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, 3-8, 11-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutshall US3993397 (hereinafter, Gutshall) in view of Stewart US20150204374 (hereinafter, Stewart).
Regarding claim 1, A lock washer (231, see Figs. 11-12) for arranging between two clamping partners in a screw connection (see figures and screw 26), the lock washer comprising:
a first flat side (top side of the washer 231), a second flat side (bottom side of the washer 231) opposite the first flat side, and a central through-opening 238 axially extending between the two flat sides for passage of a clamping shaft (shaft of screw 26 or 126) therethrough, wherein each flat side has a locking structure (see serrated ribs on both sides of the washer 231) with positive structures 254 and negative structures 238 alternating in the circumferential direction (see Fig. 9 for the reference or column 5, lines 49-53) of the lock washer,
wherein the positive structures and the negative structures extend in the radial direction (see Fig. 11 and column 5, lines 49-53), with the negative structures extending, starting from the through-opening 238, over the radial extension of the lock washer up to a radial outer edge of the lock washer (see Fig. 11),
wherein all of the positive structures of the locking structure on the first flat side are arranged offset in the circumferential direction of the lock washer in relation to the positive structures on the second flat side (see Fig. 11 and column 5, lines 49-53), and
wherein each respective positive structure 254 on the two flat sides is arranged opposite a respective negative structure (see negative structure 238 at the bottom of the washer 231) on the other flat side, and
wherein each respective negative structure 238 has a greatest depth in a lower section (see deep portion 238 in Fig. 11) thereof arranged opposite to the respective positive structure 254 on the other flat side, and
wherein the negative structures are each formed stepped in (SI, as indicated in annotated Fig. 11) a course thereof in the circumferential direction (see Fig. 11), with each negative structure having two flat contact surface (FCS, as indicated in annotated Fig. 11) sections separated from one another by the lower section 238 and connected thereto by flanks inclined (see stepped in (SI) inclined flank) relative to the lower section,
wherein the positive structures 254 on the two flat sides (see two flat sides in either side of the positive structure 254 in Fig. 11) of the lock washer are formed as clamping ribs, and the clamping ribs extend in the radial direction (see Fig. 11).
Gutshall fails to teach wherein the width of the respective negative structure in the circumferential direction of the lock washer corresponds to a multiple of the width of the respective positive structure in the circumferential direction.
However, Stewart teaches similar washer 100 having the width (see width between ribs 120 in Fig. 2A) of the negative structure in the circumferential direction of the lock washer 100 corresponds to a multiple of the width of the width of the respective positive structure (124, see Fig. 2A) in circumferential direction.
It is the Examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the width of the respective negative structure disclosed by Stewart in order to increase efficacy of the bolt and the washer over time, particularly where the fastening system is likely to be subject to extreme conditions, loads or vibrations, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Further, Gutshall in view of Stewart fails to expressly teach that the clamping ribs are configured to be pressed into a surface of a clamping partner to provide a form-fit engagement in the circumferential direction with the clamping partner.
However, it is the examiner’s position that Gutshall modified by Stewart meets all the structural limitations of the claim above. Further, it is the examiner’s position that Gustshall in view of Stewart is capable of being configured to be pressed into a surface of a clamping partner to provide a form-fit engagement in the circumferential direction with the clamping partner as intended by the user, since no specific clamping partner has been claimed in current claim set and the user may install the lock washer into desired clamping partner as intended in form fitting manner. Limitations above are considered functional limitations which locking washer based on Gutshall modified by Stewart is capable of meeting.
Therefore, it is considered within routine skill to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed to have used the washer as established above with any two clamping parts like “terminal plate 124 in Gutshall” as intended in a form fitting manner.
Further, Gutshall in view of Stewart fails to expressly teach wherein, when the lock washer is clamped between the two clamping partners, a pre-tension incorporated into the lock washer acts in an axial direction of the lock washer and elastically deforms the lower section of each negative structure in the axial direction.
Gutshall modified by Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations. Further, Stewart discloses protrusion 120 which forms negative structure in Fig. 2A may be one any shape and configuration of the protrusions will be dependent on the material and configuration of the object to be secured (see para. [0023]).
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the material of the lock washer in Gutshall so the lock washer elastically deforms, 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 use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material.
PNG
media_image1.png
197
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 11
Regarding claim 3, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 1, Stewart further teaches wherein the clamping ribs 124 have a height which does not exceed the width (width between ribs 120 in Fig. 2A) thereof extending in the circumferential direction.
Regarding claim 4, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 3, wherein the height of the clamping ribs (see height of clamping ribs 124) appears to be 40 to 60% of the width (see width between ribs 120 in Fig. 2A) of the clamping ribs.
Regarding claim 5, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 1, wherein Gutshall further teaches the clamping ribs 254 extend, starting from the through-opening 238, up to the radial outer edge of the lock washer (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 6, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 5, wherein Gutshall further teaches the clamping ribs 254 have a straight course in the radial direction (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 1, wherein Gutshall further teaches the clamping ribs 254 have a constant cross-sectional geometry and cross-sectional area over their radial extension (see Fig. 11 where the ribs 254 have constant cross section and constant area over in radial direction).
Regarding claim 8, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 1, wherein Gutshall further teaches the negative structures 238 have a constant cross-sectional geometry in their radial extension (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 11, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 1, wherein Gutshall further teaches the two flat contact surface sections (see FCS in annotated Fig. 11 above), which each border a respective one of two adjacent positive structures 254, are located in the plane of the respective flat side of the lock washer for contacting the surface of the clamping partner (any substrate or 24 in Fig. 2) abutting the respective flat side of the lock washer 231.
Regarding claim 12, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 1, wherein Gutshall further teaches the lower section of the greatest depth 238 of the negative structures has a greater extension in the circumferential direction than the respective positive structure 254 located on the opposite flat side in the circumferential direction (see annotated Fig. 11 where the inclined end (In) results the positive structure to be lesser extension than the negative structure in the circumferential direction).
Regarding claim 13, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein, in each segment of the locking structure in the circumferential direction defined by a positive structure and a negative structure, a ratio of the width of the positive structure to that of the negative structure is between 1:4 and 1:7 at the ends of these structures adjacent to the through-opening.
Since, structural limitations of the claim are met by Gutshall modified by Stewart, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the width of the positive structure to that of negative to be in ratio as claimed above in order to increase efficacy of the bolt and the washer over time, particularly where the fastening system is likely to be subject to extreme conditions, loads or vibrations, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the disclosure of the present applicant does not provide any evidence of criticality of the ratio range in para. [0021].
Regarding claim 14, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the ratio is approximately 1:5.
Since, structural limitations of the claim are met by Gutshall modified by Stewart, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the width of the positive structure to that of negative to be in ratio as claimed above in order to increase efficacy of the bolt and the washer over time, particularly where the fastening system is likely to be subject to extreme conditions, loads or vibrations, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the disclosure of the present applicant does not provide any evidence of criticality of the ratio range in para. [0021].
Regarding claim 15, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 1, wherein, in the circumferential direction of the lock washer 231, a span between vertices of two adjacent positive structures on the radial outer edge of the lock washer is greater than a thickness of the lock washer between the two flat sides (see dotted lines between two positive structure greater than the vertical dotted lines in annotated Fig. 11) but less than 2.5 times the thickness thereof (see annotated Fig. 11 where the vertical lines appear to be almost more than half of distance between two positive structure denoted by horizontal dotted line).
Regarding claim 17, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the locking structure on the two flat sides of the lock washer is formed by a pressing process.
The Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the lock washer formed by a pressing process constitute a well-known process of forming a washer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to consider pressing process as a process of making a washer since such process is well-known process in the art.
The Examiner notes that claim 17 is directed to a product-by-process claim where in the process relied upon is “pressing-process”. This limitation is not given patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 18, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 17, but fails to teach wherein the positive structures are formed by a cold forming process.
The Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that the lock washer formed by a cold forming process constitute a well-known process of forming a washer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to consider cold forming process as a process of making a washer since such process is well-known process in the art.
The Examiner notes that claim 17 is directed to a product-by-process claim where in the process relied upon is “cold forming-process”. This limitation is not given patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 19, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the lock washer of claim 1, Gushall in embodiment shown in Fig. 11-12, fails to expressly teach wherein a mouth of the through-opening on each flat side of the lock washer is formed with a chamfer.
However, Gutshall in embodiment shown in Figs. 9-10 teaches a washer 31 wherein a mouth of through-opening 38 of the lock washer is formed with a chamfer (see 47 in Figs. 9-10).
It is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Fig. 11-12 to have chamfers as disclosed in Figs. 9-10 so the chamfer may aid in permitting the washer plate to enter pockets which are undersize, or the tapped hole is off-center, and the relatively sharp peripheral teeth shear or swage mating grooves as the washer is screwed down into its pocket.
Regarding claim 20, Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the screw connection comprising a lock washer according to claim 1 clamped between the two clamping partners, but fails to expressly teach wherein the lock washer is under pre-tension acting in the axial direction of the lock washer with the lower section of each negative structure elastically deformed in the axial direction.
Gutshall modified by Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations. Further, Stewart discloses protrusion 120 which forms negative structure in Fig. 2A may be one any shape and configuration of the protrusions will be dependent on the material and configuration of the object to be secured (see para. [0023]).
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the material of the lock washer in Gutshall so the lock washer elastically deforms, 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 use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues the washer in Gutshall are not configured “to be pressed into a surface of a clamping partner to provide a form-fitting engagement in the circumferential direction with the clamping partner”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gutshall in view of Stewart teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations and the limitation above are considered functional limitations which the combined art is capable of meeting. It is the examiner’s position that lock washer of Gutshall modified by Stewart may be configured to be used in different type of clamping partners as per user requirement and needs.
The applicant argues it would be improper to modify the flat ribs 254 in Gutshall to bite into the screwhead.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gutshall modified by Steward is capable of and can be configured to form fit engagement with the clamping partner as claimed, however no claimed expressly claims that ribs have to bite into the screwhead. Therefore, combination teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations and is capable of functional limitation as claimed.
Rejection based on existing prior arts has been set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights