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, 4-14, 16, 18-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan US20060042069 (hereinafter, Donovan) in view of March et al., US7695226 (hereinafter, March).
Regarding claim 1, Donovan teaches a lockbolt system similar to a multi-piece fastener (see Fig. Fig. 6) comprising:
a fastening collar 120 comprising
a first collar end 152,
a second collar end 150, and
an inner collar surface (see through hole surfaces of collar 120 in Fig. 6) extending from the first collar end to the second collar end and comprising a first lock region (FLR, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6), wherein the inner collar surface defines a collar cavity 130; and
a pin 100 configured to be at least partially received by the collar cavity, the pin comprising
a first pin end (FPE, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6),
a second pin end 110, and
a shank 104 extending intermediate the first pin end and the second pin end, wherein the shank comprises a second lock region (SLR, a indicated in annotated Fig. 6) configured to engage the first lock region to form an interference fit between the fastening collar and the pin when the pin is received in the collar cavity (paragraph [0026]), wherein the fastening collar is configured to be deformed onto the shank (see Fig. 6), and wherein the interference fit between the fastening collar and the pin forms prior to the fastening collar being deformed onto the shank (see para. [0026] disclosing “the collar 120 can be placed on the bolt and rotated slightly so that there is an interference fit” (emphasis added), then an installation tool can be brought to engage),
wherein at least one of the first lock region and the second lock region comprises a frustoconical shape (see frustoconical shape of the collar 120 and transition region in Fig. 6).
Donovan fails to teach wherein the frustoconical shape is present prior to the fastening collar being deformed onto the shank.
However, March teaches a fastener similar to the lockbolt of Donovan having a frustoconical shaped collar (200, see Figs. 1-2) where the frustoconical shape is present prior to the fastening collar being deformed onto the shank.
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 have modified the shape of the collar in Donovan to have frustoconical shaped prior to its deformation as taught by March so the smaller diameter of the through bore 210 being selected to provide clearance to pull grooves 75 and the collar geometry is volume balanced.
PNG
media_image1.png
766
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding claim 2, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first lock region and the second lock region defines a taper (T, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6).
Donovan in view of March fails to expressly teach the taper is in a range of 0.5 degrees to 15 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the fastening collar.
However, the Examiner interprets it would have been obvious matter of design choice to have modified the taper range as claimed above in order to provide necessary deformation of the collar during swaging, 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(a).
Regarding claim 4, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, Donovan further teaches wherein at least one of the first lock region and the second lock region defines a curve (C, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6) relative to a longitudinal axis (Y, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6) of the fastening collar.
Regarding claim 5, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, Donovan further teaches wherein a dimension of the collar cavity decreases along the first lock region in an axial direction towards the second collar end (refer to Fig. 6 where the dimension in first lock region (FLR) is smaller than the first collar end 152), wherein the first pin end (FPE) is configured to be disposed adjacent to the second collar end 150.
Regarding claim 6, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, Donovan further teaches wherein a diameter of the collar cavity in the first lock region is less than a diameter of the collar cavity adjacent to the first lock region (refer to Fig. 6 where the diameter of first lock region (FLR) is smaller than the adjacent diameter of first collar end 152).
Regarding claim 7, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, Donovan further teaches wherein a diameter of the shank decreases in an axial direction towards the first pin end (refer to Fig. 6 where a diameter of unthreaded shank closer to the head is bigger than first pin end and the diameter decreases in an axial direction).
Regarding claim 8, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, Donovan further teaches wherein the second lock region is substantially cylindrical (see cylindrical second lock region (SLR)).
Regarding claim 9, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, Donovan further teaches wherein the first pin end (FPE) comprises a pull- region (PR, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, Donovan further teaches wherein the shank 104 comprises at least one of a generally smooth region, an annular shoulder, a groove, and a threaded region (see threaded region in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, Donovan further teaches wherein the multi-piece fastener is configured to be installed in a bore (see Fig. 6) in a structure (28, 30, see Fig. 6) and wherein the structure is configured as at least one of an aerospace part or component, an automotive part or component, a transportation part or component, and a building and construction part or component (intended use).
Regarding claim 12, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein a diameter of the shank is in a range of 0.06 inches to 4 inches.
However, the Examiner interprets it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the size of a diameter of the shank to be range of 0.06 inches to 4 inches for intended use, since such a modification would have been 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 13, A lockbolt comprising:
a fastening collar comprising
a first collar end,
a second collar end, and
an inner collar surface extending from the first collar end to the second collar end and comprising a first lock region, wherein the inner collar surface defines a collar cavity; and
a pin configured to be at least partially received by the collar cavity, the pin comprising
a first pin end,
a second pin end, and
a shank extending intermediate the first pin end and the second pin end, wherein the shank comprises a second lock region configured to engage the first lock region to form an interference fit between the fastening collar and the pin when the pin 1s received in the collar cavity, wherein the fastening collar is configured to be deformed onto the shank, and wherein the interference fit between the fastening collar and the pin forms prior to the fastening collar being deformed onto the shank, and
wherein at least one of the first lock region and the second lock region comprises a frustoconical shape that is present prior to the fastening collar being deformed onto the shank.
(The claim limitations in claim 13 are same as claim 1 except for the lockbolt, however Donovan still discloses a lockbolt (see title). Therefore, please refer to the rejection set forth above in claim 1 based on Donovan modified by March)
Regarding claim 14, Donovan discloses a method for fastening, the method comprising: inserting a first pin end of a multi-piece fastener into a bore in a structure (see claim 15 and Fig. 6), the multi-piece fastener comprising
a fastening collar comprising
a first collar end,
a second collar end, and
an inner collar surface extending from the first collar end to the second collar end and comprising a first lock region, wherein the inner collar surface defines a collar cavity;
a pin comprising
a first pin end,
the second pin end, and
a shank extending intermediate the first pin end and the second pin end,
wherein the shank comprises a second lock region, wherein at least one of the first lock region and the second lock region comprises a frustoconical shape that is present prior to the fastening collar being deformed onto the shank (see rejection and rationale established in claim 1 above),
passing at least a portion of the first pin end into the collar cavity;
forcibly contacting the first lock region with the second lock region thereby forming an interference fit between the fastening collar and the pin,
forcibly contacting the fastening collar with an anvil of a fastening collar installation apparatus with an axial force greater than an opposed force resulting from the interference fit (see Fig. 6 and para. [0026]), and moving the fastener collar along the pin in a direction away from the first pin end utilizing the anvil of the fastening collar installation apparatus (see Fig. 6 where the installation tool 140 is engaged with the collar 120 to move towards workpieces); and
deforming the fastening collar onto the shank of the pin with an anvil of the fastening collar installation apparatus and securing at least a portion of the multi-piece fastener in the structure (see para. [0025-0027]).
(Structural limitations of claim 14 above are same as claim 1. Therefore, please refer to the rejection set forth above in claim 1 based on Donovan modified by March)
Regarding claim 16, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the method of claim 14, Donovan further teaches wherein the first pin end comprises a pull region (body of frangible pintail 106 in Fig. 6) and the method further comprises: forcibly contacting the pull region with jaws 142 of a collet of the fastening collar installation apparatus 140.
Regarding claim 18, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the method of claim 14, Donovan further teaches wherein a dimension of the collar cavity decreases along the first lock region in an axial direction towards the second collar end (see Fig. 6 where the inner dimension of the collar cavity of collar 120 is smaller than the upper portion 152) and when the first pin end (FPE) is passed into the cavity, the first pin end is disposed adjacent to the second collar end (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the method of claim 14, wherein a diameter of the collar cavity in the first lock region (see first collar region (FLR) at second collar end 150) is less than a diameter of the collar cavity adjacent to the first lock region (see adjacent collar cavity towards first collar end 152).
Regarding claim 20, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the method of claim 14, wherein a diameter of the shank decreases in an axial direction towards the first pin end (see Fig. 6 showing a diameter of the shank 104 is smaller than the threadless shank above).
Regarding claim 21, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, wherein the second lock region comprises a frustoconical shape (FRC, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 24, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein at least one of the first lock region and the second lock region defines a taper in range of 5 degrees to 10 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the fastening collar.
However, it is the examiner’s position that Donovan modified by Mark teaches tapered region to some degrees. Further, changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the specific angle. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of taper angle as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donovan in view of March, in further view of Davis US4136586 (hereinafter, Davis).
Regarding claim 22, Donovan in view of March teaches and/or make obvious of the multi-piece fastener of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first lock region comprises a taper that extends from the second collar end along a longitudinal axis of the collar into the collar cavity.
However, Davis teaches similar bolt assembly wherein the first lock region (see opening of collar 10 in Fig. 2) comprises a taper (see 14 in Fig. 2) that extends from the second collar end along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2) of the collar into the collar cavity.
The Examiner’s position is that 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 collar in Donovan to have extending taper as taught by Davis so the final extent of the cylindrical section 12 is increased (see Figs. 3-4).
Further, changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collar of Donovan to have extending taper as taught by Hayashi as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument regarding drawing objection filed 03/10/2026 have been found persuasive and the drawing objection set forth in previous Office Action has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026, regarding 102 and 103 rejections, have been fully considered.
Rejection based on newly found and/or existing prior art has been set forth above.
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
Prosecution Insights