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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore,
“screw comprising an external thread fixed in the screw region” in blind rivet stud of claim 26; and
“the mouthpiece comprising an internal thread for spinning on the screw of the blind rivet stud” in claim 32, lines 4-5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orloff US3107572 (hereinafter, Orloff).
Regarding claim 26, Orloff discloses a blind rivet stud (1, see Figs. 1-3) for incorporating a thread in a clearance of a workpiece 4, 5 and/or for connecting two workpieces, the blind rivet stud comprising:
a setting region (see region 21’ in Figs. 1-3);
a screw region 18;
a screw 7 comprising an external thread 35 fixed in the screw region; and
a compression region 19 arranged between the screw region and the setting region,
wherein,
the compression region is configured so that, when a first force acting on the compression region is exceeded, the compression region forms a closing bead (see Figs. 2-3),
the setting region comprises an axial portion which faces the compression region (end of the head 21’ opposite to free end) and a free axial portion (see end of head 21’ facing away from compressed/deformed portion) which faces away from the compression region and from the screw region,
and
the setting region, on the free axial portion which faces away from the screw region (see Figs. 2-3), when the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet stud is arranged within the clearance of the workpiece 4, 5, is configured so that, an external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region is enlarged at least in a radial direction within the clearance of the workpiece when a second force acting on the setting region is exceeded (see Fig.3) and the free axial portion of the setting region is incorporated in the workpiece without an interfering edge on a smooth surface of the workpiece (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 27, Orloff disclose the blind rivet stud as recited in claim 26, wherein the portion of the setting region (see head 21’ in Figs. 1-3) that faces away from the screw region is substantially free of projections (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 28, Orloff discloses the blind rivet stud as recited in claim 26, wherein an external shape of the blind rivet stud (see Figs. 1-3) has a cylindrical form, an outer form of the cylindrical form comprising a straight extent which is parallel to a rotation axis with respect to a longitudinal extent of the blind rivet stud (see Figs. 1-3).
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 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capko et al., US10012257 (hereinafter, Capko).
Regarding claim 15, Capko discloses a blind rivet nut (10, see Fig. 1) for incorporating a thread in a clearance of a workpiece 1 and/or for connecting two workpieces (1 & 2, see Fig. 1), the blind rivet nut comprising:
a setting region (undeformed region of the head 14 in Fig. 1);
a thread region 12 which comprises an internal thread 13 at least in portions of the thread region; and
a compression region (deformed region of section 11 in Fig. 1) arranged between the thread region and the setting region (see Fig. 1),
wherein,
the compression region is configured so that, when a first force (Tightening force from screw 9 in Fig. 1) acting on the compression region is exceeded, the compression region forms a closing bead 15,
the setting region comprises an axial portion (setting region section between the rivet head 14 and the bead 15) which faces the compression region and a free axial portion (see free axial portion in rivet head 14 away from compression region in Fig. 1) which faces away from the compression region and from the thread region 13,
the setting region, on the free axial portion which faces away from the thread region, when the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet nut is arranged within the clearance of the workpiece (see Fig. 1), and the free axial portion (see head portion 14) of the setting region is incorporated in the workpiece without an interfering edge on a smooth surface (4, see Fig. 1) of the workpiece.
Capko fails to expressly teach that an external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region is enlarged at least in a radial direction within the clearance of the workpiece when a second force acting on the setting region is exceeded, and the first force is not equal to the second force.
However, the Examiner interprets assembly of Capko in Fig. 1 is capable of limitation above, and further the Examiner considers it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use first force not equal to the second force for forming of bead as common knowledge since force required to form bead is usually higher compared to expansion of free axial portion, and continuous use of force (second force) from the fastener 9 would result radial expansion of the free axial portion to some extent. As Capko meets all the structural limitation in claim 1, the limitation above is considered similar to method step.
Regarding claim 16, Capko teaches the blind rivet nut as recited in claim 15, wherein the portion of the setting region (see free axial region in rivet head 14 are without any projection after forming of bead) that faces away from the thread region is substantially free of projections (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Capko teaches and/or make obvious of the blind rivet nut as recited in claim 15, wherein an external shape of the blind rivet nut has a cylindrical form (see cylindrical blind rivet nut 10 in Fig. 1), an outer form of the cylindrical form comprising a straight extent which is parallel to a rotation axis (see central dotted axial in Fig. 1) with respect to a longitudinal extent of the blind rivet nut (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Capko teaches and/or make obvious of the blind rivet nut as recited in claim 15, Capko fails to teach wherein the enlargement of the setting region in the radial direction is greater than 0.1 % of the external dimension.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to have the enlargement of the setting region in the radial direction to be greater than 0.1% of the external dimension in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of enlargement in paragraph [0036]. Since it has been held that the general conditions of the claim are met in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Capko teaches and/or make obvious of the blind rivet nut as recited in claim 15, but fails to teach wherein the thread region is configured from a high-tensile material which is not deformed by the second force.
However, the Examiner interprets it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the thread region of Capko to be a high-tensile material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powsey US3686914 (hereinafter, Powsey).
Regarding claim 21, Powsey discloses a blind rivet nut setting tool (see Fig. 6) which is configured to set the blind rivet nut as recited in claim 15 (blind rivet nut setting tool (1 and 2) in Fig. 6 is capable of being configured to operate on nut of claim 15), the blind rivet nut setting tool comprising:
a thread pin 1 comprising at least one thread portion (see threaded portion at the tip of mandrel 1 in Fig. 6), the thread pin being configured to have the blind rivet nut be spun thereon (see Fig. 6);
a mouthpiece 2 which is arranged to surround the thread pin 1 and which is configured to form a counter bearing for the blind rivet nut (see Fig. 6), the mouthpiece comprising a detent portion (DP, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6) for the blind rivet nut, the detent portion comprising a detent face (DF, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6) which decreases (see detent portion (DP) smaller in size than the head (H, see annotated Fig. 6)) in size in a direction of the at least one thread portion (see Fig. 6) so that, when the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet nut is arranged within the clearance of the workpiece (see Fig. 6 where the free axial end is expanded within the clearance of the workpiece 22), the detent face of the mouthpiece enlarges the external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet nut radially within the clearance of the workpiece when the second force acting on the setting region is exceeded and the free axial portion of the setting region is incorporated in the workpiece without an interfering edge (see Fig. 6 where the free axial end is not interfering with surface of the workpiece 22) on a smooth surface of the workpiece 22.
Powsey lacks disclosing of a rotation module and a lifting module in embodiment shown in Fig. 6.
However, Powsey does teaches discloses that the assembly in Fig. 6 is capable of such steps as described below.
a rotation module comprising a first operative connection to the thread pin, the rotation module being configured to transmit a rotating movement for at least one of spinning on and spinning off the blind rivet nut into the thread pin; and
For the limitation of rotation module above, please refer to Fig. 3 as a reference and column 2-3, lines 63-67 and lines 1-8, respectively.
a lifting module comprising a second operative connection to the thread pin, the lifting module being configured to transmit at least one lifting movement for compressing the blind river nut into the thread pin.
For the limitation of lifting module, please refer to Fig. 6 as a reference and column 3, lines 33-56.
Regarding claim limitations of the rotational module and the lifting module above¸ the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding claim 22, Powsey teaches and/or make obvious of the blind rivet nut setting tool as recited in claim 21, wherein the detent face (DF, see annotated Fig. 6) is enlarged continuously or via different angles (see Fig. 6).
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powsey in view of Sakamura et al., US4499647 (hereinafter, Sakamura).
Regarding claim 23, Powsey teaches and/or make obvious of the blind rivet nut setting tool as recited in claim 21, but fails to teach wherein the detent face is configured to be conical.
However, Sakamura in the same field of endeavor, teaches similar assembly (see Fig. 9) wherein the detent face 122 is configured to be conical (see Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention for the detent face of Powsey to be modified to conical shape face as taught by Sakamura so the press force is operated on the sleeve not only in axial direction but also in outer direction.
Regarding claim 24, Powsey teaches method for setting a blind rivet nut in a clearance of a workpiece using a blind rivet nut setting tool (see claims 1-2), the method comprising:
providing the blind comprising:
a setting region;
a thread region which comprises an internal thread at least in portions of the thread region; and
a compression region arranged between the thread region and the setting region,
wherein,
the compression region is configured so that, when a first force acting on the compression region is exceeded, the compression region forms a closing bead,
the setting region comprises an axial portion which faces the compression region and a free axial portion which faces away from the compression region and from the thread region,
the setting region, on the free axial portion which faces away from the thread region, is configured so that an external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region is enlarged at least in a radial direction when a second force acting on the setting region is exceeded and the free axial portion of the setting region is incorporated in the workpiece without an interfering edge on a smooth surface of the workpiece, and
the first force is not equal to the second force;
(Limitations above in italic is same as limitations in claim 1 made obvious by Powsey. Please refer to rejection and rationale set forth above)
providing a blind rivet nut setting tool (combination of 1 & 2 in Fig. 6) comprising,
a thread pin 1 comprising at least one thread portion (see Fig. 6), the thread pin being configured to have the blind rivet nut be spun thereon,
a mouthpiece 2 which is arranged to surround the thread pin and which is configured to form a counter bearing for the blind rivet nut, the mouthpiece comprising a detent portion (DP, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6 above) for the blind rivet nut, the detent portion comprising a detent face (DF, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6) which decreases in size in a direction of the at least one thread portion,
providing the blind rivet nut (10, see Fig. 6) on the thread pin 1 of the blind rivet nut setting tool;
spinning on the blind rivet nut up to the detent face of the mouthpiece (claims 1-2);
completely incorporating the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet nut into the clearance of the workpiece 22; and
compressing the blind rivet nut via the at least one lifting movement of the blind rivet nut setting tool in a direction of the mouthpiece (see claims 1-2 and Fig. 6),
wherein,
the external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet nut is radially enlarged within the clearance of the workpiece via the at least one lifting movement so as to bring about at least one of a form-fit and a friction-fit with the workpiece (see claims 1-2 and Fig. 6), and
the compression region forms a closing bead (21, see Fig. 6).
a rotation module comprising a first operative connection to the thread pin, the rotation module being configured to transmit a rotating movement for at least one of spinning on and spinning off the blind rivet nut into the thread pin, and
a lifting module comprising a second operative connection to the thread pin, the lifting module being configured to transmit at least one lifting movement for compressing the blind river nut into the thread pin;
Concerning limitation above, the Examiner interprets Powsey teaches and/or make obvious of the limitation of rotation module above, please refer to Fig. 3 as a reference and column 2-3, lines 63-67 and lines 1-8, respectively.
For the limitation of lifting module, please refer to Fig. 6 as a reference and column 3, lines 33-56.
Regarding claim limitations of the rotational module and the lifting module ¸ the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Regarding claim 25, An assembly system for setting a blind rivet nut, the assembly system comprising:
the blind rivet nut as recited in claim 15; and
a blind rivet nut setting tool which is configured to set the blind rivet nut as recited in claim 15, the blind rivet nut setting tool comprising:
a thread pin comprising at least one thread portion, the thread pin being configured to have the blind rivet nut be spun thereon,
a mouthpiece which is arranged to surround the thread pin and which is configured to form a counter bearing for the blind rivet nut, the mouthpiece comprising a detent portion for the blind rivet nut, the detent portion comprising a detent face which decreases in size in a direction of the at least one thread portion so that, when the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet nut is arranged within the clearance of the workpiece, the detent face of the mouthpiece enlarges the external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet nut radially within the clearance of the workpiece when the second force acting on the setting region is exceeded and the free axial portion of the setting region is incorporated in the workpiece without an interfering edge on a smooth surface of the workpiece,
a rotation module comprising a first operative connection to the thread pin, the rotation module being configured to transmit a rotating movement for at least one of spinning on and spinning off the blind rivet nut into the thread pin, and
a lifting module comprising a second operative connection to the thread pin, the lifting module being configured to transmit at least one lifting movement for compressing the blind river nut into the thread pin,
(Limitation above in italic font is same as limitation in claim 21, therefore please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above made obvious by Powsey)
wherein,
the assembly system is configured to perform a method comprising:
providing the blind rivet nut as recited in claim 15 on the thread pin of the blind rivet nut setting tool;
spinning on the blind rivet nut up to the detent face of the mouthpiece;
completely incorporating the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet nut into the clearance of the workpiece; and compressing the blind rivet nut via the at least one lifting movement of the blind rivet nut setting tool in a direction of the mouthpiece, wherein, the external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet nut is enlarged radially within the clearance of the workpiece via the at least one lifting movement so as to bring about at least one of a form-fit and a friction-fit with the workpiece, and the compression region forms a closing bead.
