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 1-2, 6-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nason US3653294 (hereinafter, Nason) in view of Auriol et al. US5651172 (hereinafter, Auriol).
Regarding claim 1, Nason, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a fastener, comprising:
a sleeve having (2, see Fig. 1):
a tubular portion (TP, as indicated in annotated Fig. 5) including a first end (FE, as indicated in annotated Fig. 5) and a second end (SE, as indicated in annotated Fig. 5) opposite the first end (FE),
a head (H, as indicated in annotated Fig. 5) located at the first end (FE), and
a deformable portion (DP, as indicated in annotated Fig. 5) located at the second end (SE),
wherein the deformable portion (DP) includes
a first ramped portion (FR, as indicated in annotated Fig. 3), wherein the first ramped portion includes
an interior portion (IP, as indicated in annotated Fig. 3), and
an exterior portion (EP, as indicated in annotated Fig. 3) opposite the interior portion (IP); and
wherein the first ramped portion has a variable thickness (see thickness of first ramped portion (FR) in annotated Fig. 3 and unannotated Fig. 3 showing variable thickness resulted by the groove 12) including a first thickness located at the first end of the sleeve (see thickness of the sleeve wall towards first end near nut 16) and a second thickness proximate to the second end of the sleeve (see comparatively thinner thickness of ramped portion resulted by groove 12 and threads 24 compared to first end above), and wherein the first thickness is greater than the second thickness (see Figs. 1 and 3); and
a core pin (1, see Fig. 1) having:
a first end (FE2, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) and a second end (SE2, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) opposite the first end (FE2) of the core pin (1),
an elongated shank portion (ESP, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) between the first end (FE2) of the core pin (1) and the second end (SE2) of the core pin (1),
wherein the elongated shank (ESP) portion includes
a threaded portion (26, see Fig. 4) proximate the second end (SE2) of the core pin (1),
wherein the threaded portion of the core pin includes thread-forming external threads (The external thread of the core pin in Nason is capable of forming thread since external thread (26) is capable of deforming the female nut (see column 1, lines 69-74)),
a head (18, see Fig. 1) at the first end (FE2) of the core pin (1), and
a second ramped portion (SR, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) proximate to the head (18),
wherein the sleeve (2) is configured to receive the core pin (1), and
wherein the fastener (refer to Fig. 1) is configured to secure a plurality of workpieces to one another (refer to Fig. 1),
wherein the thread-forming external threads of the core pin are configured to form corresponding internal threads in the internal smooth wall of the sleeve (The external thread of the core pin in Nason is capable of forming thread since external thread (26) is capable of deforming the female nut (refer to column 1, lines 69-74) in Nason),
wherein the second ramped portion (SR) is configured to engage (see Fig. 1 the interior portion (IP) of the first ramped portion (FR) in response to compression of the deformable portion (DP) by the head (18) of the core pin (1),
wherein the second ramped portion does not engage the internal threads (Refer to the deformable portion (DP) configured to deflect due to collapsing groove (12) in Figs. 1-3 making the assembly capable of second ramped portion not touch the internal threads by deflecting of deformable portion first),
wherein the deformable portion (DP) is configured to be deflected during engagement (see Fig. 1) of the second ramped portion (SR) and the interior portion (IP) of the first ramped portion (FR), and
wherein the deformable portion (DP) forms a flared connection (22, see Fig. 1) that engages a surface (4, see Fig. 1) of one of the plurality of workpieces, and
wherein the variable thickness is configured to facilitate controlled deformation of the deformable portion to form the flared connection upon installation of the fastener to secure the plurality of workpieces (see Figs. 1-3 showing variable thickness of ramped portion configured to facilitate deformation to secure the plurality of workpieces 14, 15).
Nason fails to teach an internal smooth wall extending from the head to a location adjacent to the first ramped portion, and in an undeformed state, the first ramped portion extends distally at an angle oblique to a longitudinal axis of the sleeve.
However, Auriol in the same field of endeavor teaches similar assembly where the hollow sleeve (1, see Fig. 1) has an internal smooth wall (smooth wall, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) extending form the head (3, see Fig. 1) to the first ramped portion (5b, see Fig. 1) and, in an undeformed state, the first ramped portion extends distally at an angle oblique to a longitudinal axis of the sleeve (see Fig. 1).
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 internal wall of Nason to be smooth wall as taught by Auriol, to save cost and time since the external thread of the pin in Nason is already capable of forming an internal thread in smooth surface. Further, 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 first ramped portion extends distally at an angle oblique to a longitudinal axis of the sleeve as taught by Auriol to prevent any damage to the sleeve during riveting since upon modification, the ramp would be already flared and ready to be installed with the bolt.
Further, in response to the variable thickness of the first ramped portion, the Examiner interprets it would have been obvious matter of design choice to have modified the ramped portion of Nason to be thicker in one end and thinner in other end in order to effectively forming of bulb, since such 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
257
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
296
218
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
PNG
media_image3.png
457
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image4.png
314
322
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 1, wherein Nason further teaches the head (H) of the sleeve (2) includes at least one recess (R, as indicated in annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
680
336
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 6, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 1, wherein Nason further teaches the head (18) of the core pin (1) includes a splined head (SH, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 1, wherein Nason further teaches the core pin (1) includes a drive portion (6, see Fig. 1) configured to be engaged by a fastener installation tool.
Regarding claim 8, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 7, wherein Nason further teaches the core pin (1) includes a breakneck groove (8, see Fig. 4) located intermediate the drive portion (6) and the threaded portion (26), and wherein the drive portion (6) is configured to be separated from the elongated shank portion (ESP) at the breakneck groove (8).
Regarding claim 9, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 1, wherein Nason further teaches a diameter (D1, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6) of the flared connection (22) is greater than 1.1 to 2 times (refer to the diameter D1 which is atleast 1.1 times of diameter d1, if not 2 times greater) an outer diameter (d1, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6) of the tubular portion (TB) of the sleeve (2).
PNG
media_image6.png
289
201
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding claim 10, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 1, wherein Auriol further teaches the core pin is composed of a first material (see column 3, lines 63-67 where the mandrel is made of stainless steel) and the sleeve is composed of a second material (see column 3, lines 63-67 where the sleeve is made of titanium (T40)), and wherein the first material is harder than the second material (see column 3, lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 11, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 10, wherein Auriol further teaches the core pin is composed of stainless steel (see column 3, lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 16, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 1, wherein Nason further teaches the surface of the one of the plurality of workpieces is a blind side surface (refer to the blind side surface (4) in Fig. 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nason in view of Auriol, in further view of Gapp US3148578 (hereinafter, Gapp).
Regarding claim 5, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 1, but fails to teaches a diameter of the head of the core pin is greater than an outer diameter of the sleeve.
However, Gapp in the same field of endeavor, teaches a rivet (refer to Fig. 1) where a diameter (diameter of head 9 in Fig. 1) of the head (9, see Fig. 1) of the core pin (3, see Fig. 1) is greater than an outer diameter (diameter of sleeve (2) in Fig. 1) of a sleeve (2, see Fig. 1). Having larger head of the core pin helps improve retaining of the workpieces within fastener.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have increase the size of the head of the core pin of Nason as taught by Gapp for more secure fastening of the workpieces as a larger head prevents the workpieces from easily slipping off.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nason in view of Auriol, in further view of Beals US 4772167 (hereinafter, Beals).
Regarding claim 12, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 10, but fails to teaches the core pin is composed of alloy steel.
However, Beals in the same field of endeavor, teaches the blind fastener (10), wherein the core pin (24) is composed of alloy steel (column 7, lines 16-19). Using core pin made out of alloy steel improves the strength of the fastener.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have the core pin taught by Nason in view of Auriol to be made out of alloy steel as taught by Beals because alloy steel is more resistant to wear and tear, and improves the durability of the fastener.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nason in view of Auriol, in further view of Smith US 5658107 (hereinafter, Smith).
Regarding claim 13, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 10, but fails to teaches, wherein the sleeve is composed of aluminum alloy.
However, Smith in the same field of endeavor teaches the blind rivet (2, see Fig. 1) having the sleeve (8, see Fig. 1) composed of aluminum alloy (claim 3). Making of sleeve out of aluminum alloy provides with strong and lightweight rivet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have the sleeve taught by Nason in view of Auriol, made out of aluminum alloy as taught by Smith for a strong and lightweight rivet with corrosion resistive property.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nason in view of Auriol, in further view of Boivin et al., US 20130125360 (hereinafter, Boivin).
Regarding claim 14, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 10, but fails to teach the sleeve composed of brass.
However, Boivin in the same field of endeavor, teaches a rivet (see Fig. 3) having the sleeve (5, see Fig. 3) composed of brass (paragraph [0035]). Having the sleeve made out of brass is advantageous for high strength rivet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention for sleeve as taught by Nason in view of Auriol to be made out of brass as taught by Boivin for a high strength fastener which cannot be bent or deformed easily.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nason in view of Auriol, in further view of Grammerstorf US4269014 (hereinafter, Grammerstorf).
Regarding claim 15, Nason in view of Auriol teaches the fastener of claim 10, but fails to teach the sleeve composed of copper.
However, Grammerstorf in the same field of endeavor, teaches the rivet (see Fig. 2) where the sleeve (1, see Fig. 2) is composed of copper (column 3, lines 21-23). Having the sleeve made out of copper is advantageous for strong and heavy-duty performance of copper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have the sleeve taught by Nason in view of Auriol to be made out of copper as taught by Grammerstorf for its property to withstand greater forces and durability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Nason does not disclose a deformable portion with a variable thickness as recited by amended claim 1, and Nason does not disclose a ramped portion with a first thickness at the first end and a second, lesser thickness at the second end.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Nason in view of Auriol clearly teaches and/or makes obvious of the limitations in claim 1. Nason further meets the limitation where the deformable portion have a variable thickness as required by claim language. Please refer to the rejection set forth above in claim 1. The Examiner notes, Applicant argues about the limitation not claimed in any of the claim above, where a ramped portion with a first thickness at the first end and a second, lesser thickness at the second end. The Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
The Applicant argues that Nason does not disclose or suggest the specific engagement between a first ramped portion of the sleeve and a second ramped portion of the core pin, as recited by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Applicant’s argument is considered unpersuasive because the argument is made without any support and fails to point out criticality of the said configured to language in the specification. Second, the Examiner interprets such steps are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations, and/or when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
The Applicant argues that Auriol does not disclose, teach, or suggest a variable thickness in the ramped portion as now recited in amended claim 1.
The Examiner notes that the argued limitations has been taught and/or made obvious by the base reference, Nason, whereas the teaching reference is only required to teach limitations required for proper modification. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above where Auriol is teaching limitation related to internal smooth wall.
In response to the argument directed to previous claim 18 involving Cosenza, please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in view of existing prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harvey P. Jeal (US4907922) teaches similar Blind Fastener having hollow sleeve configured to deflect at the end, pin with second ramp portion and designed to secure a plurality of workpieces together.
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