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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh (TW 201504533).
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh discloses a wall installation Fig. 10 comprising: a wall panel 3; a plurality of framing members 4; and a plurality of fasteners 1, wherein the wall panel is secured to the framing members by passing at least two of the fasteners through the wall panel into each of the framing members, wherein each fastener comprises: a head 11; a shaft 10; and a sleeve 2, wherein the shaft extends from a lower surface of the head, wherein a first portion of the shaft includes a helical thread Fig. 10, wherein the sleeve surrounds a second portion of the shaft, and wherein the sleeve is made of an elastomeric material and wherein vibro-acoustic energy that encounters the wall panel and travels through the fasteners to the framing members is capable of being attenuated by the sleeves of the fasteners. However, Hsieh fails to explicitly disclose a material having a Shore A hardness in the range of 10 to 30. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 2, Hsieh as modified discloses wherein the sleeve 2 is fixed to the second portion of the shaft 10.
Regarding claim 3, Hsieh as modified discloses wherein at least a portion of the sleeve 2 is a conical frustrum having a first end defining a maximum width of the sleeve and a second end defining a minimum width of the sleeve.
Regarding claim 4, Hsieh as modified discloses wherein the maximum width of the sleeve 2 is equal to a maximum width of the head 11.
Regarding claim 5, Hsieh as modified discloses wherein the maximum width of the sleeve 2 is less than a maximum width of the head 11.
Regarding claim 6, Hsieh as modified discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the maximum width of the sleeve is greater than a maximum width of the head. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 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. In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 7, Hsieh as modified discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the maximum width of the sleeve 2 is in the range of greater than 0.125 inches (3.0 mm) to 0.5 inches (12.5 mm). Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the sleeve to any number of ranges (i.e. 0.125 inches (3.0 mm) to 0.5 inches (12.5 mm)) disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Hsieh as modified discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the minimum width of the sleeve is in the range of 0.125 inches (3.0 mm) to less than 0.5 inches (12.5 mm). Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the sleeve to any number of ranges (i.e. 0.125 inches (3.0 mm) to 0.5 inches (12.5 mm)) disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Hsieh as modified discloses wherein the first end of the sleeve 2 abuts the lower surface of the head 11. Regarding claim 10, Hsieh as modified discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a slope of the conical frustrum from the maximum width to the minimum width is in the range of 3 degrees to 30 degrees. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a slope of the conical frustrum to any number of ranges (i.e. 3 degrees to 30 degrees) disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Hsieh as modified discloses wherein at least a portion of the sleeve 2 is a cylinder having a diameter that corresponds to the maximum width of the sleeve.
Regarding claim 12, Hsieh as modified discloses wherein the cylinder is situated between the head 11 and the conical frustrum.
Regarding claim 13, Hsieh as modified discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length of the sleeve is in the range of 0.25 inches (6.0 mm) to 1 inch (25.4 mm). Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a length of the sleeve to any number of ranges (i.e. 0.25 inches (6.0 mm) to 1 inch (25.4 mm)) disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Hsieh as modified discloses wherein a length of the sleeve 2 is less than one half the length of the shaft 10.
Regarding claim 15, Hsieh as modified discloses wherein a length of the sleeve 2 is equal to one half the length of the shaft.
Regarding claim 16, Hsieh as modified discloses invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length of the sleeve is greater than one half the length of the shaft. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a length of the sleeve to any number of ranges (i.e. greater than one half) disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, Hsieh as modified discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a width of the sleeve is the same along a length of the sleeve, wherein the width of the sleeve is in the range of 0.125 inches (3.0 mm) to 0.5 inches (12.5 mm), and wherein the length of the sleeve is in the range of 0.25 inches (6.0 mm) to 1 inch (25.4 mm). Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a length and width of the sleeve to any number of ranges (i.e. 0.125 inches (3.0 mm) to 0.5 inches (12.5 mm), 0.25 inches (6.0 mm) to 1 inch (25.4 mm), respectively) disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 18, Hsieh as modified discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length of the shaft is in the range of 0.25 inches (6.0 mm) to 1.625 inches (41.28 mm). Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a length of the shaft to any number of ranges (i.e. 0.25 inches (6.0 mm) to 1.625 inches (41.28 mm)) disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, Hsieh as modified discloses wherein an upper surface of the head 11 has an indentation 110 to facilitate rotation of the fastener 1 by a tool that interfaces with the indentation.
Regarding claim 20, Hsieh as modified discloses wherein the framing member 4 is a wall stud.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE G BYRD whose telephone number is (571)270-1824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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 Fulton can be reached at 5712727376. 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.
/EUGENE G BYRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights