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, 6-8 and 12, 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt US20070243035 (hereinafter, Pratt) in view of Mohrman US3455362 (hereinafter, Mohrman), in further view of Bergholz et al., US4348140 (hereinafter, Bergholz).
Regarding claim 1, Pratt teaches a Mechanically Locked Blind Bolt Fastener similar to a blind fastener configured to be installed in a bore of a given length, the blind fastener comprising:
a sleeve member (30, see Figs. 1-4) having a head 32, a tail (end opposite to the head 32 in Fig. 2), wherein the sleeve member is configured to deform (see claims 5-6 and refer to Fig. 9) during installation of the blind fastener, the sleeve member having a predefined outer surface region (predefined outer surface region, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2) that is arranged to be disposed within the bore after installation of the blind fastener;
a bolt member 20 at least partially received within the sleeve member (see Figs. 1-2), the bolt member having a head end (head end, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2) on which a head 22 is formed, and a tail end (Tail end, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2) opposite to the head end, wherein the tail end of the bolt member is flat (see Fig. 2 where the flat end is flat); and
an insulating member 40 fixedly disposed on the sleeve member,
wherein the insulating member and the sleeve member are mutually configured such that the insulating member is present on a first sub-region 42 of the predefined outer surface region and is not present on a second sub-region (second sub-region, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2) of the predefined outer surface region, each of the first and second sub-regions comprising a complete circumference of the sleeve member (see Figs. 2 and 4),
wherein the first sub-region 42 comprises a tapered portion (see tapered region 54 in Fig. 2) having a decreasing diameter away from the second sub-region (see Fig. 2),
wherein the complete circumference of the sleeve member is continuous at the first sub-region (see Figs. 2 and 4),
wherein the circumferential protrusion is configured to be received within the circumferential recess to form a mechanical interlock (52, see Fig. 2) between the sleeve member and the insulating member and to prevent relative axial movement of the insulating member and the sleeve member.
Pratt fails to teach the insulating member comprising an interlocking circumferential recess formed in an inner surface of the insulating member, and the sleeve member comprising an interlocking circumferential protrusion extending radially outward from sleeve member in the first sub-region.
Pratt does teach opposite features where the insulating member comprises protrusion 56 and the sleeve member comprises the recess (57, see Fig. 2).
However, Mohrman teaches an insulating member 16 comprising an interlocking circumferential recess (see internal thread configured to mate with external thread 15 of bushing 13) and the sleeve member 13 comprising an interlocking circumferential protrusion 15 extending radially outward from sleeve member in the first sub region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Pratt the mechanical interlock, where the insulating member comprises recess and the sleeve member to comprise protrusion, as taught by Mohrman for improved interlocking of the sleeve and the insulating member and/or for saving material and cost when replacing the insulating member with recess after damage.
Pratt in view of Mohrman fails to expressly teach a deformable sleeve member.
However, Pratt does hints that it is possible for the sleeve 30 and insulating member 40 in Fig. 2 to be deformable (see para. [0028]).
Further, Bergholz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a connection device (see Figs. 3-4) having a deformable sleeve member 14 and an insulating member 15.
The Examiner interprets, 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 sleeve member of Pratt to be deformable as taught by Bergholz so the deformed bead or collar effects a solid seating of the rivet nut or sleeve in the structural member (Column 4, lines 1-16).
PNG
media_image1.png
210
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 2, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches the blind fastener according to claim 1, wherein Pratt further teaches the first sub-region 42 is nearer to a tail end of the blind fastener (see Fig. 2) and the second sub-region is nearer to a head end of the blind fastener (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches a blind fastener according to claim 1, wherein Pratt further teaches a diameter of the first sub-region 42 is smaller than the diameter of the second sub-region (see annotated Fig. 2), by an amount equal to a thickness of the insulating member (refer to the thickness different at the overlapping portion and/or a sleeve-to-body lock (52) portion showing that the thickness difference equals the thickness of the insulating member).
Regarding claim 4, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches the blind fastener according to claim 1, wherein Pratt further teaches a diameter of the second-sub region is equal to an outer diameter of the insulating member (refer to annotated Fig. 2 showing the outer diameter of the second sub-region is equal to an outer diameter of the insulating member).
Regarding claim 6, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches the blind fastener according to claim 1, wherein Pratt further teaches the outer surface of the deformable section (see deformable section (42) does not overlap the predefined outer surface region (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches the blind fastener according to claim 1, wherein Pratt further teaches the blind fastener is moveable between a pre-installation configuration in which the sleeve member is undeformed (the fastener disclosed by Pratt is capable of moving within the structure bore during pre-installation state) and the tail end of the sleeve member (sleeve tail end, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2) has a first axial position (see Fig. 2) relative to the bolt member, and a post-installation (see Fig. 9 as a reference for post-installation state where the sleeve tail end is moved up to the shank of the bolt due to deformation of the sleeve) configuration in which the sleeve member is deformed and the tail end of the sleeve member has a second, different axial position relative to the bolt member (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches the blind fastener according to claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein the insulating member is elastically deformable or is plastically deformable.
However, Pratt does teach that the insulating member (40, deformable sleeve) can be made of a malleable material that has the ability to expand without fracturing. For example, annealed AISI 304 stainless steels. Therefore, the sleeve/insulating member as taught by Pratt is capable of plastically deforming.
Further, the Examiner would like to point that the Pratt meets the structural limitation of the fastener and the sleeve. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have the insulating member made of material that is elastically deformable or plastically deformable, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches the blind fastener according to claim 1, wherein Pratt further teaches a tail end of the insulating member is open (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches an assembly comprising:
a structure having a bore connecting a first side of the structure to a second side of the structure (see paragraph [0031], lines 1-4 for structural panel); and
a blind fastener according to claim 1 installed in the bore.
The Examiner notes claim 14 recites installed in the bore and is interpreted as intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 15, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches an assembly according to claim 14, wherein an end part of the insulating member of the blind fastener is disposed within the bore. The Examiner notes in Paragraph [0031], the blind bolt fastener fastens a pair of structural panels together, where the head sits near a top of a cavity to meet the claim as currently recited.
The Examiner is interpreting the blind fastener of Pratt meets the limitation of wherein an end of the part of the insulating member of the blind fastener is disposed within the bore.
The Examiner notes claim 14 recites installed in the bore and is interpreted as intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 16, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches the assembly according to claim 15, wherein an outer surface of the part of the insulating member which is disposed within the bore is in close contact with the bore, and the second sub-region of the predefined outer surface region of the sleeve member is in close contact with the bore.
The Examiner is interpreting the blind fastener of Pratt meets the limitation of wherein an outer surface of the part of the insulating member is in close contact with the bore and the second sub-region of the sleeve member is in close contact with the bore.
The Examiner notes claim 14 recites installed in the bore and is interpreted as intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 17, Pratt in view Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches the assembly according to claim 14, wherein the structure comprises a first sub-structure and a second sub-structure fastened together by the blind fastener.
(Please refer to paragraph [0031], lines 1-4 for structural panel)
Regarding claim 18, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches an assembly according to claim 17 wherein a head of the blind fastener abuts the first sub-structure and a tail of the blind fastener abuts the second sub-structure (Pratt is capable of limitations above and, please see paragraph [0031]).
Pratt fails to teach wherein an axial length of the first sub-region is less than a thickness of the second sub-structure.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have an axial length of the first sub-region less than a thickness of the second sub-structure, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Further, it is noted that it is a design choice to have the length of first-sub region less than a thickness of the second sub-structure, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches the assembly according to claim 14, but fail to teach wherein the structure comprises a composite material.
The Examiner would like to point that the Pratt meets the structural limitation of the fastener and the sleeve in claim 14. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have the structure comprises a composite material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 20, An assembly according to claim 19, wherein the structure further comprises a metallic material.
The Examiner would like to point that the Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz meets the structural limitation of the fastener and the sleeve in claim 19. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have the structure further comprises a metallic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 21, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz as modified above in the rejection of claim 1 teaches the blind fastener, but fails to teach a fuel tank comprising the blind fastener.
The Examiner take Official Notice that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the blind fastener on a fuel tank in order to connect two or more components on a fuel tank.
The Examiner notes that Pratt discloses blind fasteners are used in a variety of applications. Paragraph [0003].
Regarding claim 22, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches an aircraft (aircraft, paragraph [0008]) comprising a blind fastener according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches the blind fastener according to claim 1, wherein a top surface of a head of the sleeve member (30, see Fig. 2) abuts a lower surface of a head of the bolt member (see Fig. 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz, in further view of Phillips US4984946 (hereinafter, Phillips).
Regarding claim 13, Pratt in view of Mohrman, in further view of Bergholz teaches a blind fastener according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the tail end of the insulating member is closed such that the tail end of the bolt member and the tail end of the sleeve member are enclosed within the insulating member.
However, Phillips in the same field of endeavor teaches similar Blind Fastener where the tail end of the insulating member (44, see Figs. 1-2) is closed such that the tail end of the bolt member (20, see Fig. 1) and the tail end of the sleeve member (25, see Figs. 1-2) are enclosed within the insulating member (see Fig. 2).
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 tail end of the sleeve member of Pratt to have closed end as taught by Phillips to prevent damages from the bolt to the structure/substrate and prevent the bolt from damages like rust.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/16/2025, have been considered.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 12-23 stands rejected. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above based on existing and newly found prior art.
Conclusion
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