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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of securing a fastener to a workpiece there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/16/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: identifier 114. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“insertion head assembly”: “A fastener securing gun has an insertion head assembly that is adjacent to the feeder. The insertion head assembly includes an insertion actuator that has a movable insertion piston, and a clamp finger is mounted to the insertion piston. A movable fastener joining element is carried by the insertion head assembly. A stationary element is opposite the fastener joining element and is configured to support a workpiece. A gun actuator is configured to move the insertion head and the fastener is loaded on the fastener joining element in unison with one another from a retracted position toward the workpiece to an advanced position in which the clamp finger engages the workpiece. The gun actuator is configured to continue to move the fastener joining element and its loaded fastener to an overrun position in which the fastener joining element moves relative to the finger clamp to secure the fastener to the workpiece.”, para. [0015].
“stationary element: “The term “stationary” has been used to indicate that the referenced stationary arm 12 or stationary electrode assembly 14 is not the actively moving element of the fastener securing system 10. This is common terminology associated with the process. A robot, as noted above, or other apparatus (SoftMount™) could enable the fastener securing system 10, and thereby the stationary electrode assembly 14, to move relative to the workpiece 24 or machine.”, para. [0035]; “
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tobita et al. (US 4,789,768) in view of Shinjo (US 5,522,129).
With regard to claim 11, Tobita teaches a fastener securing system (FIGS. 1 & 3) comprising: a feeder (16/23) configured to receive a fastener (7); a fastener securing gun (1) having an insertion head assembly (12a) adjacent to the feeder (16/23; FIG. 1), the insertion head assembly (12a) including an insertion actuator (13) having a movable insertion piston (11), and a movable fastener joining element (4) carried by the insertion head assembly (12a); a stationary element (8) opposite the fastener joining element (4) and configured to support a workpiece (24) (FIG. 3); a gun actuator (3) configured to move the insertion head (12a) and the fastener loaded on the fastener joining element (4) in unison with one another from a retracted position toward the workpiece to an advanced position (FIG. 3 illustrates fastener joining element 4 moved from a retracted position toward an advanced position), the gun actuator configured to continue to move the fastener joining element (4) and its loaded fastener to an overrun position (FIG. 3).
Tobita does not teach a clamp finger is mounted to the insertion piston and in which the fastener joining element moves relative to the finger clamp to secure the fastener to the workpiece; however, Shinjo from the same field of endeavor directed toward an apparatus teaches the aforementioned limitations with a clamp finger (25): “A workpiece butting leg member 25 fixed to a bottom of the slide guide 3 protrudes downward therefrom in parallel with the vertical bore 4. The leg member 25 has a flat distal side 26 of approximately the same width as the striking punch 2 (see FIG. 2). The distal side 26 extends in a plane in which the aperture 5 and the proximal wall surface of the bore 4 lie, so that the nut `N` gripped by the punch 2 penetrating the bore through the slide guide 3 is guided until rigidly fixed on the metal panel `P`. A proximal side of the leg member has an obliquely cut lower portion to provide a narrow bottom 27. The height of the leg member 25 corresponds to the height `h` of an L-shaped bent portion of the panel (viz. workpiece). Set screws 28 detachably attach this workpiece butting member 25 so that it can be replaced with another one to match any change in the height of said bent portion.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Tobita reference, to include a clamp finger is mounted to the insertion piston and in which the fastener joining element moves relative to the finger clamp to secure the fastener to the workpiece, as suggested and taught by Shinjo, for the purpose of providing a securement function of the workpiece during a fastening operation.
With regard to claim 12, Tobita teaches the insertion head assembly includes opposing insertion jaws (18) supported relative to the insertion piston by springs (21) (FIG. 3), the insertion jaws (18) configured to receive the fastener in a gap (16/20), wherein the fastener joining element (4) is configured to push the fastener (7) past the insertions jaws (18) and onto the workpiece (24) (FIG. 3).
With regard to claim 13, with regard to the limitation of the springs are constructed from flat spring steel, it is submitted that as Tobita teaches the claimed springs (21), the method of manufacturing the spring product must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As that a device according to the combined teachings of the cited prior art would be capable of performing the required intended use and no structural differentiation has been identified, it is the examiner’s determination that this feature does not define the present invention over the cited prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
With regard to claim 14, Shinjo teaches the clamp finger has a textured tip (narrow bottom 27, FIG. 1) configure to engage the workpiece in the advanced position (FIG. 1).
With regard to claim 16, Tobita teaches the fastener joining element (4) and the stationary element (8) are welding electrodes (upper and lower welding electrodes respectively, FIG. 3).
With regard to claim 17, Tobita teaches the insertion actuator is an air cylinder with at least a portion of the insertion piston arranged therein (“the piston section 11 being fitted in a cylinder chamber 13 formed in a forward end portion of the supply head rod 3 and the pin rod section 12 extending through the upper electrode 4 to stick out of the upper electrode 4 through its forward end. The cylinder chamber 13 in which the piston section 11 is movable in reciprocatory movement functions as a pneumatic cylinder and has air compartments on opposite sides of the piston section 11.”), with regard to the limitation of an air pressure within the air cylinder config to provide a clamping force to the workpiece via the clamp finger, it is submitted that as the secondary citation Shinjo teaches the clamping finger as detailed above, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the primary citation (Tobita) with the clamping finger of Shinjo (as detailed above) and applying an appropriate amount of pressure to ensure that an appropriate force value is applied to the clamping finger as a matter of routine experimentation to ensure an appropriate securement force based upon the operational environment of the subject device in addition to various characteristics (e.g., material, thickness, etc.) of the subject workpiece being worked upon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights