DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action for US Application 19/107,100 for a Screw With Stepped Head.
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 § 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.
Claims 9-11 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 2 and 9 recite the broad recitation “a plurality of steps”, and the claims also recite “at least two steps” at which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 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) 1-7 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2004108531 to Saito. Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a screw (1) that is a wood screw having a head (12), wherein the head is stepped (12d). Regarding claim 2, the head has a plurality of steps (12… 4 total), wherein the steps are arranged one behind the other along a longitudinal axis, and wherein the steps are arranged directly one behind the other. Regarding claim 3, the steps extend perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the screw, and lower edges of the steps run perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 4, a conical region is formed between adjacent steps. Regarding claim 5, the head is formed rotationally symmetrical to the longitudinal axis of the screw, and the steps are arranged annularly around the longitudinal axis of the screw. Regarding claim 6, the steps are circular-cylindrical in shape and have centrally located openings (12c) for a drive of a tool. Regarding claim 7, the steps are designed in such a way that a connection of outermost lateral points forms a lateral surface, and the lateral surface has an opening angle of 80 degrees to 100 degrees (the angle is approximately 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 12, Saito discloses a screw comprising a head (12) comprising a plurality of steps (12d), wherein the steps are arranged one behind the other along a longitudinal axis of the screw. Regarding claim 13, the steps extend perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the screw. Regarding claim 14, lower edges of the steps run perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. Regarding claim 15, a conical region is formed between adjacent steps.
Regarding claim 16, the head is formed rotationally symmetrical to a longitudinal axis of the screw, and the steps are arranged circumferentially around the longitudinal axis of the screw. Regarding claim 17, the head further comprises a centrally located opening (12c) for a drive of a tool. Regarding claim 18, the steps are designed in such a way that a connection of the outermost lateral points forms a lateral surface, and the lateral surface has an opening angle of 80 degrees to 100 degrees (the angle is approximately 90 degrees).
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) 8-11, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of US 2005/0063796 to Dicke. Regarding claims 8 and 19, Saito does not disclose the head as having support pieces on the steps for support in a fitting, wherein the support pieces are arranged symmetrically with respect to the longitudinal axis. Dicke provides a teaching of providing a head (4) of a screw (1) with a support pieces (16) arranged symmetrically with respect to the longitudinal axis, for sinking into a fitting (see paragraphs 0017 and 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided support pieces symmetrically around a longitudinal axis of the head of Saito for the purpose of providing an improved connection by sinking into a fitting as taught by Dicke. Combining Saito and Dicke would result in the support pieces being formed around the steps of the head.
Regarding claim 9, the screw of Saito has at least two steps (2d), and the plurality of support pieces would be arranged on each step.
Regarding claim 10, Saito in view of Dicke does not specifically disclose the support pieces respective extending at an angle of 10 to 50 degrees, but the specific angle is a design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention depending on the desired connection between the support pieces and a fitting to which the screw is attached.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, two support pieces would be respectively arranged on different steps one behind the other in alignment along the longitudinal axis on directly successive steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0073547 to Chao
US 2024/0209889 to Friis
US 2022/0196060 to Spoor
US 2018/0100533 to Dill
US 5870934 to Cullinan
US 5730567 to Haseley
US 2021/0062852 to Call
US 2024/0197376 to Timothy
GB 2329947 to Robinson
EP 23330551 to Ruhl
The above prior art discloses various screws.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights