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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinick et al., US20130336745 (hereinafter, Trinick (‘745)) in view of Bartig et al., DE102015101950 (hereinafter, Bartig).
Regarding claim 1, Trinick (‘745) teaches a self-piercing rivet for use in forming a joining connection between at least two components, the self-piercing rivet comprising:
a rivet head (11, see Fig. 2) and a rivet shank 12 partially defining a central shank bore 13 including a base (B, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2),
the rivet shank including a cylindrical shank outer surface (CSOS, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2), a shank inner surface (SIS, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2) partially defining the central shank bore, an annular piercing end 14 facing away from the rivet head 11, a shank end face 16 located at the annular piercing end 14 between the shank outer surface and the shank inner surface (see Fig. 3; see [0043]) and radially outward of {{the shank inner surface}} (see Fig. 3; see [0043]), and a conical taper surface (17, see Fig. 3; see [0043]) located {{next to}} the shank end face (see Fig. 3; see [0043]),
the shank outer surface (CSOS) having a first diameter D1, the central shank bore defining a bore depth (D, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2) between the base of the central shank bore and the annular piercing end,
the rivet head 11 including an upper portion (top surface of the head 11 in Fig. 2) and a transition region (see Fig. 2 where transition region forms a radius R1) between the upper portion and the shank 12 outer surface.
Trinick (‘745) fails to specifically teach a ratio of the first diameter to the bore depth is in the range of 0.50 ≤ Ds/T ≤ 0.67.
However, Trinick (‘745) does teach a ratio of the first diameter D1 to the bore depth (D) to be 0.673.
(Depth (D) = 9.5 mm (see last line of paragraph [0045])
Diameter (D1) = 6.5 mm +/- 0.1 mm
Therefore, D1/D = 6.4/9.5 = 0.673)
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention, to adjust the ratio as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Trinick (‘745) fails to expressly teach a shank end radius R3, wherein the shank end face is located radially outward of the shank end radius R3, and wherein the conical taper surface is located between the shank end radius and the shank end face.
However, Bartig in the same field of endeavor teaches a similar Punching Rivet having a shank end radius R3 (R2, see Fig. 1) located adjacent the central shank bore (see Fig. 1).
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 annular piercing end of Trinick (‘745) to include a shank end radius R3 located radially inwardly of both the shank end face and the conical taper surface for the purposes of maintaining the piercing effectiveness of the shank end face and having a smoother transition between the conical taper surface and the central shank bore.
Trinick (‘745) fails to specifically teach wherein the upper portion of the rivet head has a height h extending along the longitudinal axis of the self-piercing rivet, and the height h is between 0.2 mm and 0.6 mm.
However, Bartig in the same field of endeavor an upper portion of the rivet head having a height h extending along the longitudinal axis of the self-piercing rivet, and the height h is between 0.2 mm and 0.6 mm (see M1 in Fig. 1 and TABLE 1 in page 4).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the height of the rivet head as disclosed by Trinick (‘745) to be between 0.2 mm and 0.6 mm for a higher axial holding force of the punch-riveted joint, sinch 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
143
226
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 2, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig teaches a self-piercing rivet according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the ratio of the first diameter (19) to the bore depth (20) is in the range of 0.58 ≤ Ds/T ≤ 0.63.
Trinick (‘745) does teach the ratio of the first diameter to the bore depth to be 0.673.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention, to adjust the ratio as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig teaches a self-piercing rivet according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first diameter is about of 5.3 mm.
Trinick (‘745) teaches the first diameter is on 6.5 mm +/- 1 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention, to adjust the ratio as claimed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig teaches a self-piercing rivet according to claim 1, wherein the base (B) is conical or frustoconical (see Fig. 2) and there is an arcuate transition (T, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2) of a radius R2 (paragraph [0044]) between the periphery of the base (B) and the shank inner surface (SIS).
Regarding claim 7, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig teaches a self-piercing rivet according to claim 1, wherein Bartig further teaches, the shank end radius R3 (R2, see Fig. 1) is in the range of 1.2 to 1.4 mm (refer to the Table in page 8 where the value of R2 is less than 2 mm, for example: 1.3 mm).
Regarding claim 13, Trinick (‘745) teaches a self-piercing rivet according to claim 1, wherein Bartig further teaches the annular piercing end (50) has a length (M4, see Fig. 2) of less than 0.3 mm (Table 1, row 9) along the longitudinal axis of the self-piercing rivet (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig teaches self-piercing rivet according to claim 1, wherein Trinick (‘745) fails to expressly teach the bore depth (T) is between 8 mm and 9 mm.
However, Trinick (‘745) does teach the bore depth (L) in Fig. 2 is 9.5 mm.
It is Examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the size of the bore depth to be between 8-9 mm in order to accommodate appropriately sized workpieces, 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).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig, in further view of Trinick US20090116934 (hereinafter, Trinick (‘934)).
Regarding claim 5, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig teaches a self-piercing rivet according to claim 4, but fails to teaches the radius R2 within the range of 0.35 to 0.4 mm.
However, Trinick (‘934), in the same field of endeavor, teaches a self-piercing riveting (rivet shown in Fig. 6) where the radius R2 (R2, see Fig. 6) in the range of 0.35 to 0.4 mm (paragraph 55).
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 radius R2 of Trinick (‘745) to have a radius of 0.4 mm as taught by Trinick (‘934) for improved design and manufacturing purposes which makes joining light-weight materials easier.
Regarding claim 9, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig teaches a self-piercing rivet according to claim 1, further Trinick (‘934) teaches a conical taper surface having an inclusive angle of 90 degrees (see Fig. 5; see [0049]).
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig, in further view of Singh et al., US20100232906 (hereinafter, Singh).
Regarding claim 10, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig teaches a self-piercing rivet for use in forming a joining connection between at least two components, the self-piercing rivet comprising:
a rivet head and a rivet shank partially defining a central shank bore including a base,
the rivet shank including a cylindrical shank outer surface, a shank inner surface partially defining the central shank bore, an annular piercing end facing away from the rivet head, and a shank end face located at the annular piercing end between the shank outer surface and the shank inner surface and radially outward of a shank end radius R3,
the shank outer surface having a diameter, the central shank bore defining a bore depth between the base of the central bore and the annular piercing end,
wherein a ratio of the first diameter (Ds) to the bore depth (T) is in the range of 0.50 ≤ Ds/T ≤ 0.67, and
the rivet head including an upper portion and a transition region between the upper portion and the shank outer surface,
wherein the upper portion of the rivet head has a height h extending along the longitudinal axis of the self-piercing rivet, and the height h is between 0.2 mm and 0.6 mm.
(Limitations of claim 10 above is same as limitations in claim 1, therefore please refer to rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 1)
Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig fails to teach the shank end face is arcuate, and the arcuate shank end face includes a radius of curvature R4 in the range of 0.15 to 0.3 mm.
However, Singh in the same field of endeavor teaches the shank end face (SEF, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) is arcuate (AR, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1), and the arcuate shank end face (SEF) includes a radius of curvature R4 (R1, see Fig. 1) in the range of 0.15 to 0.3 mm (0.3 + 0.2 mm, see paragraph 0042). Having radius of curvature of the arcuate shank end face within the given range helps a manufacturer to design the rivet suitable for joining the elements together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Rivet taught by Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig to have an arcuate surface in the range as taught by Singh for manufacturing an improved rivet with thinner contact/cutting surface which is suitable for joining multiple elements together.
PNG
media_image2.png
353
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 21, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig, in further view of Singh teaches a self-piercing rivet according to claim 10, wherein Trinick (‘745) teaches the rivet shank further includes a conical taper surface (17, see Fig. 3; see [0043]) extending from the shank end radius to the shank end face (as indicated in the above rejection for Claim 1, Trinick (‘745)/Bartig teaches and makes obvious this limitation) and forming a sharp cutting edge with the shank end face (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig, in further view of Kato et al., US20040068854 (hereinafter, Kato).
Regarding claim 11, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig teaches a self-piercing rivet according to claim 1, wherein the transition region has a radius of curvature R1 extending from the shank outer surface to an outer surface of the upper portion of the rivet head (see Fig. 2), the outer surface of the upper portion of the rivet head is flat in cross section (see Figs. 2 and 4 showing upper portion of the rivet head is flat denoted by reference number 15).
Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig fails to teach the transition region having a radius of curvature R1 in the range of 2.1 to 2.3 mm.
However, Kato in the same field of endeavor teaches a similar self-piercing rivet (10, see Fig. 1) having a transition region (9, see Fig. 1) between the upper portion (denoted by L1 in Fig. 1) and the shank outer surface (outer surface of the shank (17)) having a radius of curvature of 2.0 mm (page 2, column 2, lines 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified transitional radius of Trinick (‘745) to Kato’s transitional region with radius range of 2.0 mm or range as claimed (2.1-2.3 mm) as Kato recognizes there could be variation to the test sample transition radius of 2.0 mm and still be within spirit and scope of the invention (paragraph 0023). With reasonable expectation of success, Kato’s transitional radius would be recognized to have variation to be within range 2.1-2.3 mm which is only minimum of 5% adjustment compared to radius of Kato, as one would appreciate to provide improved self-piercing rivet by improving piercing strength of the rivet.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig, in further view of Kotschote et al., US20170216956 (hereinafter, Kotschote).
Regarding claim 12, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig teaches a self-piercing rivet according to claim 1, wherein the rivet head (11) includes an upper surface (top of the head portion (11)) opposite the base (B), but does not teach the specific thickness range, wherein a thickness between the base and the upper surface is in the range of 1.5 to 3.5 mm.
However, Kotschote in the same field of endeavor teaches a thickness (Mk, see Fig. 2) of joining element (5, see Fig. 2) within the range of 1.5 to 3.5 mm (claim 21). Having thickness of the joining element within the claimed range would contribute in designing a robust and durable rivet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have the material thickness of Trinick (‘745) to be modified to the thickness range taught by Kotschote for manufacturing a durable and robust rivet suitable for self-piercing.
Claims 14-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig, and further in view of Campbell et al., US20140242373 (hereinafter, Campbell).
Regarding claim 14, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig teaches a self-piercing rivet including:
a rivet head and
a rivet shank partially defining a central shank bore including a base,
the rivet shank including a cylindrical shank outer surface and a shank inner surface partially defining the central shank bore, an annular piercing end facing away from the rivet head, a shank end face located at the annular piercing end between the shank outer surface and the shank inner surface and radially outward of a shank end radius R3, and a conical taper surface located between the shank end radius and the shank end face,
the shank outer surface having a first diameter (Ds), the central shank bore defining a bore depth (T) between the base of the central shank bore and the annular piercing end,
wherein, before deformation during joint formation, a ratio of the first diameter to the bore depth is in the range of 0.50 ≤ Ds/T ≤ 0.67],
the rivet head including an upper portion and a transition region between the upper portion and the shank outer surface,
wherein the upper portion of the rivet head has a height h extending along the longitudinal axis of the self-piercing rivet, and the height h between 0.2 mm and 0.6 mm.
(Refer to rejection and rationales set forth for claim 1 above)
Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig fails to teach a riveted joint comprising: an upper workpiece and a lower workpiece formed from a brittle material.
However, Campbell in the same field of endeavor teaches an upper workpiece (16, see Fig. 3) and a lower workpiece (18, see Fig. 3) formed from a brittle material (paragraph 22, lines 3-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed self-piercing rivet as taught by Trinick (‘745) with two components as taught by Campbell for improved retaining of the brittle material and reaching to broader user of the rivet increasing its sales.
Regarding claim 15, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig and further in view of Campbell teaches a riveted joint according to claim 14, wherein the first diameter is about 5.3 mm.
(Please refer to the rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 3).
Regarding claim 17, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig and Campbell teaches a riveted joint according to claim 14,
[wherein the shank end radius R3 is in the range of 1.2 to 1.4 mm]
(Refer to the rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 7).
Regarding claim 20, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig and further in view of Campbell teaches a riveted joint according to claim 14, wherein [the annular piercing end has a length of less than 0.3 mm along the longitudinal axis of the self-piercing rivet].
(Please refer to the rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 13).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinick (‘745) in view Bartig and Campbell, and further in view of Trinick (‘934).
Regarding claim 16, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig and Campbell teaches a riveted joint according to claim 14, [wherein the base is conical or frustoconical and there is an arcuate transition of a radius R2 between the periphery of the base and the shank inner surface] (Refer to the rejection set forth for claim 4), and
[the radius R2 is in the range of 0.35 to 0.4 mm]
(Refer to the rejection and rationale set forth for claim 5).
Regarding claim 18, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig and Campbell, and further in view of Trinick (‘934) teaches a riveted joint according to claim 17, wherein
[the conical taper surface has an inclusive angle of 90 degrees]
(Please see the rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 9).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig and Campbell, and further in view of Singh.
Regarding claim 19, Trinick (‘745) in view of Bartig and Campbell, and further in view of Singh teaches a riveted joint according to claim 14, wherein
[the shank end face is arcuate, and the arcuate shank end face includes a radius of curvature R4 in the range of 0.15 to 0.3 mm]
(Please refer to the rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Trinick does not teach a height between 0.2 mm and 0.6 mm and it would not have been obvious to modify the rivet head of Trinick.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Trinick in combination with Bartig teaches the head height as claimed and Bartig clearly discloses the range in Table 1. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in at least claims 1, 10 and 14. Additionally, Trinick in view of Bartig meet the structural limitations of the claim and any changes to the size are considered obvious for intended purpose as set forth in the rejection above.
The Applicant argues Bartig is concerned with joining two sheets (not a thick stack). Thus, the teaching of Bartig would not lead one to decrease the rivet head height of Trinick ‘745.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument.
For correction, the Examiner notes Bartig is concerned with joining at least two workpieces (e.g. minimum of two and possibly more). Similarly, Trinick ‘745 is concerned with joining thick stacks of metal sheets e.g. four sheets. Thus, both prior arts are concerned with and are capable of joining thick stack of sheet metals. Modifications are reasonable as supported by rationale in rejection above. In either case, the argument that applicant presented in regards to using of rivet to join sheet metal is directed to intended use.
The Applicant argues Bartig does not concern joining a thick stack like Trinick ‘745 in page 10, last paragraph.
The Examiner notes that Trinick ‘745 is being modified in view of Bartig where change is shape of head or the bore depth is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art once the structural limitations of the claims are met. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth in rejection above.
Art, filed 10/02/2025, in the IDS has been considered. The Examiner position is that the structural limitation of the claims are met, therefore any change in size is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Please refer to MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(a).
Regarding new claim 22, the applicant’s argument has been considered, however the bore depth (T) has been considered obvious change in shape because it would have been mere change in size of a component to modify the size of bore and within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above for claim 22.
Previous rejected claims in previous Office Action stand rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang et. al., US20180185904 teaches a Joining method of Ultra-Strength Steel and Non-Steel Material where a Self-piercing rivet comprises a head, shank body having shank end face, shank end radius and conical cutting edge.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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