DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference number “152”, as depicted in figure 5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 is indefinite as there is no upper limit introduced. See MPEP 2173.05(c), section II.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shakespeare Abrasive Industry Suppliers (URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20220627213521/https://www.smsales.com/shakespeare_parts.php?catID=8 | hereinafter “Shakespeare”).
In regard to claim 1 (and, similarly claims 11 and 16), Shakespeare discloses: A fastener (i.e., as shown in the annotated figure(s) below) comprising:
a central body extending along and centered on a longitudinal axis, the central body defining an inner surface that faces inward towards the longitudinal axis, the central body defining an upper surface that defines a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (i.e., as shown in the annotated figure(s) below);
a threading extending from the inner surface towards the longitudinal axis (i.e., as shown in the annotated figure(s) below);
a platform extending radially from the central body away from the longitudinal axis, wherein the central body defines an upper portion above the platform and a lower portion below the platform, the upper surface defined by the upper portion and facing away from the platform, the platform and the upper surface defining a distance therebetween that is measured along the longitudinal axis (i.e., as shown in the annotated figure(s) below); and
a plurality of planar surfaces defined in the upper portion and that face away from the longitudinal axis, the plurality of planar surfaces extending at least 80% of the first distance between the platform and the upper surface (i.e., as shown in the annotated figure(s) below).
PNG
media_image1.png
679
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1069
1020
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2 (and, similarly claims 12 and 17), Shakespeare further discloses: wherein the plurality of planar surfaces are collectively symmetrically arranged around the longitudinal axis (i.e., as shown in the annotated figure(s) in the claim 1 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 3, Shakespeare further discloses: wherein the plurality of planar surfaces consist of six surfaces configured to interface with a hex fastening device (i.e., as shown in the annotated figure(s) in the claim 1 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 4, Shakespeare further discloses: a first tapering (i.e., corresponding to the “lower portion”) between (i.e., radially between) the plurality of planar surfaces and the platform (i.e., as shown in the annotated figure(s) in the claim 1 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 8, Shakespeare further discloses: wherein the inner surface defines a curved upper inner surface above the threading, the curved upper inner surface defining a cylindrical shape that faces towards the longitudinal axis (i.e., as shown in the annotated figure(s) in the claim 1 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 10, Shakespeare further discloses: wherein the inner surface defines a curved lower inner surface below the threading, the curved lower inner surface defining a cylindrical shape that faces towards the longitudinal axis (i.e., as shown in the annotated figure(s) in the claim 1 rejection herein).
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.
Claim(s) 5-7, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakespeare Abrasive Industry Suppliers (URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20220627213521/https://www.smsales.com/shakespeare_parts.php?catID=8 | hereinafter “Shakespeare”).
In regard to claim 5 (and, similarly claims 13 and 18), the embodiment of Shakespeare, as introduced in the claim 1 rejection herein is silent in regard to: wherein the first tapering extends upward and towards the longitudinal axis as the first tapering transitions from the platform to the plurality of planar surfaces.
Nonetheless, Shakespeare teaches that similar type of flange nuts can comprise of tapering transitions from its platform to its plurality of planar surfaces such as shown in “SZ18/SZ14”.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the transitioning from the platform to the plurality of planar surfaces, as taught by the claim 1 rejection embodiment of Shakespeare herein, to be tapered, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). Additionally, since the Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed design feature(s) solves any problem(s) or is for a particular reason, it appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the disclosed modifications.
In regard to claim 6 (and, similarly claims 14 and 19), the embodiment of Shakespeare, as introduced in the claim 1 rejection herein is silent in regard to: a second tapering between the plurality of planar surfaces and the upper surface.
Nonetheless, Shakespeare teaches that similar type of flange nuts can comprise of a second tapering between the plurality of planar surfaces and the upper surface such as shown in “SZ18/SZ14” and “LZ18/LZ14”.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the transitioning between the plurality of planar surfaces and the upper surface, as taught by the claim 1 rejection embodiment of Shakespeare herein, to be tapered, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). Additionally, since the Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed design feature(s) solves any problem(s) or is for a particular reason, it appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the disclosed modifications.
In regard to claim 7, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Shakespeare further discloses: wherein the second tapering extends upward and towards the longitudinal axis as the second tapering transitions from the plurality of planar surfaces to the upper surface (i.e., as taught by claim 6 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 15, Shakespeare discloses: wherein the inner surface defines a curved upper inner surface above the threading, the curved upper inner surface defining a cylindrical shape that faces towards the longitudinal axis, wherein the curved upper inner surface extends a first distance below the upper surface, wherein the threading defines a second distance as measured along the longitudinal axis.
However, Shakespeare is silent in regard to: wherein the first distance is at least 25% of the second distance.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Shakespeare as claimed, since it has been held by the courts 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 Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
In regard to claim 20, Shakespeare discloses: wherein the inner surface defines a curved upper inner surface above the threading, the curved upper inner surface defining a cylindrical shape that faces towards the longitudinal axis, wherein the curved upper inner surface extends a first distance below the upper surface, wherein the threading extends a second distance above the platform as measured along the longitudinal axis.
However, Shakespeare is silent in regard to: wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Shakespeare as claimed, since it has been held by the courts 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 Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references in the PTO-892 relate to female flange fasteners.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights