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, 5-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickabus et al., US6431585 (hereinafter, Rickabus) in view of Qiao US6305892 (hereinafter, Qiao).
Regarding claim 1, Rickabus teaches a dual stage fastener (see Fig. 1) similar to a scrivet fastener for coupling a panel to a mating structure, the scrivet fastener comprising:
a head 36;
a shaft 34 extending from the head to a distal end 32 of the shaft, wherein a distal section (section towards the distal end 32) of the shaft has a cylindrical shape (see Fig. 1) and a cylindrical shape bearing surface (see cylindrical shape and cylindrical shape bearing surface of the shank 34), wherein a neck section 30 is axially disposed between the distal section (towards distal end 32) of the shaft and the compliant retention flange (established below in modification), and wherein the neck section is cylindrical (see Fig. 1),
wherein the scrivet fastener is configured to at least temporarily couple the panel 22 to the mating structure 16 via the distal section of the shaft being received in a hole of the mating structure (see Fig. 4) and the cylindrical shape bearing surface friction fit (see pads 35 cooperate with the wall of the shaft 16 to allow the pin 14 to be releasably held in the grommet 12 in Fig. 4) coupling to the mating structure within the hole (see Fig. 4), wherein the compliant retention flange is configured to secure to a deformable material of the panel (intended use).
Rickabus fails to teach a complaint retention flange as claimed.
However, Qiao teaches a fastener 30 for removably attaching a speaker grill as shown in Fig. 3 having a compliant retention flange 43 extending radially outward from the shaft (see Figs. 3-4 and 6), the compliant retention flange axially located between the head 37 and the cylindrical shape bearing surface (CSBS, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) and axially spaced apart from each of the head and the cylindrical shape bearing surface (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the pads in Rickabus to a plurality of resilient branches as taught by Qiao so the resilient branches grip the wall of aperture to securely affix the fastener and provide with frictional engagement with the wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
354
248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding claim 5, Rickabus in view of Qiao teaches and/or make obvious of the scrivet fastener of claim 1, Rickabus further teaches wherein an entirety of the shaft 34 from the neck section 30 to and including the distal section is cylindrical (see Fig. 1) and devoid of any flange, the neck section 30 being narrower than the cylindrical shape bearing surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Rickabus in view of Qiao teaches and/or make obvious of the scrivet fastener of claim 1, modification established above in claim 1 teaches wherein the shaft and the compliant retention flange are configured to be received within a panel hole defined by the panel (see claim 1 above), the compliant retention flange having a diameter greater than a diameter of an opening of the panel hole to cause at least a portion of the compliant retention flange to deflect upon entering the panel hole (see column 2, lines 43-49 in Qiao).
Regarding claim 7, Rickabus in view of Qiao teaches and/or make obvious of the scrivet fastener of claim 1, wherein Qiao further teacehs the compliant retention flange includes at least two flexible tabs (see Fig. 4 in Qiao) circumferentially spaced apart from one another for engaging with the deformable material of the panel.
Regarding claim 8, Rickabus in view of Qiao teaches and/or make obvious of the scrivet fastener of claim 7, wherein Qiao further teaches the compliant retention flange includes at least three flexible tabs (see Fig. 4 in Qiao) radially projecting in different directions within a common plane.
Regarding claim 9, Rickabus in view of Qiao teaches and/or make obvious of the scrivet fastener of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein each of at least two flexible tabs comprises a curved edge at an end of the flexible tab.
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the pads in Rickabus to have a curved edge end for effective insertion and/or pulling out of the retainer pin, 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).
Regarding claim 10, Rickabus in view of Qiao teaches and/or make obvious of the scrivet fastener of claim 7, wherein Qiao further teaches each of the at least two flexible tabs 43 is deflectable towards the head when inserting the scrivet fastener to secure the panel to the mating structure (see Figs. 3 and 6 in Qiao).
Regarding claim 11, Rickabus in view of Qiao teaches and/or make obvious of the scrivet fastener of claim 1, wherein Rickabus modified by Qiao further teaches the head, the shaft, and the compliant retention flange are comprised of a unitary, monolithic body (see Fig. 1 in Rickabus).
Regarding claim 12, A method for coupling a panel to a mating structure, the method
comprising:
aligning a first hole defined in the panel with a second hole defined in the mating structure, the panel comprising a deformable material;
inserting a scrivet fastener into the first and second holes, the scrivet fastener including a
head, a shaft, and a compliant retention flange, the shaft extending from the head to a distal end of the shaft, the compliant retention flange extending radially outward from the shaft and axially spaced apart from the head, wherein a distal section of the shaft has a cylindrical shape and a cylindrical shape bearing surface, wherein a neck section is axially disposed between the distal section of the shaft and the compliant retention flange, and wherein the neck section is cylindrical;
securing the scrivet fastener to the panel via the compliant retention flange engaging the deformable material of the panel within the first hole; and
friction fit coupling the cylindrical shape bearing surface of the shaft to an inner surface of the mating structure to secure the scrivet fastener to the mating structure and couple the panel to the mating structure, wherein the inner surface of the mating structure defines the second hole.
Concerning Claim 12¸ Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art. Given the structural elements of the combination of Rickabus and Qiao (as rejected in claims 1-11 above) would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 13, The method of claim 12, wherein the scrivet fastener is a first scrivet fastener, and the method comprises inserting a second scrivet fastener into one or more holes defined in the panel and the mating structure to couple the panel to the mating structure at a location spaced apart from the first scrivet fastener.
Given the structural elements of the combination of Rickabus and Qiao (as rejected in claims 1-11 above) would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second scrivet fastener into one or more holes in the panel, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 14, The method of claim 12, further comprising pulling the panel away from the mating structure such that a force exerted by the panel on the head of the scrivet fastener pulls the distal section of the shaft out of the second hole of the mating structure to uncouple the panel from the mating structure such that the scrivet fastener remains attached to the panel via the compliant retention flange being secured to the deformable material.
Concerning Claim 14¸ Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art. Given the structural elements of the combination of Rickabus and Qiao (as rejected in claims 1-11 above) would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination. See method claims in Qiao and column 3, lines 1-11 stating the removal of the speaker grille without damaging the fastener.
Regarding claim 15, The method of claim 14, further comprising extracting the scrivet fastener from the first hole of the panel by exerting a removal load on the scrivet fastener that deflects the compliant retention flange to unsecure the compliant retention flange from the deformable material of the panel without permanently damaging the scrivet fastener.
Concerning Claim 15¸ Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art. Given the structural elements of the combination of Rickabus and Qiao (as rejected in claims 1-11 above) would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination. See method claims in Qiao and column 3, lines 1-11 stating the removal of the speaker grille without damaging the fastener.
Regarding claim 16, The method of claim 15, further comprising inserting the scrivet fastener into a first hole of a second panel and a second hole of a second mating structure to couple together the second panel and the second mating structure.
Concerning Claim 16¸ Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art. Given the structural elements of the combination of Rickabus and Qiao (as rejected in claims 1-11 above) would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 18, Rickabus modified by Qiao teaches and/or make obvious of a coupling assembly comprising:
a panel (see 22, in Fig. 4 of Rickabus) that includes a deformable material (see Fig. 4);
a mating structure 16 that defines one or more holes that extend into the mating structure; and
one or more scrivet fasteners that at least temporarily couple the panel to the mating structure (see scrivet fastener established in claim 1), each of the one or more scrivet fasteners comprising:
a head (see 36, in Fig. 1 of Rickabus);
a shaft 34 extending from the head to a distal end 32 of the shaft, wherein a distal section (end towards distal end) of the shaft has a cylindrical shape and a cylindrical shape bearing surface (see Fig. 1 of Rickabus); and
a compliant retention flange extending radially outward from the shaft, the compliant retention flange axially located between the head and the cylindrical shape bearing surface and axially spaced apart from each of the head and the cylindrical shape bearing surface, wherein a neck section is axially disposed between the distal section of the shaft and the compliant retention flange, and wherein the neck section is cylindrical,
(see rejection and rationale established in claim 1 above based on Rickabus modified by Qiao)
wherein the distal section of the shaft is secured to the one or more holes of the mating
structure via friction fit couplings between the cylindrical shape bearing surface and respective
inner surfaces of the mating structure that the define the one or more holes, and the compliant
retention flange is secured to the deformable material of the panel.
(see rejection and rationale established in claim 1 above based on Rickabus modified by Qiao)
Regarding claim 19, The coupling assembly of claim 18, wherein the mating structure is a floor panel within an internal cabin of a vehicle, and the panel is a floor cover.
It is the Examiner’s position that structural limitations of the claimed invention are met and the limitations of claim 19 above related to the mating structure being a floor panel is given little to no patentable weight since the mating structure is not positively claimed.
Regarding claim 20, The coupling assembly of claim 18, wherein, when a pulling force is exerted on the panel in a direction away from the mating structure with at least a threshold magnitude, the distal end of the one or more scrivet fasteners is configured to exit the one or more holes of the mating structure, and the compliant retention flange is configured to remain secured to the deformable material of the panel.
Claim language above are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of the fastening system, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the fastener of Rickabus modified by Qiao, is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that 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.
Regarding claim 21, The coupling assembly of claim 18, wherein an entirety of the shaft from the neck section to and including the distal section is cylindrical and devoid of any flange, the neck section being narrower than the cylindrical shape bearing surface.
It is the examiner’s position that limitations in claim 21 are similar to claim 5 above, therefore Rickabus modified by Qiao still teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations above. Please refer to the rejection and/or rationale set forth above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 22, The method of claim 12, wherein an entirety of the shaft from the neck section to and including the distal section is cylindrical and devoid of any flange, the neck section being narrower than the cylindrical shape bearing surface.
It is the examiner’s position that structural limitations in claim 22 are similar to claim 5 above, therefore Rickabus modified by Qiao still teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations above. Please refer to the rejection and/or rationale set forth above in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-16 and 18-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
