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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bengtsson et al. (US 9106011 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Bengtsson teaches “A working machine comprising:
an electrical component;
at least two structural bodies each having electrical conductivity; and
a conductive screw to conductively connect the at least two structural bodies to each other.” (See abstract)
Regarding claim 2, Bengtsson teaches “The working machine according to claim 1, 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 col. 5, ln. 49);
and a coating film on the metal base (coating layer, col. 5, ln. 49); and
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 col. 7, ln. 39)
Regarding claim 3, Bengtsson teaches “The working machine according to claim 1, 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 col. 5, ln. 49); and
a coating film on the metal base (coating layer, see col. 5, ln. 49); and
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 col. 8, ln. 25)
Regarding claim 4, Bengtsson teaches “The working machine according to claim 2, wherein
the conductive screw includes:
a shaft including a screw thread to be screwed into at least one structural body of the at least two structural bodies overlapping each other (see col. 8, ln. 24); and
a protrusion defining the peeling structure that protrudes outward in a radial direction of the shaft from the screw thread.” (Outermost edge of the threads themselves comprise peeling/cutting structure, see col. 8, ln. 25)
Regarding claim 5, Bengtsson teaches “The working machine according to claim 4, wherein
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; 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 col. 7, ln. 38, see Bengtsson, Figure 7.1)
PNG
media_image1.png
366
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bengtsson, Figure 7.1
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson et al. (US 9106011 B2), in view of Levin (WO 2005025005 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Bengtsson teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 4 above, except “wherein the conductive screw includes:
a large-diameter portion that is a portion of the shaft close to a proximal end of the shaft;
the protrusion defining the peeling structure that protrudes outward in the radial direction of the shaft from the screw thread is provided on an outer peripheral surface of the small-diameter portion.”
However, Levin 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;
the protrusion defining the peeling structure that protrudes outward in the radial direction of the shaft from the screw thread is provided on an outer peripheral surface of the small-diameter portion.” (See Levin, Figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine larger diameter peeling structure as taught by Levin with the conductive fastener as taught by Bengtsson, to create a conductive pathway into the plate or member closest to the head of the screw, so that current may flow from the plate or member farthest from the head of the screw, through the conductive screw, and into the plate or member closest to the head of the screw, electrically joining the entire assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image2.png
513
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Levin, Figure 2
Regarding claim 7, Bengtsson, in view Levin, teaches “The working machine according to claim 6, 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 a circumferential direction of the shaft.” (See Levin, Figure 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine larger diameter peeling structure as taught by Levin with the conductive fastener as taught by Bengtsson, to create a conductive pathway into the plate or member closest to the head of the screw, so that current may flow from the plate or member farthest from the head of the screw, through the conductive screw, and into the plate or member closest to the head of the screw, electrically joining the entire assembly, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image3.png
519
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Levin, Figure 3
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson et al. (US 9106011 B2), in view of Sun et al. (US 20240141613 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bengtsson teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 1 above, except “wherein the at least two structural bodies include:
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 “wherein the at least two structural bodies include:
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.” (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, 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 Sun, teaches “The working machine according to claim 8, 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, 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 teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 9 above, except “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 teaches all the limitations of the claims, as applied to claim 10 above, except “wherein the conductive screw has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the fastening screw.”
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)
Sawanishi et al. (JP 2001173627 A)
Takano et al. (DE 4428699 A1)
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
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights