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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4, 10, 13, 14 and 24-26 remain in the application as withdrawn. Claims 4, 10, 13 and 14 appear would be in condition for rejoinder. However, claims 24-26, may not be in condition for rejoinder because of a possible 112 rejection in regards to “a slug” being a double inclusion.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the slug must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 15-19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The disclosure does not provide sufficient disclosure of the slug for one skilled in the art to understand it’s formation and resulting structure. While disclosure describes there can be a punched out slug it is only found in the summary (p.[0020] and [0029]) without there being any detail as how or where it is formed nor its resulting structure.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 15-19, 21 and 23 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. Again in regards to the slug added to the claims by the amendment, it is unclear if it is intended to be positively recited, and in which claims, or it is merely a recitation of intended use. In claim 1, it is introduced as only adapted to be formed. Then in dependent claim 17, which introduces the combination with the workpiece, it is still only included a adapted to be formed and is then also unclear if “a slug” is introducing another slug or referring back to the same slug introduced in claims 1. And while withdrawn, claims 24, again introduces as “a slug”. So generally, the meets and bounds of the slug and its’ relation to the fastening unit is unclear.
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 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 15-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Humpert (US 2006/0159545). Humpert discloses a fastening unit (11) for fastening to a workpiece (10) comprising: a rivet element (14) and a separate reshaping element (12) coupled coaxially to the rivet element in a free state by a means of a reshaping section which has a coupling section (18) plugged into a recess (48) of a rivet section (42). The rivet element is ring shaped (Fig. 3). The reshaping element has a reshaping section with a curved surface (22) diverging outward and a support section (58) remote from the reshaping section for axially supporting the fastening unit at a workpiece abutment. The support section is supporting the reshaping element on the abutment such that an axial movement of the rivet element relative to the reshaping element the rivet section is reshaped radially outward by the reshaping section to fasten the fastening unit to the workpiece (Fig. 7). The outer contour of the reshaping element does not project beyond the rivet section (Fig. 4); the self-punching is recitation of intended use; the support section includes an elevated portion (36); the reshaping element includes a functional section in the form of an external thread (16); and the reshaping section includes axial ribs (24) to provide security against rotation. Humpert additionally discloses the fastening unit in combination with a sheet metal part (Fig. 18) with a prefabricated opening (110) where a reshaped section of the rivet section engages a backside of the workpiece. The regards to the slug, it is interpreted as an intended use for the fastening unit since it is prefaced by “adapted to” where the fastening unit of Humpert would be capable of forming a slug.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-6, 9, 11-12, 17-19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodgers (US 3,078,002). In considering the embodiment shown in Figs. 8-9, Rogers discloses component assembly comprising: a hollow workpiece (6) including a sheet metal part (3; paragraph bridging columns 1 and 2) and an abutment formed on the workpiece (5); and a fastening unit (1) for fastening to a workpiece. The fastening unit comprising: a rivet element (60) and a separate reshaping element (67) coupled coaxially to the rivet element. The rivet element is ring shaped with a rivet section (64). The reshaping element has a reshaping surface (68) diverging radially outward, and a support surface (71) remote from the reshaping surface axially supporting the fastening unit at the abutment and the rivet is reshaped to have a portion engage behind the workpiece (Fig. 9). The support surface includes a projection (70); and the reshaping section includes a coupling section plugged into a recess of the rivet reshaping section as pointed to below. The regards to the slug, it is interpreted as an intended use for the fastening unit since it is prefaced by “adapted to” where the fastening unit of Rogers would be capable of forming a slug.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, 15-19, 21 and 23 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humpert and/or Rogers as applied above, and further in view of Ghiran (US 7,179,033). Neither Humpert not Rogers discloses the workpiece is deformed so a slug of the workpiece is clamped between the fastening unit and workpiece. Ghiran discloses a fastening unit (10) in combination with a workpiece (22) where the fastening unit deforms the workpiece (p.[22]) to form a slug (56) between the fastening unit and workpiece (p.[29]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to form a slug between the fastening unit and workpiece of either Humpert and/or Rogers as disclosed in Ghiran in order for the slug to remain integral with the workpiece and for it not to be floating around which may cause problems.
Response to Remarks
The new grounds of rejection address the introduction of the slug so no further reply in regards thereto is believed necessary.
Applicant additionally argues in regards to Humpert (US 2006/0159545) that Humpert does not disclose the forming section and support section spaced apart from one another. Applicant argues that in Humpert both the support section and reshaping section are formed at the same head end. In response, the examiner disagrees because the head has a first end anticipating the support section (58) and a second end spaced from (remote from) the first end anticipating the reshaping section (22). And, there in nothing claimed which precludes the inclusion of the holt element extending from the reshaping section.
PNG
media_image2.png
492
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FLEMMING SAETHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7071. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 7:00 eastern.
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.
/FLEMMING SAETHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights