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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capco et al. (US20160003286A1), hereinafter "Capco", in view of Rosenberg (US20190048913A1), hereinafter "Rosenberg".
Regarding claim 1, Capco teaches a blind rivet nut (Fig 3, nut 10) for insertion into an aperture (see Fig 3, Examiner notes an aperture of component 1 as for insertion into an aperture) formed in one or more layers of material (see Fig 3, Examiner notes component 1 as formed in one or more layers of material) comprising:
a head (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0045, Examiner notes head 14 as a head) forming a flange (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0045, head 14);
a shank (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0040, Examiner notes sections 11 and 12 as a shank) extending along a longitudinal axis (see Fig 3) from a head end (see Fig 3, Examiner notes an end of nut 10 adjacent head 14 as from a head end) disposed (see Fig 3) proximal the head (see Fig 3) to a foot end (see Fig 3, Examiner notes an end of nut 10 distal from head 14 as a foot end) and defining a cylindrical bore (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a bore extending through nut 10 as defining a cylindrical bore) extending along the longitudinal axis (see Fig 3) from the head end (see Fig 3) to the foot end (see Fig 3), the cylindrical bore (see Fig 3) having a first bore segment (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0040, Examiner notes a segment of the bore extending through nut 10 in section 12 as having a first bore segment) disposed (see Fig 3) adjacent the foot end (see Fig 3) and provided with an internal thread (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0040, thread 13) and a second bore segment (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0040, Examiner notes a segment of the bore extending through nut 10 in section 11 as a second bore segment) disposed (see Fig 3) adjacent the head end (see Fig 3) and having a second bore diameter (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a diameter of the segment of the bore extending through nut 10 in section 11 as having a second bore diameter) being greater (see Fig 3) than a first bore diameter (Fig 3, diameter Dig) of the first bore segment (see Fig 3); and
the shank (see Fig 3) including a wall (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0040, Examiner notes a wall of section 11 as including a wall) surrounding the second bore segment (see Fig 3) forming a deformable region (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0040, protuberance 15) of the shank (see Fig 3) and having an external wall diameter (Fig 3, diameter Da), and a tapered chamfer (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0041, side 16) extending from (see Fig 3) the wall (see Fig 3) to the foot end (see Fig 3) to define an external foot end diameter (see Fig 3, Examiner notes an external diameter at the end of nut 10 distal from head 14 as an external foot end diameter) for the foot end (see Fig 3) being less (see Fig 3) than the external wall diameter (Da), and wherein a ratio of the external foot end diameter (see Fig 3) to the external wall diameter (Da) is between 0.65 and 0.82 (see Annotated Fig 3 below, Examiner notes Applicant’s blind rivet nut in Fig 2 proportionately resized and overlaid onto Capco’s blind rivet nut in Fig 3 appears to have a ratio of the external foot end diameter to the external wall diameter is between 0.65 and 0.82).
Capco fails to teach a tapered chamfer extending from the wall to the foot end along a foot end angle of 21 to 25 degrees with the longitudinal axis.
However, Rosenberg teaches a tapered chamfer (Fig 10, tapered nose portion 136) extending from (see Fig 10) the wall (see Fig 10, Examiner notes a wall of ramp 130 as the wall) to the foot end (Fig 10, second end 124) along a foot angle (Fig 10, angle A2) of 21 to 25 degrees (see Fig 10, Paragraph 0051, Rosenberg indicates angle A2 could vary between generally 22 degrees and generally 26 degrees) with the longitudinal axis (Fig 10, longitudinal axis LA).
Therefore, as evidenced by Rosenberg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tapered chamfer extending from the wall to the foot end of Capco to be along a foot end angle of 21 to 25 degrees with the longitudinal axis as taught by Rosenberg. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate easier insertion during assembly.
Further, the Examiner respectfully notes with respect to a ratio of the external foot end diameter to the external wall diameter is between 0.65 and 0.82, that in the alternative, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the ratio of the external foot end diameter to the external wall diameter as disclosed by Capco to be between 0.65 and 0.82, 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). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate improving manufacturing of the blind rivet nut, e.g. tolerancing, varying materials having different material properties, tooling, etc.
PNG
media_image1.png
299
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Capco, Annotated Fig 3
Regarding claim 2, modified Capco teaches the blind rivet nut (10) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the ratio (see Annotated Fig 3 above) of the external foot end diameter (see Fig 3) to the external wall diameter (Da) is between 0.74 and 0.81 (see Annotated Fig 3 above).
Regarding claim 3, modified Capco teaches the blind rivet nut (10) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the foot end angle (A2) is of about 23 degrees (see Fig 10, Paragraph 0051, Rosenberg indicates angle A2 could vary between generally 22 degrees and generally 26 degrees).
Regarding claim 6, modified Capco teaches the blind rivet nut (10) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the blind rivet nut (10) is made of a material chosen from one of steel, stainless steel, aluminum (Paragraph 0046, Capco indicates aluminum alloy) or brass.
Regarding claim 7, modified Capco teaches the blind rivet nut (10) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the shank (see Fig 3) has an outer surface in a form of a regular polygonal prism or of a cylinder (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0030, Capco indicates a circular cross section as having an outer surface in a form of a cylinder).
Regarding claim 8, modified Capco teaches a blind rivet nut arrangement (see Fig 3) including the blind rivet nut (10) of claim 1 and a workpiece (Fig 3, component 1) provided with an aperture (see Fig 3, Examiner notes the aperture of component 1 as provided with an aperture) and further teaches wherein the shank (see Fig 3) of the blind rivet nut (10) extends in the aperture (see Fig 3), the head (see Fig 3) contacts (see Fig 3) the workpiece (1) and a portion of the second bore segment (see Fig 3) is deformed (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0040, Examiner notes protuberance 15 as a portion of the second bore segment is deformed) forming a bulge (see Fig 3), such that the workpiece (1) is sandwiched (see Fig 3) between the bulge (see Fig 3) and the head (see Fig 3).
Regarding claim 9, modified Capco teaches the blind rivet nut arrangement (see Fig 3) according to claim 8 but fails to teach wherein the aperture (see Fig 3) is provided with a contour having 12 protrusions.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the aperture to provide a contour having 12 protrusions, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular claimed shape was significant. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a desired shape based on application and use requirements.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capco, in view of Rosenberg and Kashimura (US20130205573A1), hereinafter "Kashimura".
Regarding claim 4, modified Capco teaches the blind rivet nut (10) of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein a first internal chamfer is provided between the first bore segment and the second bore segment, and wherein the first internal chamfer makes an angle of about 60 degrees with the longitudinal axis.
However, Kashimura teaches a first internal chamfer (see Annotated Fig 3 below) is provided between the first bore segment (Fig 3, internal threaded portion 21) and the second bore segment (Fig 3, second tube-shaped portion 23), and wherein the first internal chamfer (see Annotated Fig 3 below) makes an angle (see Annotated Fig 3 below) of about 60 degrees (see Annotated Fig 3 below) with the longitudinal axis (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0039, Kashimura indicates a central axis).
Therefore, as evidenced by Kashimura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped first internal chamfer as taught by Kashimura to modified Capco. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate reliable mounting of the blind nut to panels having a wide range of thicknesses as well as to prevent buckling mishap (Kashimura, Paragraphs 0015-0016).
PNG
media_image2.png
685
499
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kashimura, Annotated Fig 3
Regarding claim 5, modified Capco teaches the blind rivet nut (10) of claim 4 and further teaches wherein a second internal chamfer (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a chamfer between sections 11 and 12 as a second internal chamfer) is provided between (see Fig 3) the first bore segment (see Fig 3) and the second bore segment (see Fig 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kraemer (DE3513644A) and Linsel (US20180003210A1) cited in PTO-892 on August 3, 2023, appears to also teach a ratio of the external foot end diameter to the external wall diameter is between 0.65 and 0.82 when proportionately resizing and overlaying Applicant’s blind rivet nut in Fig 2 onto Fig 1 of Kraemer and Fig 2 of Linsel
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (ET).
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights