Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 5 each recite a heating coil/guide sleeve and adapted to surround the threaded sleeve (19) and melt a thermoplastic filament in contact with the threaded sleeve; … control the heating coil to limit the temperature to below a melting temperature of the thermoplastic filament. It is unclear if the threaded sleeve is in contact with the filament while it is surrounded by the heating coil (which is not supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure). In addition, it is unclear how the threaded sleeve can potentially melt the filament if it is configured to be heated to a temperature below the melting point of the filament.
Further, it is unclear if the filament is referring to the component. Applicant’s specification teaches forming the component via an FDM process, which uses filament. This process includes melting filament in layers to form the component. However, the FDM produced component does not comprise individual filaments anymore. The examiner recommends amending the claim to recite something similar to “a heating coil adapted to surround the threaded sleeve and heat the threaded sleeve so that the threaded sleeve melts a portion of the component when assembled with the component”.
Claim 5 recites a component in line 14. It is unclear if this is referring to the component introduced in line 4.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending from one of claims 1 and 5.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB-2241550-A (“Barnsdale”) in view of DE-19705172-C1 (“Schulz”) and USPGPub 2018/0185902 (“Furusako”).
Claim 1 recites a kit comprising a threaded sleeve for assembling with heat input in a component manufactured by FDM process. Barnsdale teaches a threaded sleeve made out of steel configured to form threads in plastic material (first paragraph of page 1 & last paragraph of page 2). Thus, the sleeve of Barnsdale is capable of performing the intended use limitation of being assembled with heat input in a component manufactured by FDM process.
Barnsdale further teaches the threaded sleeve has a groove (19 or 20) along a longitudinal axis (figs. 1-2, last three paragraphs on page 3) an outwardly facing surface of the threaded sleeve comprises a self-tapping thread (17) having cutting edges (A) (figs. 1-2, first paragraph on page 1, all paragraphs on page 3) and an inwardly facing surface of the threaded sleeve comprises a thread (11) (fig. 2, last two paragraphs of page 2).
Barnsdale fails to explicitly teach a guide sleeve having a heating coil adapted to surround the threaded sleeve and melt a thermoplastic filament in contact with the threaded sleeve. However, this would have been obvious in view of Schulz.
Schulz is directed to inserting fasteners such as bolts or threaded sleeves into a thermoplastic component (¶ [0001]-[0002], wherein all references to the Schulz specification refers to the machine translation submitted with the IDS filed on November 15, 2022). Schulz teaches that it is known to heat the metal part to the melting temperature of the plastic component, and then immediately thereafter pressing the metal part into the plastic (¶ [0028]). Schulz teaches using a tool comprising a press-in mandrel 22 partially within a cylindrical housing 30 that can be configured to press threaded inserts or externally threaded fasteners such as bolts into a thermoplastic material (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0019]-[0020]). The housing 30 comprises an electromagnetic transducer 34 therein that heats the metal part via induction heat to the melting temperature of the plastic (¶ [0020]). After reaching the melting temperature, the mandrel presses the metal part into the plastic wherein the plastic in the area of the metal part melts around the metal part to form a firm connection after the plastic solidifies (¶ [0028]).
In this case, both Barnsdale and Schulz teach inserting metal fasteners, such as threaded sleeves, into plastic components. Schulz teaches a known way of forming a firm connection between a metal sleeve and thermoplastic component, i.e. by heating the threaded sleeve via the tool of Schulz and then pressing the sleeve into the plastic so that the plastic melts and solidifies around the sleeve. While Schulz fails to explicitly teach the threaded sleeve having external thread, Schulz teaches its process can be used for externally threaded members such as bolts (see paras. [0002] & [0019] of Schulz). Thus, in order to provide a firmer connection between the threaded sleeve and a thermoplastic component, it would be obvious to provide the heating tool of Schulz in order to heat the sleeve prior to insertion into the plastic so that the sleeve is capable of melting a plastic component in contact with the threaded sleeve.
Given the above modification, the housing 30 of the tool of Schulz is interpreted as the guide sleeve since the metal sleeve and mandrel is guided and aligned within the sleeve. Further the guide sleeve has the electromagnetic transducer 34 therein to heat the sleeve via induction heating. One of skill in the art will appreciate that a coil is used to induction heat the sleeve since coils are used in induction heating devices. Assuming arguendo that one of skill in the art would not reasonably infer a coil being used in the device of Schulz, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known to use coils when induction heating. Thus, it would be obvious to provide an induction coil to induction heat the threaded sleeve. Further, since the device is configured to heat the threaded sleeve to a melting temperature of the component, the guide sleeve is capable of heating the threaded sleeve so that the sleeve melts the component when contacting the component.
Barnsdale et al. fail to explicitly teach at least one temperature sensor; the at least one temperature sensor providing temperature data to control the heating coil to limit the temperature to below a melting temperature of the thermoplastic filament. However, this would have been obvious in view of Furusako.
Furusako teaches a device 5 configured to fasten a fastener within a workpiece, wherein the device 5 is configured to heat the fastener 8 (paras. [0110] & [0111]). The device comprises a control device to heat the fastener 8 to a desired temperature (para. [0111] & [0118]), wherein the control device uses a thermostat including a thermometer for measuring the temperature of the fastener 8 in order to control the amount of current supplied through the device (para. [0124]).
In this case, Barnsdale et al. teaches to heat a threaded sleeve to a predetermined temperature. Furusako teaches a known way to reliably ensure that a fastener is heated to a predetermined temperature, i.e. using a temperature sensor to measure the temperature and control the heating device. Thus, in order to reliably heat the threaded sleeve to the predetermined temperature, it would be obvious to provide a temperature sensor to measure the temperature of the threaded sleeve and control the amount of current supplied to the induction coil based on the temperature reading.
The above modification reads on the structure of the recited limitation. Limiting the temperature to below a melting temperature is an intended use, thus the device of Barnsdale et al. merely has to be capable of performing the intended use. Since Barnsdale et al. can control the temperature of the threaded sleeve, the structure of Barnsdale et al. is capable of heating the threaded sleeve to a temperature below the melting temperature of at least some types of plastics.
Claim 2 recites the self-tapping thread is divided into two sections along the threaded sleeve's longitudinal axis, wherein a first section comprises a constant pitch diameter and a second section comprises a pitch diameter decreasing along the longitudinal axis and wherein the self-tapping thread's maximum pitch diameter is configured at its first section. The sleeve of Barnsdale has at least two sections wherein a first middle section has a constant major diameter (and thus a constant pitch diameter) and a second end section has a decreasing major diameter (fig. 2, first paragraph on page 3), and thus a decreasing pitch diameter (wherein, as described in Applicant’s specification, the pitch diameter is interpreted as the diameter in the middle of the major diameter of the external thread and minor diameter of the internal thread).
Regarding claim 3, Barnsdale further teach several grooves along the longitudinal axis (fig. 1, third and fourth full paragraphs on page 3, wherein six of the grooves 19 & 20 are illustrated).
Claims 5-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnsdale in view of Schulz, Furusako and USPGPub No. 2016/0262214 (“Kondo”).
Claim 5 recites the limitations found in claim 1. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above, Barnsdale in view of Schulz and Furusako teach these limitations. Further, since the component of Barnsdale et al. as applied to claim 1 that receives the fastener is a thermoplastic, the component is capable of being manufactured by a FDM process because additive manufacturing processes such as FDM are capable of producing thermoplastic components and can produce components of virtually any shape.
Claim 5 further recites the inner diameter of the guide sleeve is radially aligned with the self-tapping thread's pitch diameter of the threaded sleeve, so that the threaded sleeve is guided in the guide sleeve. As illustrated in figure 2 of Schulz, the sleeve and mandrel are configured to be within the guide sleeve 30 so that the sleeve and mandrel are radially aligned with and guided by the guide sleeve (wherein radially aligned is interpreted as the radial center of the guide sleeve and threaded sleeve being aligned). Since the pitch diameter also has its center aligned with the center of the threaded sleeve, the pitch diameter is also radially aligned with the inner diameter of the guide sleeve.
Barnsdale et al. fails to explicitly teach the guide sleeve is partially surrounded by a heat source. However, this would have been obvious in view of Kondo.
Kondo is also directed to heating a fastener/insert before assembling the fastener in a plastic component (paras. [0002] & [0065]). Kondo teaches the fastener heating device comprising a cylindrical housing 30 with an induction coil 36 partially surrounding the housing (fig. 1, paras. [0072]-[0073]).
In this case, each of Barnsdale et al. and Kondo are directed to a heating device for heating a metal insert, wherein the heating device comprises a cylindrical housing (i.e. guide sleeve) comprising an induction coil. While Schulz teaches the induction coil within an inner channel of the housing, Kondo teaches one of skill in the art that the coil can be positioned within a recess on an outer surface of the housing so that the coil partially surrounds the guide sleeve. Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to modify the heating device of Barnsdale et al. so that the induction coil is within a recess on the outer surface of the guide sleeve so that it partially surrounds the guide sleeve.
Claim 6 recites the component manufactured by the FDM process has a core hole, wherein the guide sleeve rests radially aligned over the core hole. As illustrated in fig. 2 of Schulz, the component 14 has a core hole 36 that the guide sleeve 30 radially aligns with and rests/is placed over.
Claim 16 recites the self-tapping thread is divided into two sections (2, 4) along the longitudinal axis, wherein a first section (2) comprises a constant pitch diameter (3) and a second section comprises a pitch diameter decreasing along the longitudinal axis and wherein the self-tapping thread's maximum pitch diameter (3) is configured at its first section (2). This claim is rejected for the same reasons detailed in the rejection of claim 2 in view of Barnsdale, above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnsdale et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Helifreak.com, available at https://www.helifreak.com/showthread.php?t=198312, Published 2010 (“NPL”).
Regarding claim 10, Barnsdale et al. fail to explicitly teach tool being a torque-applying tool. However, this would have been obvious in view of NPL.
NPL teaches that it is known to heat externally threaded fasteners before turning it into plastic in order to melt the plastic around the hot screw (see post by PittJitsu on page 1, wherein all references to NPL refer to the document submitted with the Office action mailed on April 17, 2025).
In this case, Barnsdale et al. teaches pressing a heated externally threaded sleeve into a thermoplastic to melt the plastic around the sleeve. NPL teaches one of skill in the art that it is also known to heat externally threaded members prior to screwing them in plastic. Since it is predictable that rotating the sleeve of Barnsdale will allow the sleeve to be more easily pressed into the component (due to the external threads), and the plastic will still predictably melt to form a more secure connection, it would be obvious to rotate the threaded sleeve of Barnsdale while pressing it into the component. Rotating spindles/mandrels are well known in the art (e.g. powered screwdrivers), thus it would be predictable to rotate the mandrel of the heating tool during pressing.
Barnsdale et al. fail to explicitly teach the tool has a sensor which is set up to monitor a parameter selected from the group consisting of heat input, torque, pressure, feed speed, and rotation speed. The examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known for electric and automatic screwdrivers to have a torque sensor to monitor tightening processes. This allows fasteners to be precisely tightened to the same torque/preload, and to determine if a tightening process was defective. Thus, in order to improve consistency and quality control, it would be obvious for the torque applying tool of Barnsdale to have torque sensor that monitors each tightening process.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnsdale et al. as applied to claim 3, above, and further in view of US Patent No. 10,145,405 (“Strom”).
Regarding claim 18, Barnsdale et al. fail to explicitly teach the threaded sleeve (19) further comprises an internal hexagon socket (23) or a torx socket. However, this would have been obvious in view of Strom.
Strom is also directed to a threaded sleeve having internal and external thread (figs. 1-3, col. 5 lines 5-67). Strom teaches the insert having an internal hexagon socket at an end thereof to allow the insert to be used with a hexagonal driver (col. 3 lines 47-49, col. 6 lines 3-8).
In this case, each of Barnsdale and Strom are directed to a threaded sleeve having internal and external thread. One of skill in the art appreciates that there are variety of different tools/structures to screw fasteners in a material. Strom teaches that it is known and predictable to screw threaded inserts into a workpiece with a hexagonal driver than engages an interior hexagon socket. Thus, in order to allow the sleeve of Barnsdale to be used with different kinds of drivers, it would be obvious to provide an internal hexagon socket at at least one end of the threaded sleeve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered. The examiner agrees that the previous 112a rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”