(Limitation above in italic font is same as limitation in claim 24, therefore please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above still made obvious by Powsey)
Claims 29-31 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff.
Regarding claim 29, Orloff discloses the blind rivet stud as recited in claim 26, but fails to expressly teach wherein the enlargement of the setting region in the radial direction is greater than 0.1 % of the external dimension.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to have the enlargement of the setting region in the radial direction to be greater than 0.1% of the external dimension in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of enlargement in paragraph [0036]. Since it has been held that the general conditions of the claim are met in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 30, Orloff discloses the blind rivet stud as recited in claim 26, but fails to teach wherein the first force is not equal to the second force.
However, Orloff does discloses first force in Fig. 2 where the bead is formed and second force in Fig. 3 where anvil 27 is more engaged than Fig. 2.
However, the Examiner interprets assembly of Orloff in Figs. 2-3 is capable of limitation above, and further the Examiner considers it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use first force not equal to the second force for forming of bead as common knowledge since force required to form bead is usually higher compared to expansion of free axial portion, and continuous use of force (second force) from the fastener would result radial expansion of the free axial portion to some extent. As Orloff meets all the structural limitation in claim 30, the limitation above is considered similar to method step.
Regarding claim 31, Orloff disclose the blind rivet stud as recited in claim 30, but fails to teach wherein the screw region is configured from a high-tensile material which is not deformed by the second force.
However, the Examiner interprets it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the thread region of Orloff to be a high-tensile material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 35, A method for setting a blind rivet stud in a clearance of a workpiece using a blind rivet stud setting tool, the method comprising:
providing a blind rivet stud setting tool which is configured to set the blind rivet stud as recited in claim 26, the blind rivet stud setting tool comprising,
a mouthpiece which is configured to form a counter bearing for the blind rivet stud, the mouthpiece comprising an internal thread for spinning on the screw of the blind rivet stud, and a detent portion for the blind rivet stud, the detent portion comprising a detent face which decreases in size in a direction of the blind rivet stud that is able to be spun on so that, when the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet stud is arranged within the clearance of the workpiece, the detent face of the mouthpiece enlarges the external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet stud radially within the clearance of the workpiece when the second force acting on the setting region is exceeded and the free axial portion of the setting region is incorporated in the workpiece without an interfering edge on a smooth surface of the workpiece,
a rotation module which is configured to transmit a rotation movement to the mouthpiece so as to at least one of spin on and spin off the blind rivet stud, and
a lifting module which is configured to transmit at least one lifting movement for compressing the blind rivet stud into the mouthpiece; spinning on the blind rivet stud as recited in claim 26 up to the detent face of the mouthpiece;
completely incorporating the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet stud into the clearance of the workpiece; and
compressing the blind rivet stud via the at least one lifting movement of the blind rivet stud setting tool in a direction counter to the clearance,
wherein,
the external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet stud is enlarged radially within the clearance of the workpiece via the at least one lifting movement so as to bring about at least one of a form-fit and a friction-fit with the workpiece, and
the compression region forms a closing bead.
Regarding Claim 35¸ Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth above in claim 26 as disclosed in Figs. 1-3 of Orloff. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Claims 32-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orloff in view of Denham et al., US4639174 (hereinafter, Denham).
Regarding claim 32, Orloff discloses the blind rivet stud setting tool which is configured to set the blind rivet stud as recited in claim 26, the blind rivet stud setting tool comprising:
a mouthpiece 27 which is configured to form a counter bearing for the blind rivet stud (see Figs. 1-3), and a detent portion 28, 29 for the blind rivet stud, the detent portion comprising a detent face (section of the detent portion in contact with ring 24) which decreases in size in a direction of the blind rivet stud that is able to be spun on so that (see Figs. 1-3), when the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet stud is arranged within the clearance of the workpiece, the detent face of the mouthpiece enlarges the external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet stud radially within the clearance of the workpiece when the second force acting on the setting region is exceeded and the free axial portion of the setting region is incorporated in the workpiece without an interfering edge on a smooth surface of the workpiece (see Figs. 1-3);
a rotation module which is configured to transmit a rotation movement to the mouthpiece so as to at least one of spin on and spin off the blind rivet stud (see Fig. 1); and
a lifting module which is configured to transmit at least one lifting movement for compressing the blind rivet stud into the mouthpiece (see Figs. 2-3).
Orloff fails to expressly teach wherein the mouthpiece comprising an internal thread for spinning on the screw of the blind rivet stud.
However, Denham teaches similar assembly wherein the mouthpiece (70, see Fig. 4) comprises gripping means for spinning on the screw of the blind rivet stud 22.
The Examiner interprets 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 mouthpiece of Orloff to have internal thread or gripping means as taught by Denham effecting pushing or pulling of the stud in the rivet nut (column 6, lines 5-24).
Regarding claim 33, Orloff in view of Denham teaches and/or make obvious of the blind rivet stud setting tool as recited in claim 32, wherein Orloff further teaches the detent face is enlarged continuously or via different angles (see enlarged detent face of mouthpiece 28, 29 in Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 34, Orloff in view of Denham teaches and/or make obvious of the blind rivet stud setting tool as recited in claim 32, wherein the detent face is configured to be conical (see conical detent face/portion 28, 29 in Figs. 13).
Regarding claim 36, An assembly system for setting a blind rivet stud, the assembly system comprising:
the blind rivet stud as recited in claim 26; and
a blind rivet stud setting tool which is configured to set the blind rivet stud as recited in claim 26, the blind rivet stud setting tool comprising,
a mouthpiece which is configured to form a counter bearing for the blind rivet stud, the mouthpiece comprising an internal thread for spinning on the screw of the blind rivet stud, and a detent portion for the blind rivet stud, the detent portion comprising a detent face which decreases in size in a direction of the blind rivet stud that is able to be spun on so that, when the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet stud is arranged within the clearance of the workpiece, the detent face of the mouthpiece enlarges the external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet stud radially within the clearance of the workpiece when the second force acting on the setting region is exceeded and the free axial portion of the setting region is incorporated in the workpiece without an interfering edge on a smooth surface of the workpiece,
a rotation module which is configured to transmit a rotation movement to the mouthpiece so as to at least one of spin on and spin off the blind rivet stud, and
a lifting module which is configured to transmit at least one lifting movement for compressing the blind rivet stud into the mouthpiece,
wherein,
the assembly system is configured to perform a method comprising:
spinning on the blind rivet stud as recited in claim 26 up to the detent face of the mouthpiece;
completely incorporating the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet stud into the clearance of the workpiece; and
compressing the blind rivet stud via the at least one lifting movement of the blind rivet stud setting tool in a direction counter to the clearance,
wherein,
the external dimension of the free axial portion of the setting region of the blind rivet stud is enlarged radially within the clearance of the workpiece via the at least one lifting movement so as to bring about at least one of a form-fit and a friction- fit with the workpiece, and
the compression region forms a closing bead.
Concerning claims 36, given the structure of the blind rivet stud and the blind rivet stud setting tool as recited in claim 26, the structural elements of the combination of Orloff and Denham (as rejected in claims 26, 32-34 above) would render the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/24/2025, with respect to claim(s) 15-18 and 20-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the drawing objection related to at least claim 35, the annotated Fig. 5 fails show internal thread of the mouthpiece, therefore the drawing objection stands.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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