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 § 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 8-9, 15 and 18 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 8 recites the limitation "the thickness" in lines 2 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It cannot be determined which of the previously-introduced three thicknesses is being further defined.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the length" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 13, 16-18 and 20 (8-9 and 18 as understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and/or 102a2 as being anticipated by WO 2021/137797 A1 (hereinafter “ATA Dizayn”), which discloses:
1. A holding plate (FIGS 3-7) for sheet material, the holding plate comprising:
a disk-shaped plate (1.2); and
an aperture formed by an inner edge of the disk-shaped plate (see the opening through the center of the plate, FIGS 3-5),
wherein the inner edge of the disk-shaped plate has a contour that comprises a plurality of fins (1.2.1), wherein each fin of the plurality of fins extends at least partially towards a center of the aperture (see FIGS 3-5), and wherein each of the plurality of fins (140, 150) is configured to allow a bending of the respective fin (“the wings are made of a flexible material”; also see FIGS 6-8).
2. The holding plate according to claim 1, wherein the disk-shaped plate and the plurality of fins are formed integrally (this is a product-by-process limitation that does not define over the structure of the prior art).
4. The holding plate according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of fins comprises a bending portion configured to allow the bending of the respective fin (see 1.2.1.1.1.1 at FIG 7).
5. The holding plate according to claim 4, wherein each fin of the plurality of fins further comprises a head portion (1.2.1.1.1, 1.2.1.1.1.2) extending from the bending portion towards the center of the aperture (e.g., see FIG 7).
6. The holding plate according to claim 5, wherein the disk-shaped plate has a first thickness (h₁), the head portion has a second thickness (h₂) that is smaller than or equal to the first thickness (h₁), the bending portion has a third thickness (h3) that is smaller than the second thickness (h₂) (see FIG 7: the bending portion is thinner than the head portion, and the head portion is thinner than the plate).
7. The holding plate according to claim 6, wherein each fin further comprises a body portion (the outer extent of 1.2.1.1.1.1, which connects to the plate) and wherein the bending portion (read as the central portion of 1.2.1.1.1.1) extends from the body portion (FIGS 3-7).
8. The holding plate according to claim 7, wherein the body portion comprises a first tapering portion in which the thickness is gradually reduced from the first thickness (h₁) to the third thickness (h3), and wherein the head portion comprises a second tapering portion in which the thickness is gradually reduced from the second thickness (h₂) to the third thickness (h3) (as understood, the body and head are tapered radially as seen in FIG 4 and axially as seen in FIG 7).
9. The holding plate according to claim 8, wherein the first and second tapering portions each comprise a surface and wherein the surfaces of the first and second tapering portions form an angle of 80° (each surface encompasses an angle of 80 degrees).
13. The holding plate according to claim 5, wherein the head portion of each fin of the plurality of fins comprises a shape that is one of round, drop-shaped, or pointed (see FIG 7, the heads are round- or drop-shaped).
16. The holding plate according to claim 1, wherein each fin of the plurality fins (140, has the same geometry (see FIGS 3-7).
17. The holding plate according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of fins is a first plurality of fins (the fins on the left of FIG 5) and wherein the contour of the inner edge further comprises a second plurality of fins (the fins on the right of FIG 5) and wherein the fins of the first plurality of fins have a different geometry than the fins of the second plurality of fins (the fins on the left are tapered toward the right, the fins on the right are tapered toward the left).
18. The holding plate according to claim 17, wherein the fins of the first plurality of fins) have a length (a radial length) that is different from the length (the circumferential length) of the fins of the second plurality of fins.
20. The holding plate according to claim 18, wherein the first plurality of fins and the second plurality of fins each comprise three fins, and wherein the fins of the first and second pluralities of fins are distributed alternately along the contour of the edge (alternatively the first plurality of fins are read as the left, upper right and lower right fins, while the second plurality of fins are read as the right, upper left and lower left fins; which are alternately distributed along the contour of the edge, each having a different geometry to define each fin’s particular orientation from the base toward the center).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATA Dizayn in view of US 2012/017529 (hereinafter “Shadwell”).
ATA Dizayn discloses the invention as claimed with exception to wherein the disk-shaped plate is made of metal. Shadwell teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to form a similar disk-shaped plate (20) from metal (para. 0043). To achieve a durable and cost-effective rendition of ATA Dizayn’s plate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form it of metal, as claimed by Applicant and similarly taught by Shadwell.
Claim(s) 9-12, 15 and 19 (9 and 15 as understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATA Dizayn.
The claimed sizes and angles are considered obvious because such parameters do not provide an unexpected result over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the ATA Dizayn design. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Dizayn to obtain the invention as specified by the recited sizes and angles.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ATA Dizayn in view of EP 1955404 A2 (hereinafter “Daloc”).
ATA Dizayn discloses the invention as claimed with exception to an additional fin that does not have a bending portion. Daloc teaches that it was known in the art at the time of filing to use an additional fin (221) that does not have a bending portion (similar to Applicant’s FIG 2a, the shorter fins would not bend when a smaller-diameter bolt is secured through the plate). To allow different radial engagement patterns with different size bolts, it would have been obvious to use an additional fin that does not have a bending portion, as taught by Daloc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0233222 discloses a similar plate with dual-layer fins for receiving the threaded portion of a bolt.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
7/21/26
Prosecution Insights