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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderlich et al. (European Patent Application Publication No. EP 2206931 A2) in view of Torii et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 9,790,979 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Wunderlich discloses a screw, comprising a shank (1) which has a tip end (2) and a rear end (3) (Figure 1; paragraph [0025]); a concrete thread (8) disposed on the shank (1) (Figure 1; paragraph [0027]); and a timber thread (7) disposed on the shank (1) (Figure 1; paragraph [0026]); wherein the concrete thread (8) and the timber thread (7) are helically aligned with one another and wherein the concrete thread (8) reaches further to the tip end (2) than the timber thread (7) (Figure 1); wherein the timber thread (7) has an engagement zone (6) which includes at least one turn of the timber thread (7) (Figure 1; paragraph [0026]).
Wunderlich discloses the claimed invention except for wherein in the engagement zone (6) the timber thread (7) becomes wider with decreasing distance from the rear end (3).
PNG
media_image1.png
768
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Torii is directed to a screw. Torii specifically discloses wherein in the engagement zone the thread becomes wider with decreasing distance from the rear end (See Fig. 4; column 2, line 65 – column 3, line 4; column 3, line 65 – column 4, line 5; thread 62 is closer to the rear end than thread 60, and thread 62 is wider than thread 60).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to modify Wunderlich wherein in the engagement zone the thread becomes wider with decreasing distance from the rear end as taught by Torii, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to a screw. As disclosed by Torii, it is well known for a screw to include an engagement zone in which the thread becomes wider with decreasing distance from the rear end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wunderlich wherein in the engagement zone the thread becomes wider with decreasing distance from the rear end as taught by Torii, as such a modification would prevent loosening of the screw after installation.
Regarding claim 8, Wunderlich as modified by Torii further discloses wherein in the engagement zone the timber thread gradually becomes wider with decreasing distance from the rear end (See Fig. 4; column 2, line 65 – column 3, line 4 of Torii).
Regarding claim 9, Torii further discloses wherein the timber thread has a timber thread trailing flank which faces the rear end and wherein a pitch of the timber thread trailing flank is generally constant in the engagement zone (Figure 4; column 3, line 65 – column 4, line 5).
Regarding claim 10, Wunderlich further discloses wherein the pitch of the timber thread trailing flank is generally the same as a pitch of the concrete thread (paragraphs [0008], [0009], [0021] and [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Wunderlich further discloses an internal drive head (5) connected to the shank (1) (Figures 1 and 2; paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 12, Wunderlich in view of Torii fails to disclose wherein a ratio of an outer thread diameter of the concrete thread to a pitch of the concrete thread is between 1 and 2 at least in a region of the concrete thread. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a ratio of an outer thread diameter of the concrete thread to a pitch of the concrete thread to be between 1 and 2 at least in a region of the concrete thread, since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" Gardner V TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the system of Wunderlich would not operate differently with the claimed relationship between the ratio of an outer thread diameter of the concrete thread to a pitch of the concrete thread. Further, applicant places no criticality on the claimed relationship of the ratio of an outer thread diameter of the concrete thread to a pitch of the concrete thread. In fact, the subject specification discloses that with regard to a ratio of an outer thread diameter of the concrete thread to a pitch of the concrete thread is between 1 and 2 at least in a region of the concrete thread, “[t]hese are typical dimensions for concrete tapping threads” (page 3, lines 14 – 17). Accordingly, it would be obvious for a ratio of an outer thread diameter of the concrete thread to a pitch of the concrete thread to be between 1 and 2 at least in a region of the concrete thread.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D SHANSKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5985. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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.
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.
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights