Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 23-24 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites a peak of the second crest and a root of the second crest. It is unclear if this is referring to the root and peak introduced in claim 1, or are introducing second roots and peaks of the second crest.
Claim 24 is rejected for depending from claim 23.
Rejections under 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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5, 21-22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 4,437,805 (“Smith”).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a fastener (figs. 9-12), comprising: a pin including a head (314) and a tail (400/404) opposite the head (fig. 9, wherein head and tail are opposite with respect to middle portion 319), wherein: the tail includes a plurality of crests including a first crest (402), a second crest (318) and a groove (324) between the first and second crests (fig. 12, wherein the first crest is interpreted as the middle crest of fig. 12 and the second crest 318 is the leftmost crest), the first crest includes a surface (410) on at least one side of the first crest having a first profile (fig. 12, col. 8 lines 44-57), the second crest includes a surface (320) on at least one side of the second crest having a second profile (fig. 12, col. 8 lines 44-57), the second profile is different than the first profile (as illustrated in fig. 12, the left flank of the first/center crest is shorter and extends linearly from a tip of the crest, whereas the left flank of the second/leftmost crest is taller and has a rounded top portion that merges with the tip of the crest), and the surface on the first crest comprises a bearing surface facing the head and the surface on the second crest comprises a bearing surface facing the head (see figs. 9-12, wherein the left flanks face the head).
Claim 1 also recites a pitch between a peak of the first crest and a peak of the second crest is different than a pitch between a root of the first crest and a root of the second crest.
PNG
media_image1.png
401
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated above, the pitch between the roots include the total length of the second crest. Whereas the pitch between the peaks is equal to the length of the right flank of the second crest and the length of the left flank of the first crest. In addition, as illustrated in the broken lines outlining the profile of the first crest with respect to the second crest, the length of the left flank of the first crest is less than the length of the left flank of the second crest—thus, the pitch between the peaks is less than the pitch between the roots.
Regarding claim 5, Smith further teaches the first crest (402) includes a first height that defines a location on the first crest that is most radially distal from an axis of the pin (fig. 12, i.e. height of tip 403), the second crest (318) includes a second height that defines a location on the second crest that is most radially distal from the axis of the pin (fig. 12, i.e. height of tip 326), and the second height is different than the first height (fig. 12, col. 8 lines 23-34).
Regarding claim 21, Smith further teaches the first crest is immediately adjacent to the second crest (see fig. 12, wherein crest 318 is adjacent the middle crest 402 of fig. 12).
Claim 22 recites the first crest is closer to the head than the second crest. Since the first and second crests of Smith can be reversed while still reading on claim 1, the first crest can be interpreted as the leftmost crest 318 of fig. 12 and the second crest can be interpreted as the center crest 402 of fig. 12. As illustrated in figs. 9-10, threads 318 are closer to the head than threads 402.
Regarding claim 25, Smith further teaches the groove (324) between the first crest and the second crest has a first depth that is greater than a second depth of another groove (405) between the first crest and another crest on an opposite side of the first crest from the second crest (fig. 12, col. 9 lines 42-52).
Regarding claim 26, Smith further teaches the first crest (402) includes a first height that defines a location on the first crest that is most radially distal from an axis of the pin (fig. 12, i.e. height of tip 403); the second crest (318) includes a second height that defines a location on the second crest that is most radially distal from the axis of the pin (fig. 12, i.e. height of tip 326); and the second height is greater than the first height (fig. 12, col. 8 lines 23-34).
Claims 1 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2008/0247841 (“Mercer”).
Regarding claim 1, Mercer teaches a fastener (figs. 10-11), comprising: a pin including a head (22d) and a tail (177) opposite the head (fig. 10, ¶ [0118]), wherein: the tail includes a plurality of crests including a first crest (620), a second crest (626) and a groove (622) between the first and second crests (fig. 11, ¶ [0134]-[0138]), the first crest includes a surface on at least one side of the first crest having a first profile (fig. 11, i.e. left flank of crest 620), the second crest includes a surface (628) on at least one side of the second crest having a second profile (fig. 11, i.e. round left flank), the second profile is different than the first profile (as illustrated in fig. 11, the left flank of the first crest is straight whereas the left flank of the second crest is round), and the surface on the first crest comprises a bearing surface facing the head and the surface on the second crest comprises a bearing surface facing the head (see figs. 10-11, wherein the left flanks face the head).
Claim 1 also recites a pitch between a peak of the first crest and a peak of the second crest is different than a pitch between a root of the first crest and a root of the second crest. Since the tip/peak of the second crest has a longer length than the peak of the first crest, the pitch between the two peaks changes based on if the distance is measured from the leftmost side of the peaks, middle of the peaks, or rightmost side of the peaks. However, the pitch between the roots remains constant regardless of whether the pitch is measured from the leftmost side, center, or rightmost side since either way the pitch of the root will be equal to an axial length of the first crest plus an axial length of the root. Thus, when measuring the pitches from the leftmost side of the peaks and roots, center of the peaks and roots, and rightmost side of the peaks and roots, at least two of the measurements will have pitches of the peaks and roots that are different.
Regarding claim 21, Mercer further teaches the first crest is immediately adjacent to the second crest (see fig. 11, wherein crest 620 is adjacent to crest 626).
Regarding claim 22, Mercer further teaches the first crest is closer to the head than the second crest (figs. 10-11, wherein the head is on the left of the pull crests 620).
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-6 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2002/0081171 (“Werner”) in view of USPGPub No. 2019/0390700 (“Iyer”).
Regarding claim 1, Werner teaches a fastener, comprising: a pin (1) (fig. 1, ¶ [0021]). Werner fails to explicitly teach the pin including a head and a tail opposite the head. However, this would have been obvious in view of Iyer.
Iyer is also directed to a screw for use with cement and having a high thread and a low thread (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0001] & [0023]). Iyer teaches that it is known for such screws to be pin shaped, with a head at one end to allow a tool to drive the screw, a middle portion having counter threads 80, and a tail/end portion 14 on an opposite end of the middle portion 80 with respect to the head, the tail/end portion 14 having the high and low threads (figs. 1, ¶ [0018]-[0019] & [0024]). Portion 80 renders a smoother finish (¶ [0029]).
In this case, each of Werner and Iyer are directed to a screw for use with materials made out of cement, wherein the threaded portion of the pin/screw has a high thread and a low thread. While Werner merely illustrates a length of the threaded section of the screw that includes a single high thread and a single low thread, one of skill in the art appreciates that the screw is longer than the portion of the screw illustrated in fig. 1 of Werner. Iyer teaches a known cement/concrete screw structure as detailed above that provides benefits such as a smoother finish. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Werner so that the threads of the screw are in a tail region of the screw/pin, and wherein the screw/pin also includes a middle portion having counter threads and a head at an opposite end of the middle portion with respect to the tail end.
Werner further teaches the tail includes a plurality of crests including a first crest (12), a second crest (11) and a groove (5) between the first and second crests (fig. 1, ¶ [0023]-[0024]), the first crest includes a surface on at least one side of the first crest having a first profile (fig. 1, i.e. right flank of first crest 12), the second crest includes a surface on at least one side of the second crest having a second profile (fig. 1, ¶ [0023], i.e. right flank 6 of second crest 11), the second profile is different than the first profile (fig. 1, ¶ [0023], wherein flanks of second crest 11 have two different flank angles compared to one flank angle of the flanks of the first crest 12), the surface on the first crest comprises a bearing surface facing the head and the surface on the second crest comprises a bearing surface facing the head (fig. 1, ¶ [0021], wherein since S is the setting direction the head will be on the right of the pin—thus, the right flanks/surfaces of the crests are bearing surfaces facing the head). The examiner notes that respective flanks of each crest are the same, thus, if the head were on the left of figure 1 the left flanks of the crests can be interpreted as the surfaces.
Claim 1 also recites a pitch between a peak of the first crest and a peak of the second crest is different than a pitch between a root of the first crest and a root of the second crest. This is taught by Werner as illustrated below.
PNG
media_image2.png
572
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As illustrated above, the pitch between the peaks includes the length a of crest region 4, the length of one flank 6 of thread 11, length of root 5, and the length of one flank of thread 12. Whereas the pitch between the roots includes the length of root 5, the length C of crest region 10 (which is equal to the length a of crest region 4, see ¶ [0026]), and the length of each flank of the thread 12. Thus, since the difference between these lengths is that the pitch between the peaks includes the length of flank 6, while the length between the roots replaces this length with the length of a flank of thread 12, the length between the peaks is longer than the length between the roots because flank 6 is longer than either flank of thread 12 (see fig. 1 in combination with the description of the diameters and angles in ¶ [0023]-[0026]).
Claim 2 recites the surface on the at least one side of the first crest is inclined at a first oblique angle relative to an axis of the pin, the surface on the at least one side of the second crest is inclined at a second oblique angle relative to the axis of the pin, and the second oblique angle is different than the first oblique angle. Since flank 6 is has multiple inclination angles, the flank/surface 6 has an inclined oblique angle different than the inclined oblique angle of the flank/surface of thread 12 (fig. 1, ¶ [0023]).
Claim 3 recites the bearing surface on the at least one side of the second crest or the surface on the at least one side of the first crest is configured as a camming surface that urges a pulling tool toward the head or the tail as a crest on the pulling tool contacts the camming surface. This is an intended use limitation; thus, the surface of Werner merely has to be capable of this use. A pulling tool is capable of engaging the flanks/surfaces of the threads/crests (for example, to pull the pin through a hole in a workpiece prior to screwing the screw in another material). Further, since the flanks/surfaces facing the head are slanted, it is capable of functioning as a camming surface that urges the pulling tool toward the head if a pulling tool crest closes around the flanks (since the slanted surface will provide a force to the crest of the pulling tool in a direction towards the head).
Regarding claim 4, Werner further teaches the surface on the at least one side of the second crest or the surface on the at least one side of the first crest includes a first segment beginning at the peak of the second crest (fig. 1, wherein the first segment can be interpreted as either surface 7 or the flank surface forming angle α) and a second segment between the first segment and the root of the second crest (fig. 1, wherein the second segment can be interpreted as either the flank surface forming angle α or the flank surface forming angle β), and the first segment and the second segment are inclined at different oblique angles relative to the axis of the pin (fig. 1, ¶ [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 5, Werner further teaches the first crest includes a first height (d4) that defines a location on the first crest that is most radially distal from an axis of the pin, the second crest includes a second height (d1) that defines a location on the second crest that is most radially distal from the axis of the pin, and the second height is different than the first height (fig. 1, ¶ [0025]).
Claim 6 recites the pitch between the peaks of the first and second crests is larger than the pitch between the roots of the first and second crests. This is taught as detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 21, Werner further teaches the first crest is immediately adjacent to the second crest (see fig. 1).
Claim 22 recites the first crest is closer to the head than the second crest. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1, the first crest 12 is closer to the head than the second crest 11 since the setting direction is to the left when viewing fig. 1.
Regarding claim 23, Werner further teaches the bearing surface of the first crest is inclined at a first oblique angle relative to an axis of the pin (fig. 1, ¶ [0023]); and the bearing surface of the second crest includes a first segment beginning at a peak of the second crest (fig. 1, wherein the first segment can be interpreted as either surface 7 or the flank surface forming angle α) and a second segment between the first segment and a root of the second crest (fig. 1, wherein the second segment can be interpreted as either the flank surface forming angle α or the flank surface forming angle β), and wherein the first segment is inclined relative to the axis of the pin at a second oblique angle (fig. 1, ¶ [0022]-[0023]).
Claim 24 recites the first oblique angle is greater than the second oblique angle. Each of the potential first segments (i.e. surface 7 or the flank surface forming angle α) have a second oblique angle that is less than the first oblique angle depending upon which direction the surfaces are measured from a longitudinal axis of the pin (i.e. whether they are measured clockwise or counterclockwise from the longitudinal axis) (¶ [0023]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. The examiner agrees that the amendments to the claims overcome the previous prior art rejections. Thus, the previous prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights