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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendment to the specification the description of the ne figures 12 and 13 should be consistent with the other figures.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. In each of the independent claims, in the next to last paragraph, there is no antecedent basis for “the clearance”. In claim 5, it is unclear what the “number of slope” refers to; it appears it should be --number of slope portions--. In claim 12, there is no antecedent basis for “each of the slope portion” since there can be only one slope and it is unclear what a “straight slope” refers to. The claims were examined as best understood.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCoy (US 910,712). McCoy discloses a fastening structure comprising a washer between a nut (4) and an installation object (5). The washer comprising first and second members (6) each with a mating slope surface (8) which gradually lower in a tightening direction; the outer circumferential shape of the members conform with one another when they are overlapped and superposing without a clearance (Fig. 1).
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 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy in view of Oldenkott (US 3,417,803). McCoy does not disclose a nut or bolt head having one of the mating slope surfaces with the other of mating slope surfaces being on a washer between the nut or bolt head and attachment member. Oldenkott discloses a fastening structure including mating slope surfaces similar to McCoy but additionally discloses a nut (7) with a sloped surface (22’) mating with a washer (12) between the nut and an attachment member (Fig. 7) and a bolt head (B) with a sloped surface (22’) mating with a washer (12) between the bolt head and an attachment member (Fig. 4). Oldenkott teaches both the nut and washer and the bolt head and washer combination as alternatives to only a washer with first and second members (Figs. 1-2). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the slope surfaces of McCoy to a nut and washer and/or a bolt and washer combination because Oldenkott teaches them as alternatives the first and second washer members for providing the same predictable results. While the method would be inherent in McCoy for the device to be operative, Oldenkott further clarifies the method (top of column 3).
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy in view of Oldenkott as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frieberg (US 4,793,752). Modified McCoy does not disclose the washer having a conical recess opposite the slope surfaces nor an annular connecting portion. Frieberg discloses a washer (26) which functions similar to the washer of modified McCoy but teaches the washer to include a conical recess (42) and a connecting portion (28) with a cylindrical outer periphery. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the washer of modified McCoy with a conical recess and a connecting portion as disclosed in Frieberg because since the washer of modified McCoy and Oldenkott are for the same purpose modifying the washer would yield the same predictable results of locking the nut or bolt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamazaki (US 6,966,735) is cited to teach another example of a one slope portion. Kemeny (US 12,117,037) is of particular interest but it lacks an earlier filing date.
Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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 FLEMMING SAETHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7071. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 7:00 eastern.
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.
/FLEMMING SAETHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights