DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 14, claim 14 does not exist.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 14, claim 14 does not exist.
It is assumed that these are typographical errors, and claims 5 and 6 will be considered as dependent on claim 1 instead of claim 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, paragraph 5, filed 9/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim 1 and all associated dependent claims under USC 102(a)(1) and USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made on the amended claims as detailed in the following section in view of new prior art, Sawanishi et al. (JP 2001173627 A) and Givens et al. (US 10577825 B1), and previously discussed prior art Bengtsson et al. (US 9106011 B2) and Sun et al. (US 20240141613 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson et al. (US 9106011 B2), in view of Sawanishi et al. (JP 2001173627 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bengtsson teaches “A working machine comprising:
an electrical component (see Bengtsson, Abstract);
at least two structural bodies each having electrical conductivity (see Bengtsson, Abstract); and
a conductive screw to conductively connect the at least two structural bodies to each other (see Bengtsson, Abstract);
wherein at least one structural body of the at least two structural bodies conductively connected by the conductive screw includes:
a metal base having electrical conductivity (see Bengtsson, col. 5, ln. 49); and
a coating film on the metal base (coating layer, see Bengtsson, col. 5, ln. 49);
the conductive screw includes, at a portion thereof to be in contact with the at least one structural body, a peeling structure to peel off the coating film and bring the conductive screw into contact with the metal base (projections to scrape away coating layer, see Bengtsson, col 7, ln. 39); and
the conductive screw includes:
a shaft including a screw thread to be screwed into the at least one structural body of the at least two structural bodies overlapping each other (screw threads into structural bodies 2 and 1 fastening them together in an overlapping fashion).”
Bengtsson does not teach “a plurality of protrusions defining the peeling structure that each protrude outward in a radial direction of the shaft from the screw thread and that are spaced apart in a circumferential direction of the shaft.”
However, Sawanishi teaches “a plurality of protrusions defining the peeling structure that each protrude outward in a radial direction of the shaft from the screw thread (scraping protrusions, 4, extend radially out from threads, 31a and 32a, see Sawanishi, Figure 2) and that are spaced apart in a circumferential direction of the shaft (scraping protrusions, 4, are spaced apart along radius of threads, see Sawanishi, Figure 4).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scraping protrusions located directly on the threads of the fastener itself, as taught by Sawanishi, into the electrically conductive fastener comprising scraping portions only on the abutment surface of the screw head (col.7, ln. 38), as taught by Bengtsson, in order to effectively breach the insulated coating on both of the structural member from the inside of the hole itself, relying not only on the force of the threads but also the cutting edge of the scraping portions to create a conductive path along the entire inner surface area of the hole, not just at the abutment surface of the screw head, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bengtsson, Figure 6
PNG
media_image2.png
346
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sawanishi, Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
392
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sawanishi, Figure 4
Regarding claim 3, Bengtsson, in view of Sawanishi, teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above. Further, Bengtsson teaches “wherein the conductive screw includes, at a portion thereof to be in contact with the at least one structural body, a contact spot to penetrate the coating film and come into contact with the metal base (threads penetrate coating layer, see Bengtsson, col. 8, ln. 25).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scraping protrusions located directly on the threads of the fastener itself, as taught by Sawanishi, into the electrically conductive fastener comprising scraping portions only on the abutment surface of the screw head (col.7, ln. 38), as taught by Bengtsson, in order to effectively breach the insulated coating on both of the structural member from the inside of the hole itself, relying not only on the force of the threads but also the cutting edge of the scraping portions to create a conductive path along the entire inner surface area of the hole, not just at the abutment surface of the screw head, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Bengtsson, in view of Sawanishi, teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above. Further, Bengtsson teaches “the conductive screw includes:
a head at a proximal end of the shaft and including a mating surface to come into contact with one of the structural bodies (screw head comprises abutment surface, see Bengtsson col. 7, ln. 46, and Figure 7, Annotation Set 1); and
a protrusion defining the peeling structure that protrudes from the mating surface (abutment surface of screw head comprises scraping teeth to penetrate coating layer, see Bengtsson col. 7, ln. 38, and Figure 7, Annotation Set 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scraping protrusions located directly on the threads of the fastener itself, as taught by Sawanishi, into the electrically conductive fastener comprising scraping portions only on the abutment surface of the screw head (col.7, ln. 38), as taught by Bengtsson, in order to effectively breach the insulated coating on both of the structural member from the inside of the hole itself, relying not only on the force of the threads but also the cutting edge of the scraping portions to create a conductive path along the entire inner surface area of the hole, not just at the abutment surface of the screw head, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image4.png
366
351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bengtsson, Figure 7, Annotation Set 1
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson et al. (US 9106011 B2), in view of Sawanishi et al. (JP 2001173627 A) and Givens et al. (US 10577825 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Bengtsson, in view of Sawanishi, teaches all the limitations of the claims as applied to claim 1 above. Further, Sawanishi teaches “
the plurality of protrusions defining the peeling structure that each protrudes outward in the radial direction of the shaft from the screw thread are provided on an outer peripheral surface of the small-diameter portion (see Sawanishi, Figure 4).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scraping protrusions located directly on the threads of the fastener itself, as taught by Sawanishi, into the electrically conductive fastener comprising scraping portions only on the abutment surface of the screw head (col.7, ln. 38), as taught by Bengtsson, in order to effectively breach the insulated coating on both of the structural member from the inside of the hole itself, relying not only on the force of the threads but also the cutting edge of the scraping portions to create a conductive path along the entire inner surface area of the hole, not just at the abutment surface of the screw head, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Bengtsson, in view of Sawanishi, does not teach “wherein the conductive screw includes:
a large-diameter portion that is a portion of the shaft close to a proximal end of the shaft; and
a small-diameter portion that is another portion of the shaft closer to a distal end of the shaft than the large-diameter portion and has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the large-diameter portion;
the small-diameter portion includes a screw thread to be screwed into the at least one structural body that is closest to the distal end of the shaft of the at least two structural bodies overlapping each other, and the large-diameter portion is configured to be able to be fitted into a large-diameter hole provided in a structural body that is closest to a proximal end of the shaft among the at least two structural bodies overlapping eachother.
However, Givens teaches “wherein the conductive screw includes:
a large-diameter portion that is a portion of the shaft close to a proximal end of the shaft (large diameter section, 60, is closest to proximal end, 54, see Givens, Figure 17); and
a small-diameter portion that is another portion of the shaft closer to a distal end of the shaft than the large-diameter portion and has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the large-diameter portion (smaller diameter section, 56, is closest to distal end of shaft, 50, see Givens, Figure 17);
the small-diameter portion includes a screw thread to be screwed into the at least one structural body that is closest to the distal end of the shaft of the at least two structural bodies overlapping each other (smaller diameter section, 56, comprises threads, 58, that interface with structural body, 46, closest to end of shaft, 50, see Givens, Figure 17 ), and the large-diameter portion is configured to be able to be fitted into a large-diameter hole provided in a structural body that is closest to a proximal end of the shaft among the at least two structural bodies overlapping eachother (large diameter section, 60, fits into large diameter hole, 88, closest to proximal end, 54, see Givens, Figure 17).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a larger diameter section of the fastener closest to the proximal end of the fastener, as taught by Givens, into the electrically conductive fastener, as taught by Bengtsson, in view of Sawanishi, in order to both increase the contact surface area associated with the proximal end of the fastener by increasing diameter accordingly, and create a differential in size that would prevent the incorrect or inverted installation of the fastener, ensuring streamlined assembly of the working machine, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image5.png
561
471
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Givens, Figure 17
Regarding claim 7, Bengtsson, in view of Sawanishi and Givens, teaches all the limitations of the claims as applied to claim 6 above. Further, Givens teaches “wherein the large-diameter portion includes, as the peeling structure, a convex thread and a concave thread on an outer periphery thereof, the convex thread and the concave thread extending lengthwise in an axial direction of the shaft and being alternately aligned in the circumferential direction of the shaft (see Givens, Figures 11 and 12).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scraping protrusions located directly on the threads of the fastener itself, as taught by Sawanishi, into the electrically conductive fastener comprising scraping portions only on the abutment surface of the screw head (col.7, ln. 38), as taught by Bengtsson, in order to effectively breach the insulated coating on both of the structural member from the inside of the hole itself, relying not only on the force of the threads but also the cutting edge of the scraping portions to create a conductive path along the entire inner surface area of the hole, not just at the abutment surface of the screw head, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a larger diameter section of the fastener closest to the proximal end of the fastener, as taught by Givens, into the electrically conductive fastener, as taught by Bengtsson, in view of Sawanishi, in order to both increase the contact surface area associated with the proximal end of the fastener by increasing diameter accordingly, and create a differential in size that would prevent the incorrect or inverted installation of the fastener, ensuring streamlined assembly of the working machine, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image6.png
399
303
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Givens, Figure 11
PNG
media_image7.png
297
310
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Givens, Figure 12
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson et al. (US 9106011 B2), in view of Sawanishi et al. (JP 2001173627 A) and Sun et al. (US 20240141613 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bengtsson, in view of Sawanishi, teaches “The working machine according to claim 1, wherein the at least two structural bodies include:
[multiple frames] are brought into conduction by the conductive screw (see Bengtsson, Abstract).“
Bengtsson, in view of Sawanishi, does not teach “a traveling frame;
a turning frame coupled to the traveling frame so as to be turnable about an axis extending in an up-down direction; and
a support frame coupled to the turning frame, to support another structure”
However, Sun teaches “a traveling frame (see Sun, paragraph 0097);
a turning frame coupled to the traveling frame so as to be turnable about an axis extending in an up-down direction (see Sun, paragraph 0097); and
a support frame coupled to the turning frame, to support another structure (see Sun, paragraph 0097)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scraping protrusions located directly on the threads of the fastener itself, as taught by Sawanishi, into the electrically conductive fastener comprising scraping portions only on the abutment surface of the screw head (col.7, ln. 38), as taught by Bengtsson, in order to effectively breach the insulated coating on both of the structural member from the inside of the hole itself, relying not only on the force of the threads but also the cutting edge of the scraping portions to create a conductive path along the entire inner surface area of the hole, not just at the abutment surface of the screw head, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the technique of joining two conductive bodies making up construction equipment with a conductive screw as taught by Bengtsson may be applied to the joining of a turning frame and a travelling frame as taught by Sun, in order to construct an excavator that is properly grounded for electrical safety, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Bengtsson in view of Sawanishi and Sun, teaches all of the limitations of the claims as applied to claim 8 above. Further Bengtsson, in view of Sun, teaches “wherein the turning frame includes a fixture portion to fix the support frame to the turning frame while being overlapped with the turning frame (see Sun, paragraph 0097) by two or more male screws (see Bengtsson, col. 5, ln. 63); and at least one of the two or more male screws is the conductive screw.” (See Bengtsson, col. 5, ln. 63)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scraping protrusions located directly on the threads of the fastener itself, as taught by Sawanishi, into the electrically conductive fastener comprising scraping portions only on the abutment surface of the screw head (col.7, ln. 38), as taught by Bengtsson, in order to effectively breach the insulated coating on both of the structural member from the inside of the hole itself, relying not only on the force of the threads but also the cutting edge of the scraping portions to create a conductive path along the entire inner surface area of the hole, not just at the abutment surface of the screw head, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the technique of joining two conductive bodies making up construction equipment with two or more conductive screws as taught by Bengtsson may be applied to the joining of a turning frame and a travelling frame as taught by Sun, that is properly grounded for electrical safety and better able to resist any moment applied to the joined interface via a force couple provided by a pair of fasteners, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Bengtsson in view of Sawanishi and Sun, teaches all of the limitations of the claims as applied to claim 9 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scraping protrusions located directly on the threads of the fastener itself, as taught by Sawanishi, into the electrically conductive fastener comprising scraping portions only on the abutment surface of the screw head (col.7, ln. 38), as taught by Bengtsson, in order to effectively breach the insulated coating on both of the structural member from the inside of the hole itself, relying not only on the force of the threads but also the cutting edge of the scraping portions to create a conductive path along the entire inner surface area of the hole, not just at the abutment surface of the screw head, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, Bengtsson, in view of Sun, teaches “two or more fastening male screws to fix the support frame to the fixture portion in addition to the conductive screw; wherein the conductive screw connects the fixture portion and the support frame between the two or more fastening male screws.”
The Office takes note that fastening male screws designed for load bearing are old and well known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to supplement the conductive screws taught by Bengtsson with standard load bearing screws on either side, to increase the allowable load of the fixture with the help of cost effective, commonly available industry standard fasteners, instead of multiple specialty fasteners while maintaining a fastener symmetry that is better able to resist any moment applied to the joined interface via a force couple, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Bengtsson in view of Sawanishi and Sun, teaches all of the limitations of the claims as applied to claim 10 above, except “wherein the conductive screw has a diameter smaller than a diameter of each of the two or more fastening male screws.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the scraping protrusions located directly on the threads of the fastener itself, as taught by Sawanishi, into the electrically conductive fastener comprising scraping portions only on the abutment surface of the screw head (col.7, ln. 38), as taught by Bengtsson, in order to effectively breach the insulated coating on both of the structural member from the inside of the hole itself, relying not only on the force of the threads but also the cutting edge of the scraping portions to create a conductive path along the entire inner surface area of the hole, not just at the abutment surface of the screw head, with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reduce the size of the conductive fastener taught by Bengtsson, knowing that the majority of the load is taken by the load bearing fasteners in order to save on material costs associated with the specialty fastener, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited references all disclose threaded fasteners that aid in creating a conductive path.
Bady (DE 19960736 C1)
Takano et al. (DE 4428699 A1)
Levin (WO-2005025005-A1)
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/JRC/
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
October 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights