by Bryant et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having claws that more effective receives the screw head (Column 3, Line 67-Column 4, Line 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed July 14, 2023, with respect to amended claims 1 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 102 and 103 rejections in the Non-Final office action filed April 15, 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection above does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, applicant further defined the outer end of the attachment point having a diameter greater than an opening between the claws in claims 1 and 14.
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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights