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 6-11, 13 and 15-16 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 6 recites the limitation "the predefined position" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the control" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the control" and “the predefined position”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the arm" and “the flexible tab”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the flexible" and “the side of the rear surface”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the arm" and “the flexible tab” and “the edge”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the controls in the mounting position of the fastening part”. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
The term “essentially” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of skill would be unable to determine what is required of the phrase “manufactured essentially of a plastic material”.
In claim 16, it cannot be determined if the term “claws” is limiting, as it appears that the modifying term “so-called” may render the term “claws” optional.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and/or 102a2 as being anticipated by Daiwa (EP 2369187 A1), which discloses:
1. A fastening part (10) for fastening a first part to a second part having a hole, the fastening part (10) includes a body which comprises:
-a head (12, 14) having a rear surface (the surface of 14 seen in FIG 1) intended to be positioned opposite the first part, and
-a shank (20, 28) extending from the rear surface of the head and intended to be inserted into the hole;
characterised in that the shank includes fins (30) which project from the shank, and that at least one fin includes, at its free end, a double-head (34, 35) serving as a thread (e.g., as shown in FIG 5).
2. The fastening part (10) according to claim 1, wherein said at least one fin (30) includes a thin area (32) between the shank and the double-head (e.g., see FIG 2).
3. The fastening part (10) according to claim 1, wherein the double-head includes an upper head (34) and a lower head (35) separated by an intermediate space (30), these two heads defining a thread pitch (in the threaded position of FIG 5, see the angles of 34, 35 that define thread pitch).
4. The fastening part (10) according to claim 1, wherein the fins are fir tree like shaped (they are shaped like a branch of a fir tree).
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) 14-15 (15 as understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiwa in view of Brown (US 3,466,966).
Daiwa discloses the invention as claimed with exception to the head having an imprint for receiving a tool, and the fastening part being manufactured essentially of a plastic material. Brown teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to form such a fastening part essentially of a plastic material (col. 3 line 1), and with a head that has an imprint (15) for receiving a tool. To create a cost-effective and durable fastening part that can be easily used with a tool, it would have been obvious to create Daiwa’s fastening part essentially from plastic and to create an imprint on the head for receiving a tool, as taught by Brown.
Claim(s) 5-13 (6-11 and 13 as understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiwa in view of Shim (US 2022/0025916).
Regarding claim 5, Daiwa discloses the invention with exception to the flexible tab as claimed. Shim teaches (see FIG 6) that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to include with a similar fastener: at least one flexible tab (160, 170) which comprises an elastic arm (160) one end of which (the interior) is secured to the body of the fastening part, the arm (160) including a control (170); and in that the arm deforms so that the control fits in a predefined position with respect to a similar head, when the fastening part is in a mounting position in which the first part is fastened to the second part by the fastening part (i.e., as shown in FIG 6). To provide a visual indication that Daiwa’s fastener has fully seated within the threaded hole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a flexible tab, arm, and control which deforms to fit within a slot of Daiwa’s head, as taught by Shim.
Regarding claim 6, Shim also teaches wherein the head includes at least one notch (210), corresponding to the predefined position, intended to receive the control (170) in the mounting position of the fastening part (see FIG 6).
Regarding claim 7, Daiwa also discloses the head (12, 14) includes a front surface (the bottom surface of 12) opposite to the rear surface, and Shim teaches a surface of the control (the outside surface of 170), in the mounting position of the fastening part, is coincident with a similar front surface of the similar head (as seen in FIG 6 of Shim).
Regarding claim 8, Shim also teaches wherein the similar head includes at least one setback (170), intended to accommodate the control (170) once the control fits in the predefined position (as shown in FIG 6), and to prevent the control from moving during unscrewing (at least during the initial part of unscrewing).
Regarding claim 9, Shim teaches wherein the arm of the flexible tab (160) is secured to the rear surface of the head (see FIG 6).
Regarding claim 10, Shim teaches wherein the flexible tab (40) is positioned on the side of the rear surface of the head (see FIG 6, it is positioned on the side of the head which includes the rear surface).
Regarding claim 11, Shim teaches wherein the arm (160) of the flexible tab extends toward (i.e., in the direction of) the edge of the head (see FIG 6).
Regarding claim 12, Shim teaches at least one pair of flexible tabs (160, see FIG 6), wherein the two flexible tabs of the pair of flexible tabs extend in two opposite directions (to the left and right, FIG 6).
Regarding claim 13, Shim teaches at least one pair of notches (210, FIG 5A), each intended to receive one of the controls (170) in the mounting position of the fastening part (FIG 6).
Claim(s) 16 as understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiwa alone.
Daiwa discloses the invention as claimed with exception to the additional metal fins. As understood, “so-called claws” were well-known in the art before the effective filing date (official notice and/or taken as admitted prior art), and it would have been obvious to use additional metal fins (“claws”) as claimed with Daiwa’s fastener in order to provide a more secure attachment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,810,279 discloses a conventional tree fastener with a retractable head for loosening the fastener before removal.
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
8/7/26
Prosecution Insights