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 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be two claims 18. 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 3, 7-12 and 15 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.
With regards to claims 3, 7 and 15, the phrase “the one or more fins of each shaft section have
different dimensions” is indefinite. It is not understood if the fins in each sections have different dimensions from each other or fins in each of the sections have the same dimensions, but the sections have different dimensions from each other. The claims are currently interpreted to have the fins in each section having the same dimensions, but each of the sections having different dimensions from each other.
Claims 8-12 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies, of rejected dependent claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-5, 7-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hendricks et al. (WO 2017/160152 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Hendriks et al. disclose a dowel pin (dowel 1, Figs. 6-8), comprising: a shaft (elongate member 2) having a plurality of shaft sections (see annotated of Fig. 8 below), wherein at least two of the plurality of shaft sections have different dimensions (first and second shaft sections having a different widths); and one or more fins (protrusions 10) extending from the shaft in each of the plurality of shaft sections.
With regards to claim 2, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 1, wherein the at least two of the plurality of shaft sections have different width or height dimensions (see annotated Figure 8 below showing first and second shaft sections having different widths).
With regards to claim 3, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 1, wherein the one or more fins of each shaft section have different dimensions (see annotated Fig. 8 below showing fins at each shaft section having different dimension).
With regards to claim 4, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 1, wherein the dowel pin (dowel 1) further includes at least one channel (groove 17 in Fig. 8) extending through the entire length of the shaft.
With regards to claim 5, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 1, wherein the plurality of shaft sections includes a first shaft section, a second shaft section, and a third shaft section (see annotated Fig. 8 below for labeled first, second, and third shaft sections), wherein the shaft sections collectively extend the entire length of the shaft.
With regards to claim 7, Hendriks et al. disclose a dowel pin (dowel 1), comprising: a shaft (elongate member 2) having a plurality of shaft sections (see annotated Fig. 8 below with first, second, and third shaft section), wherein at least two of the plurality of shaft sections have different dimensions (see annotated Fig. 8 below showing first and second shaft sections having different widths); one or more fins (protrusions 10) extending from the shaft in each of the plurality of shaft sections, wherein the one or more fins (protrusions 10) of each shaft section have different dimensions; and at least one channel (groove 17) extending through a plurality of the one or more fins (protrusions 10).
With regards to claim 8, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 7, wherein the at least one channel (groove 17 in annotated Fig. 8 below) extends through the entire length of the shaft.
With regards to claim 9, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 7, wherein at least two of the plurality of shaft sections have different width or height dimensions (see annotated Fig. 8 below showing first and second shaft sections having different widths).
With regards to claim 10, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 7, wherein the plurality of shaft sections includes a first shaft section, a second shaft section, and a third shaft section (see annotated Fig. 8 below showing first, second, and third shaft sections), wherein the shaft sections collectively extend the entire length of the shaft.
With regards to claim 13, Hendriks et al. disclose a dowel pin (dowel 1), comprising: a shaft having a plurality of shaft sections (see annotated Fig. 8 below showing first, second, and third shaft sections), wherein at least two of the plurality of shaft sections have different dimensions (first and second shaft sections have different widths); one or more fins (protrusions 10) extending from the shaft in each of the plurality of shaft sections; and at least one channel (groove 17 extending through a plurality of the one or more fins or protrusions 10) extending through the entire length of the shaft.
With regards to claim 14, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 13, wherein at least two of the plurality of shaft sections have different width or height dimensions (see annotated Fig. 8 below showing first and second shaft sections having different widths).
With regards to claim 15, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 13, wherein the one or more fins of each shaft section have different dimensions (protrusions 10 at each of the shaft sections as shown in the annotated Fig. 8 below having different dimensions).
With regards to claim 16, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 13, wherein the plurality of shaft sections includes a first shaft section, a second shaft section, and a third shaft section (see annotated Fig. 8 below showing first, second, and third shaft sections), wherein the shaft sections collectively extend the entire length of the shaft.
PNG
media_image1.png
1049
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 6, 11-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendriks et al. (WO 2017/160152 A1) in view of Lo (US 2009/0257842 A1).
With regards to claim 6, Hendriks et al. teach the dowel pin (dowel 1) of claim 5.
However, Hendricks et al. does not disclose wherein the second shaft section has a height dimension that is greater than a height dimension of the first shaft section, and wherein the second shaft section has a height dimension that is greater than a height dimension of the third shaft section.
Lo teaches a pin (bolt device 1 as shown in Fig. 4) wherein the second shaft section (at element 2 in Fig. 4) has a height dimension that is greater than a height dimension of the first shaft section (at element 1 in Fig. 4), and wherein the second shaft section (at element 2 in Fig. 4) has a height dimension that is greater than a height dimension of the third section (near the end of element 13 in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the three shaft sections of Hendriks et al. with second shaft section height being greater than the first and third shaft section heights as taught by Lo in order to allow the dowel pin to fit different size holes on the joining surfaces.
With regards to claim 11, Hendriks teach the dowel pin (dowel 1) of claim 10.
However, Hendriks et al. does not disclose wherein the first shaft section has a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the second shaft section, and wherein the third shaft section has a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the second shaft section.
Lo teaches a pin (bolt device 1 as shown in Fig. 4) wherein the first shaft section (at element 1 in Fig. 4) has a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the second shaft section (at element 2 in Fig. 4), and wherein the third shaft section (near the end of element 13 in Fig. 4) has a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the second shaft section (at element 2 in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the three shaft sections of Hendriks et al. with first and third shaft section heights are less than the second shaft section height as taught by Lo in order to allow the dowel to fit different size holes on the joining surfaces.
With regards to claim 12, Hendriks teach the dowel pin (dowel 1) of claim 10.
However, Hendriks et al. do not disclose wherein the one or more fins of the second shaft section have a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the one or more fins of the first shaft section, and wherein the one or more fins of the second shaft section have a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the one or more fins of the third shaft section.
Lo teaches a dowel pin (bolt device 1 as shown in Fig. 4) wherein the one or more fins of the second shaft section (at element 2 in Fig. 4) have a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the one or more fins of the first shaft section (at element 1 in Fig. 4), and wherein the one or more fins of the second shaft section (at element 2) have a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the one or more fins of the third shaft section (near the end of element 13 in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
580
1038
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fin height of the second shaft sections less than the fin heights of the first and third shaft sections as taught by Lo on the dowel pin of Hendriks et al. because making the fin heights with different size would be a design choice to optimize the fin heights to achieve the desire fit onto the holes of the joining surfaces.
With regards to claim 17, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 16.
However, Hendriks et al. do not disclose wherein the first shaft section has a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the second shaft section, and wherein the third shaft section has a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the second shaft section.
Lo teaches a pin (bolt device 1 as shown in Fig. 4) wherein the first shaft section (at element 1 in Fig. 4) has a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the second shaft section (at element 2 in Fig. 4), and wherein the third shaft section (near the end of element 13 in Fig. 4) has a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the second shaft section (at element 2 in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the three shaft sections of Hendriks et al. with second shaft section height being greater than the first and third shaft section heights as taught by Lo in order to allow the dowel pin to fit different size holes on the joining surfaces.
With regard to claim 18 (first), Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 16.
However, Hendriks et al. do not disclose wherein the second shaft section has a height dimension that is greater than a height dimension of the first shaft section, and wherein the second shaft section has a height dimension that is greater than a height dimension of the third shaft section.
Lo teaches a pin (bolt device 1 as shown in Fig. 4) wherein the second shaft section (at element 2 in Fig. 4) has a height dimension that is greater than a height dimension of the first shaft section (at element 1 in Fig. 4), and wherein the second shaft section (at element 2 in Fig. 4) has a height dimension that is greater than a height dimension of the third section (near the end of element 13 in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the three shaft sections of Hendriks et al. with second shaft section height being greater than the first and third shaft section heights as taught by Lo in order allow the dowel pin to fit different size holes on the joining surfaces.
With regard to claim 18 (second), Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 16.
However, Hendriks et al. do not disclose wherein the one or more fins of the second shaft section have a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the one or more fins of the first shaft section, and wherein the one or more fins of the second shaft section have a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the one or more fins of the third shaft section.
Lo teaches a dowel pin (bolt device 1 as shown in Fig. 4) wherein the one or more fins of the second shaft section (at element 2 in Fig. 4) have a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the one or more fins of the first shaft section (at element 1 in Fig. 4), and wherein the one or more fins of the second shaft section (at element 2) have a height dimension that is less than a height dimension of the one or more fins of the third shaft section (near the end of element 13 in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
580
1038
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fin height of the second shaft sections less than the fin heights of the first and third shaft sections as taught by Lo on the dowl pin of Hendriks et al. Making the fin height different sizes would be a design choice to optimize the fin heights to achieve the desire fit onto the holes of the joining surfaces.
With regards to claim 20, Hendriks et al. disclose the dowel pin of claim 16 wherein the shaft sections are arranged in the order first shaft section (at element 10 in Figs. 7-8), second shaft section (at element 6 in Figs. 7-8), third shaft section (at bottom end of dowel pins shown in Fig. 7-8); wherein the second shaft section height plus two times the second fin height is equal to the first shaft section height plus two times the first fin height; and wherein the second shaft section height plus two times the second fin height is equal to the third shaft section height plus two times the third fin height (page 6, lines 22-32). Hendriks et al. disclose that when adding the fins or protrusions 10 on the dowel 1, the diameter 8 of the dowel 1 needs to be adjusted so as to fit into the holes of the joining surface (page 6, lines 22-32).
However, Hendriks et al. do not disclose further including: wherein the second shaft section has a second shaft section height that is greater than a first shaft section height of the first shaft section; wherein the second shaft section height is greater than a third shaft section height of the third shaft section; wherein the one or more fins of the second shaft section have a second fin height that is less than a first fin height of the one or more fins of the first shaft section; wherein the second fin height is less than a third fin height of the one or more fins of the third shaft section.
Lo teaches wherein the second shaft section (at element 2 in Fig. 4) has a second shaft section height that is greater than a first shaft section height of the first shaft section (at element 1); wherein the second shaft section height (at element 2 in Fig. 4) is greater than a third shaft section height of the third shaft section (near the end of the element 13 in Fig. 4); wherein the one or more fins of the second shaft section ( at element 2 in Fig. 4) have a second fin height that is less than a first fin height of the one or more fins of the first shaft section (at element 1 in Fig. 4); wherein the second fin height (at element 2 in Fig. 4) is less than a third fin height of the one or more fins of the third shaft section (near end of element 13 in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second shaft section height being greater than the first and third shaft section heights and to make the fin height of the second shaft section less than the fin heights of the first and third shaft sections as taught by Lo on the dowl pin of Hendriks et al. Making the fin heights and shaft section heights with different sizes would be a design choice to optimize the fin heights and shaft section heights to achieve the desire fit onto the holes of the joining surfaces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-5207546-A to Bouverie discloses a device to secure a first and second members having fin sections and a channel.
US-D859134-S to Iacono discloses a dowel pin with fin sections and a through channel.
US-9683591-B2 to Lo et al. disclose a fastener having fin sections.
US-6520704-B1 to Vidmar et al. disclose a pin for securing an object to a support having fin sections.
US-9677589-B2 to Koelling discloses a fastening device having fin sections with a through channel.
DE-202007000120-U1 to Borgh B.V. discloses a pin having fin sections and a through channel.
EP-3683455-A1 to Liu discloses a pin having fin sections.
GB-2505029-A to Brian Davison discloses a pin having fin sections and a through channel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG BAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7350. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5:30 pm ET).
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, Kristina R Fulton can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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.
/L.B.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights