CTFR 17/456,319 CTFR 97108 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura US20040052612 (hereinafter, Miura) . Regarding claim 1 , A scrivet fastener 1 for coupling a panel 61 to a mating structure 53, the scrivet fastener comprising: a head 11; a shaft (26A, 26B, see Figs. 1-4) extending from the head to a distal end (DE, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) of the shaft, wherein a distal section (28A, 28B, see Figs. 1, 3-4) of the shaft has a cylindrical bearing surface (see Fig. 1 showing 28A, 28B showing vertical which appears cylindrical bearing surface); and a compliant retention flange 31 extending radially outward from the shaft (see Figs. 1-2), the compliant retention flange axially located between the head 11 and the cylindrical bearing surface (see cylindrical surface of the shaft 26A, 26B) and axially spaced apart from each of the head and the cylindrical bearing surface (see Fig. 1), wherein a neck section (see neck region 27A, 27B in Fig. 1) is axially disposed between the distal section of the shaft (end section of the cylindrical distal end towards bottom of the fastener) and the compliant retention flange 31, and wherein the neck section is cylindrical (see Fig. 1 showing cylindrical outer surface). the cylindrical bearing surface friction fit coupling to the mating structure within the hole (see Figs. 6-8 & para [0028] where the fastener is press fit into attaching hole), wherein the compliant retention flange is configured to secure to a deformable material of the panel (It is the Examiner’s position that a deformable material is not positively claimed and limitation is claimed using ‘configured to’ language, therefore the elastic retention flange 31 of Miura is capable of being configured to secure a deformable material of the panel). Miura fails to expressly teach that the scrivet fastener is configured to at least temporarily couple the panel to the mating structure. It is the Examiner’s position that the fastener in Miura is capable of being configured to temporarily couple the panel to the mating structure as required by the limitation. Further, the Examiner notes that the fastener is capable of performing the functional limitations above required by the claim. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the functional limitations, but those functional limitations are considered obvious when the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art. Please refer to para. [0029-0032] showing the state where the fastener of Miura is used as shown in Figs. 7-8. PNG media_image1.png 288 324 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 4 Regarding claim 5 , Miura teaches and/or make obvious of the scrivet fastener of claim 1, wherein an entirety of the shaft from the neck section 13 to and including the distal section (DE) is cylindrical (see Fig. 1) and devoid of any flange (see Fig. 1), the neck section 13 being narrower than the cylindrical bearing surface (see neck portion 13 narrower than the shaft 26A, 26B). Regarding claim 6 , Miura teaches the scrivet fastener of claim 1, wherein Miura further teaches the compliant retention flange 31 having a diameter greater than a diameter of an opening of the panel hole 62 to cause at least a portion of the compliant retention flange to deflect upon entering the panel hole. Miura fails to expressly teach wherein the shaft and the compliant retention flange are configured to be received within a panel hole defined by the panel. However, it is the Examiner’s position that Miura meets all the structural limitation of the claimed fastener and is fully capable of being configured to be received within a panel hole defined by the panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have the shaft and the compliant retention flange to be configured to be received within a panel hole for secured attaching of panel with an attaching member (see Figs. 7-8 and para. [0027]). Regarding claim 11 , Miura teaches the scrivet fastener of claim 1, wherein the head 11, the shaft 26A, 26B, and the compliant retention flange 31 are comprised of a unitary, monolithic body (see Fig. 6) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-10, 12-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Selle US200100196091 (hereinafter, Selle) . Regarding claim 7 , Miura teaches the scrivet fastener of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the compliant retention flange includes at least two flexible tabs circumferentially spaced apart from one another for engaging with the deformable material of the panel. However, Selle teaches similar fastener 100 having compliant retention flange includes at least two flexible tabs 141A, 141B circumferentially spaced apart from one another for engaging with the deformable material of the panel (It is the Examiner’s position that the tabs as shown in Fig. 1 of Selle is capable of being engage with the deformable material of the panel). 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 retention flange Miura to have at least two flexible tabs as taught by Selle to save the material and/or assign various purpose to tabs like preventing movement of the fastener in transverse direction (see claim 5). Regarding claim 8 , Miura in view of Selle teaches the scrivet fastener of claim 7, wherein Selle further teaches the compliant retention flange includes at least three flexible tabs 141A, 141B, 131A radially projecting in different directions within a common plane (see Selle Fig. 1 and rationale as established in rejection of claim 7). Regarding clam 9 , Miura in view of Selle teaches the scrivet fastener of claim 7, wherein Selle further teaches each of the at least two flexible tabs 141A ,141B comprises a curved edge (see tapered tabs in Figs. 1A, 1B) at an end of the flexible tab (see para. [0046]). Regarding claim 10, Miura in view of Selle teaches the scrivet fastener of claim 7, wherein Selle fails to expressly teach that each of the at least two flexible tabs is deflectable towards the head when inserting the scrivet fastener to secure the panel to the mating structure. The Examiner notes that the functional limitations above are considered obvious of the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the functional limitations as claimed, but it is the Examiner’s position that Miura modified by Selle is capable of performing such functional limitations. Thus, such limitation is considered obvious as obvious of anticipated by the prior art. It is the Examiner’s position that Miura in view of Selle teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations of the claim above and flexible tabs in Selle are capable of deflecting and/or bending towards the head when inserting the scrivet fastener to secure the panel to the mating structure (see Selle para. [0060]). Regarding claim 12 , Miura teaches a method for coupling a panel to a mating structure, the method (para. [0026-0036]) comprising: aligning a first hole 62 defined in the panel 61 with a second hole 54 defined in the mating structure 53 (see para. [0026-0027]), inserting a scrivet fastener 1 into the first and second holes, the scrivet fastener including a head 11, a shaft 26A, 26B, and a compliant retention flange 31, the shaft extending from the head to a distal end (DE, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4 above) of the shaft, the compliant retention flange 31 extending radially outward from the shaft and axially spaced apart from the head, wherein a distal section of the shaft has a cylindrical bearing surface (see cylindrical body of shaft 26A, 26B), wherein a neck section 13 is axially disposed between the distal section of the shaft and the compliant retention flange (see Fig. 1), and wherein the neck section is cylindrical (see Fig. 1); friction fit coupling (see rejection of claim 1 above where friction fit is established base on teaching of Miura) the cylindrical 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 61 to the mating structure 53, wherein the inner surface of the mating structure defines the second hole 54. Miura fails to teach the panel comprising a deformable material. However, Selle teaches similar fastener having a panel 201 comprising a deformable material 301. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention for Miura to have a panel comprising a deformable material for safety of the fastener and/or substrate, and adhesively secured to the substrate (see Fig. 3). Further, Miura modified by Selle teaches process of securing the scrivet fastener to the panel via the compliant retention flange engaging the deformable material of the panel within the first hole. 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 . Regarding limitations in claim 13 above, Miura in view of Selle teaches and/or make obvious of the claimed invention except for a second scrivet fastener. However, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have produce multiple scrivet fastener, 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 , Miura in view of Selle teaches and/or make obvious of 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 . It is the Examiner’s position that Miura modified by Selle is capable of being configured to exert a force so the distal end of the shaft is uncoupled from the mating structure such that the fastener remains attached to the panel via the complaint retention flange being secured to the deformable material (see Miura, Figs. 7-8), especially with the Selle teaching where the deformable material is adhesively secured to the substrate. 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. It is the Examiner’s position that Miura modified by Selle is capable of meeting the limitation in claim 15 where scrivet fastener maybe removed without permanently damaging the scrivet fastener because the fastener as disclosed by Miura is a clip fastener. Please refer to Figs. 7-8 of Miura. 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 (see Miura, Figs. 7-8 where the fastener is inserted through holes of panel 61 and mating structure 53 to couple it together). Regarding claim 18 , Miura in view of Selle teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations below, a coupling assembly (see coupling assembly of Miura in Figs. 1, 7-8 and Selle in Figs. 1-4) comprising: a panel 301 that includes a deformable material 301; a mating structure that defines one or more holes that extend into the mating structure; and (Structural limitations of fastener here below are similar to claims 1, 6 and 12, please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above) one or more scrivet fasteners that at least temporarily couple the panel to the mating structure, each of the one or more scrivet fasteners comprising: a head; a shaft extending from the head to a distal end of the shaft, wherein a distal section of the shaft has a cylindrical bearing surface, and a compliant retention flange extending radially outward from the shaft, the compliant retention flange axially located between the head and the cylindrical bearing surface and axially spaced apart from each of the head and the cylindrical 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, 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 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 . Regarding claim 19 , Miura in view of Selle teaches 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 fasteners 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. It is the Examiner’s position that Miura modified by Selle is capable of being configured to exert a force away from the mating structure so the distal end of the shaft is uncoupled from the mating structure such that the fastener remains attached to the panel via the complaint retention flange being secured to the deformable material (see Miura, Figs. 7-8), especially with the Selle teaching where the deformable material is adhesively secured to the substrate. Regarding claim 21, Miura in view of Selle teaches and/or make obvious of the the coupling assembly of claim 18, wherein Miura further teaches an entirety of the shaft from the neck section 13 to and including the distal section (see distal end (DE) as indicated in annotated Fig. 4 above) is cylindrical and devoid of any flange (see Fig. 1), the neck section 13 being narrower than the cylindrical bearing surface (see Fig. 1). Regarding claim 22 , Miura in view of Selle teaches the method of claim 12, wherein Miura further teaches an entirety of the shaft 26A, 26B from the neck section 13 to and including the distal section is cylindrical and devoid of any flange (see Fig. 1), the neck section 13 being narrower than the cylindrical bearing surface (see Fig. 1). Response to Arguments Applicant’s amendment in response to drawing objection in previous Office Action has been accepted, therefore drawing objection set forth in previous Office Action has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered however they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Miura does not anticipate, nor render unpatentable to the distal section of the shaft has a cylindrical bearing surface. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in Fig. 1 and reproduced Fig. 5 of Miura here, the surface clearly meets the claimed limitation of a cylindrical bearing surface. The Examiner notes that the claim limitation does not require a cylindrical shape but a cylindrical surface which Miura clearly shows a parallel surface 28A, 28B in Figs. 1 and 5. Also, please refer to solid circular line connecting projections 28A, 28B in Fig. 5 which aid the formation of cylindrical surface. PNG media_image2.png 298 336 media_image2.png Greyscale As established above, the rejections in previous Office Action stands. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 2 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 3 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 4 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 5 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 6 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 7 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 8 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 9 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 10 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 11 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 12 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 13 Art Unit: 3675 Application/Control Number: 17/456,319 Page 14 Art Unit: 3675
Prosecution Insights