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
The examiner notes that no formal election was made in response to the restriction requirement mailed 1/8/2025. However, given the pro-se status of this application, and to the extent that the claims filed 7/5/2025 effectively render the requirement moot, the examiner will treat the instant claims as effectively elected for the purpose of examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it lists the purported merits of the invention (e.g. “Urging the centroid toward the handle improves technician ergonomics and offers other rivet fastener installation benefits”).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The numbering of the specification filed 7/5/2025 is incorrect, noting that the numbering resets at “1” following page 15.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (see page 3, line 9). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Page 9, line 25 recites “ration”, but should be amended to recite --ratio--.
Page 18, line 18 recites “coupler 22”, where “22” was previously used to indicate an electrical plug. It appears that this should be --coupler 32-- instead.
Page 17, line 17 recites “cap 2”, where “2” was previously used to indicate the rivet set tool.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Cited line numbers are based on the included line numbering in the claims.
Claim 1:
In line 5, “bucking” includes an errant symbol beneath the “c”.
In line 5, “is used” should be amended to recite --used--.
Line 15 recites “face abut”, which appears to be redundant.
Lines 16-17 recite “is operative plastically deforms”, but should be amended to recite --is operative to plastically deform-- or --plastically deforms--.
Claim 3:
In line 12, “worker torso” should be amended to recite --a worker torso--.
Claim 4:
In lines 17-18, “bucking bar system mass centroid” should be amended to recite --the bucking bar system mass centroid--.
Claim 7:
Lines 3-4 recite “operative to aid coplanar of said anvil face and said shank face to each other”, which is grammatically unclear.
Line 4 recites “operative aid”, but should be amended to recite --operative to aid--.
Claim 9:
Lines 1-2 recite “is configured to joined to”, but should be amended to recite --is configured to be joined to-- or -- is configured to join to--.
Line 17 recites “of elongated shaft”, but should be amended to recite --of the elongated shaft--.
Line 19 recites “an external threads”, but should be amended to recite --external threads--.
Line 24 recites “should”, but should be amended to recite --shoulder--.
Line 26 recites “an internal threads”, but should be amended to recite --internal threads--.
Claim 10:
In line 1, “is used” should be amended to recite --used--.
Lines 9-10 recite “at end of said first end”, but should amended to recite --at said first end--, for example.
Lines 15-16 recite “and and”.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites “wherein upon, joining to PRIOR ART equipment said elongated bucking bar and PRIOR ART equipment are coaxially coupled to each other to form said bucking bar system”, which is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 17:
Line 6 recites “operative measure” but should amended to recite --operative to measure--.
Line 23 recites “should”, but should be amended to recite --shoulder--.
Line 25 recites “an internal threads”, but should be amended to recite --internal threads--.
Claim 19:
Line 15 recites “sad” but should be amended to recite --said--.
Claim 20:
Line 24 recites “exhibits”, but should be amended to recite --exhibiting--.
Line 27 recites “of rivet shank with elongated shaft”, but should be amended to recite --of the rivet shank with the elongated shaft--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, and 20 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “configured to urge the location of the mass centroid of said bucking bar system away from said anvil face and toward said handle”. Unless the BBS is adjustable to do so, which it is neither claimed nor disclosed to be, it is unclear how it "urges" the centroid location in any direction, such as “away from” the anvil face and “toward” the handle. The structure of the BBS is fixed and thus the location of the centroid is as well.
The term “characteristically long” in claim 5, line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “large angular pivot rotation” in claim 5, line 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites limitations including “reduce technician fatigue”, “reduce injury”, “improve working ergonomics”, and “improve rivet set quality”. These results are largely subjective in nature and/or based on a human operator, each of which would be different, and it is unclear how the structure per se of the claimed system would necessarily produce these results.
Claim 7, line 11 recites “urge mass centroid of said bucking bar system proximal to technician's torso”. Similarly as discussed for claim 3 above, it is unclear how the BBS "urges" the centroid location in any direction given that the structure of the BBS is presumed fixed and thus the location of the centroid is as well.
Claim 9, lines 7 and 13 each recite “said workpiece”, whereas plural workpieces had been previously established in claim 1. It is thus unclear to which “said workpiece” refers.
Claim 10, lines 17-18 recite “wherein said bucking bar system is joined to PRIOR ART equipment, said prior art equipment comprised of an automated rivet set tool and a back set tool”. First, as claimed, it is unclear if the PROR ART equipment is intended to be a positively recited feature of the claimed “bucking bar system” (BBS). Noting that the claim is ultimately to the “bucking bar system” per se (see preamble), and the PRIOR ART equipment is joined thereto, this suggests that the PRIOR ART equipment is separate from the BBS and thus not part of it. Additionally, this joining results in a so-called “joined bucking bar system” (see line 28), which is interpreted as a different entity from the “bucking bar system” of the preamble. Furthermore, the limitation “said prior art equipment comprised of an automated rivet set tool and a back set tool” suggests that the BBS is joined to both. While it is understood to be compatible with both, it cannot joined to both simultaneously based on the examiner’s understanding of the invention. It is thus unclear how this would be the case, and also lends further evidence that the limitation discussed above relates to the intended use of the tool rather than a positive recitation of the PRIOR ART equipment as part thereof. Thus, the limitation “wherein said bucking bar system is joined to PRIOR ART equipment, said prior art equipment comprised of an automated rivet set tool and a back set tool” is interpreted herein as intended use and NOT as positively requiring the PRIOR ART equipment.
Applicant is cautioned that if claim 10 is amended to positively require said PRIOR ART equipment, then positively reciting joining to both (i.e. both the automated rivet set tool and a back set tool) will be subject to rejection under 112(a) for lacking support in the written description as the original disclosure only appears to support joining one at a time to the BBS.
Claim 10, lines 22-26 recite method steps in a system/apparatus claim, thus rendering their scope unclear. For examination purposes, these will be interpreted as relating to the intended use of the system.
The term “characteristically observable angular displacement” in claim 11, line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 recites “said elongated bucking bar”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, noting that only a “bucking bar system” was ever recited.
Claim 13 recites “wherein upon, joining to PRIOR ART equipment said elongated bucking bar and PRIOR ART equipment are coaxially coupled to each other to form said bucking bar system”. This is seemingly contradictory with claim 10, where, as discussed above, the “bucking bar system” and the “PRIOR ART equipment” are recited separate entities such that the “PRIOR ART equipment” would not be considered part of the BBS.
Claim 17 recites “said workpiece” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “a first end, proximal to said first end” in line 14. It is unclear how the first end is proximal to itself as it is a single entity.
Claim 19 recites “locating said mass centroid proximal to technician body torso to operatively reduce technician fatigue.” This result is largely subjective in nature and/or based on a human operator, each of which would be different, and it is unclear how the structure per se of the claimed system would necessarily produce these results.
The preamble of claim 20 recites “The fully incorporated bucking bar system of Claim 9”, whereas claim 9 is drawn to the system of claim 1 further incorporating a shaft pocket, external threads, and a coupler. The “fully incorporated bucking bar system” presumably refers to the hypothetical, non-positively recited incorporation of the BBS with the PRIOR ART equipment per the last line of claim 9. The preamble of claim 20 is thus inconsistent with that of the claim from which it depends, rendering its scope unclear.
Claim 20 recites results such as “improve ergonomics”, “reduce technician fatigue by placing mass centroid proximal to technician torso”, “reduce technician fatigue”, “reduce injury”, “improve working ergonomics”, “improve rivet set quality”, and “urge mass centroid of said bucking bar system proximal to technician's torso”, which are largely subjective in nature and/or based on a human operator, each of which would be different, and it is unclear how the structure per se of the claimed system would necessarily produce these results.
The term “long moment arm” in claim 20, line 1 (page 12) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a claim discussed above.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirk (U.S. Patent 974,677).
Claim 1: Kirk discloses a bucking bar system [used] to set a solid core rivet fastener (intended use, see below), said rivet having a manufactured head, a shank, a shank face, and a shank neutral axis, and where upon fastening said rivet, said rivet shank plasticly deforms into a button head to join a plurality of work pieces to each other (these features pertain to the intended use of the tool and the article worked upon, see below), said bucking bar system comprising: an elongated shaft (generally defined by 1 and 2), said shaft having a first end (lower end in Fig. 1), and a second end (upper end in Fig. 1), an anvil face (4), a handle (upper portion of 1), said handle affixed to said second end of said shaft (as shown), wherein upon fastening said rivet, said anvil face and said rivet shank face abut each other while said bucking bar system is operative plastically deforms said shank into said button head (intended use), wherein said bucking bar system further has a neutral axis (generally a longitudinal axis that would extend vertically along the BBS in Fig. 1), and wherein said bucking bar system is configured to have an elongated form factor (applicant generally defines “elongated body” on pages 9-10 as being substantially longer than wide, with a non-limiting exemplary “slenderness ratio” of 6 to 45. While the figures of Kirk are not necessarily to scale, the tool clearly suggests an elongate body with a slenderness ratio substantially greater than 6).
It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention 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. It is also noted that a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. In this case, the tool of Kirk, explicitly used to head rivets, is presumed capable of performing the claimed functions and on the specified rivets.
Claim 2: The form factor of said bucking bar system forms a slender body, said slender body having a slenderness ratio greater than 6 (as discussed above).
Claim 3: The mass centroid of the Kirk tool is presumed to be urged away from the anvil face, at least relative to the anvil alone, by virtue of the handle adding mass distal from the anvil face. This interpretation appears to be consistent with Applicant’s intent, in spite of the indefinites issue raised above. The reminder of claim 3 pertains to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claim 4: The limitations pertain to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claim 5: The limitations pertain the intended use of the tool, as well as to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claim 6: The limitations pertain to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claim 7: The limitations pertain to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fenstemaker (U.S. PGPub 2010/0269648).
Claim 1: Broadly, Fenstemaker discloses a bucking bar system [used] to set a solid core rivet fastener (intended use, see below), said rivet having a manufactured head, a shank, a shank face, and a shank neutral axis, and where upon fastening said rivet, said rivet shank plasticly deforms into a button head to join a plurality of work pieces to each other (these features pertain to the intended use of the tool and the article worked upon, see below), said bucking bar system comprising: an elongated shaft (generally defined by 4, see Fig. 1), said shaft having a first end (left end in Fig. 1), and a second end (right end in Fig. 1), an anvil face (upper end of tool 6 in Fig. 5D), a handle (38), said handle affixed to said second end of said shaft (as shown, and paragraph 32), wherein upon fastening said rivet, said anvil face and said rivet shank face abut each other while said bucking bar system is operative plastically deforms said shank into said button head (intended use), wherein said bucking bar system further has a neutral axis (generally a longitudinal axis that would extend vertically along the shaft in Fig. 1), and wherein said bucking bar system is configured to have an elongated form factor (applicant generally defines “elongated body” on pages 9-10 as being substantially longer than wide, with a non-limiting exemplary “slenderness ratio” of 6 to 45. Fenstemaker discloses a handle length of at least 2 feet and diameter of 1.5 inches - paragraphs 31-32).
It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention 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. It is also noted that a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. In this case, the tool of Fenstemaker, having an elongated handle connected to an enlarged steel (paragraph 30) head 6, is presumed capable of performing the claimed functions and on the specified rivets even if not necessarily intended for this purpose.
Claim 2: The form factor of said bucking bar system forms a slender body, said slender body having a slenderness ratio greater than 6 (as cited above).
Claim 3: The mass centroid of the Fenstemaker tool is presumed to be urged away from the anvil (6) face, at least relative to the anvil alone, by virtue of the handle adding mass distal from the anvil face. This interpretation appears to be consistent with Applicant’s intent, in spite of the indefinites issue raised above. The reminder of claim 3 pertains to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claim 4: The limitations pertain to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claim 5: The limitations pertain to the intended use of the tool, as well as to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claim 6: The limitations pertain to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claim 7: The limitations pertain to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claim 9: The examiner first establishes that claimed elements designated as “PRIOR ART” are taken as an admission that these elements and their features are in fact known in the prior art. See, for example, Figure 1A to the prior art automated rivet set tool equipment, and Figure 1B to the back set tool equipment. See also Applicant’s Background section (specification, pages 2-4), as well as page 2, line 6 - page 3, line 4 (using Applicant’s numbering) of the Detailed Description section.
Fenstemaker further discloses said bucking bar system is further comprised of, a shaft pocket (opening at end of shaft 4, see Fig. 3A), said shaft pocket is located at said first end of elongated shaft and said shaft pocket is configured to receive said PRIOR ART anvil body (the cavity receives a cylindrical shank 20/22 of a tool 6, Id. in an analogous way), external threads (threads 78 as part of portion 70 adhered to and thus essentially integral with the handle - paragraph 38), said external threads are located at said elongated shaft first end (Fig. 3A), a coupler (72), said coupler having, an internal cavity (evident in Fig. 3A), said cavity is configured to allow said PRIOR ART anvil body to pass through said cavity (the analogous shank 20/22 of the tool 6 passes through), an internal shoulder (e.g. narrowed flange toward the nose of 72), said internal shoulder is operative to engage with said PRIORART external shoulder (depending on the exact nature of the claimed shoulder, it would be capable of doing so), an internal threads (86), said internal threads are operative to engage with said external threads (paragraph 39), wherein, upon assembly (a hypothetical intended use of the BBS), said bucking bar system is joined to PRIOR ART by passing said PRIOR ART anvil body through said coupler internal cavity and into said shaft pocket (the cavity of Fenstemaker is presumed capable as with similar shafts 20/22 as noted above), next said PRIOR ART external shoulder is engaged with said coupler internal shoulder (the tool is presumed capable depending on the exact nature of the shoulder and its engagement), next said internal and external threads are engaged with each other (as cited above) and upon further engagement of said threads, said PRIOR ART anvil body is urged to mate said PRIOR ART anvil body and said shaft pocket with each other (similarly to the tool 6), and upon assembly said bucking bar system fully incorporates said PRIOR ART (it would in a similar manner to a tool 6).
With regard to the above, it is noted that, as claimed, the BBS is merely “configured to [be] joined to” the prior art equipment as claimed, and merely “configured to” or “operative to” interact with the corresponding features of the prior art equipment, and the prior art systems are not positively recited to be part of the actual BBS assembly. Because the BBS of Fenstemaker is designed to receive a variety of tools 6 using a cylindrical shank (20/22) interface which is analogous to the anvil body (4) of the prior art equipment, the Fenstemaker BBS is presumed capable of interacting with the prior art equipment as claimed.
Claim 20: Noting that claim 20 depends from claim 9, which is drawn to the system of claim 1 further incorporating a shaft pocket, external threads, and a coupler, where the “fully incorporated bucking bar system” presumably refers to the hypothetical, non-positively recited incorporation of the BBS with the PRIOR ART equipment per the last line of claim 9, then claim 20 is interpreted herein as referring to features and benefits of the hypothetical assembly, for example in an intended use capacity. In view of this, the fully incorporated bucking bar system of claim 9 would exhibit an elongated slender form factor (given the previously cited length-to-diameter ratio) with a long moment arm (2 to 16 feet as previously cited). The mass centroid is further presumed to be urged away from the anvil (6) face, at least relative to the anvil alone, by virtue of the handle adding mass distal from the anvil face. This interpretation appears to be consistent with Applicant’s intent, in spite of the indefinites issue raised above. The remainder of claim 20 pertains to the intended use of the tool, as well as to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claim 10: Broadly, Fenstemaker discloses a bucking bar system [used] to fasten a solid core rivet (intended use, see below) having a manufactured head, a shank, and a shank end, where upon fastening said rivet, the shank end plasticly deforms into a button head when joining a plurality of work pieces to each other (these features pertain to the intended use of the tool and the article worked upon, see below), said bucking bar system further comprising: an elongated shaft (generally defined by 4, see Fig. 1), said shaft having a first end (left end in Fig. 1), said first end having a pocket (opening at end of shaft 4, see Fig. 3A), said pocket is concentric to said first end (evident), an external thread set (threads 78 as part of portion 70 adhered to and thus essentially integral with the handle - paragraph 38), said external thread set located at end of said first end (evident), a second end (right end in Fig. 1), said second end having a handle (38), said handle affixed to said shaft second end (as shown, and paragraph 32), a coupler (72), said coupler having an internal cavity (evident in Fig. 3A), an internal thread set (86), and internal shoulder (e.g. narrowed flange toward the nose of 72).
As discussed in the rejection under 112(b) above, the limitation “wherein said bucking bar system is joined to PRIOR ART equipment”, as well as the following steps, are interpreted herein as reciting the intended use of the bucking bar system.
The examiner also notes that claimed elements designated as “PRIOR ART” are taken as an admission that these elements and their features are in fact known in the prior art. See, for example, Figure 1A to the prior art automated rivet set tool equipment, and Figure 1B to the back set tool equipment. See also Applicant’s Background section (specification, pages 2-4), as well as page 2, line 6 - page 3, line 4 (using Applicant’s numbering) of the Detailed Description section.
Noting the analogous engagement between the cylindrical shank 20/22 of the tool 6 and the handle 4, the examiner submits that the Fenstemaker BBS would be capable of passing said anvil body (a similarly cylindrical shank structure as depicted in instant Figs. 1A-1B) through said coupler internal cavity and inserting said anvil body into said shaft pocket, said external and internal shoulders could be engaged with each other (depending upon the nature of the shoulder and the engagement), next said threads (78 and 86 of Fenstemaker) would be engaged with each other (as cited above) and upon further engagement of said threads, said anvil body would be urged into said pocket until a rigid mate is achieved (similarly as with tools 6) ,wherein said joined bucking bar system would fully incorporate said PRIOR ART equipment.
It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention 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. It is also noted that a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. In this case, the tool of Fenstemaker, having an elongated handle connected to an enlarged steel (paragraph 30) head 6, is presumed capable of performing the claimed functions and on the specified rivets even if not necessarily intended for this purpose.
Claim 11: The form factor of said bucking bar system characteristically exhibits a slender body shape (a substantially elongate shaft structure 4 as shown, having a length of at least 2 feet and diameter of 1.5 inches - paragraphs 31-32). The mass centroid of the Fenstemaker tool is also presumed to be urged away from the anvil (e.g. 6 or analogously the PRIOR ART) face, at least relative to the anvil alone, by virtue of the handle adding mass distal from the anvil face. This interpretation appears to be consistent with Applicant’s intent, in spite of the indefinites issue raised above. The reminder of claim11 pertains to the intended use of the tool, as well as to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Claim 13: The PRIOR ART equipment and bucking bar would be coaxially coupled upon hypothetical coupling the anvil body to the shaft opening in a similar manner that the shank 20/22 of the tools 6 would extend coaxially from the opening of shaft 4.
Claim 14: The joint of coupling 72 results in a “a secure connection between the work head and the handle that can withstand the impact, twisting, and pulling forces” (paragraph 3), and thus is presumed to form a “rigid body” as the assembly.
Claim 15: Upon said joining, said PRIOR ART anvil body and said shaft pocket [would be] at least one of, concentric to each other, and neutral axes are colinear to each other (analogously to shanks 20/22 and the shaft 4 opening).
Claim 16: Said joined bucking bar system [would form] a slender body, said slender body has a slenderness ratio that exhibits an elongated bucking bar (the length-to-radius ratio of Fenstemaker as previous cited).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenstemaker in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Wick (U.S. PGPub 2017/0122559).
Claim 17: The examiner establishes that claimed elements designated as “PRIOR ART” are taken as an admission that these elements and their features are in fact known in the prior art. See, for example, Figure 1A to the prior art automated rivet set tool equipment, and Figure 1B to the back set tool equipment. See also Applicant’s Background section (specification, pages 2-4), as well as page 2, line 6 - page 3, line 4 (using Applicant’s numbering) of the Detailed Description section. Thus, the “automated rivet set tool” and the “back set tool”, and their corresponding features as claimed, are taken as admitted prior art.
Fenstemaker in turn discloses a system comprised of an elongated shaft (generally defined by 4, see Fig. 1), said shaft having a first end (left end in Fig. 1), said shaft further having an internal cavity, said cavity forming a shaft pocket (opening at end of shaft 4, see Fig. 3A), said shaft pocket is configured to receive an anvil body (a cylindrical shank 20/22 of a tool 6), an external set of threads (threads 78 as part of portion 70 adhered to and thus essentially integral with the handle - paragraph 38), a second end (right end in Fig. 1), a handle (38), said handle is affixed to said second end of said shaft (as shown, and paragraph 32), a coupler (72), said coupler having an internal cavity, said cavity is configured to allow said anvil body (20/22) to pass through said cavity (see Fig. 3A), an internal shoulder (e.g. narrowed flange toward the nose of 72), said internal shoulder is operative to engage with an external shoulder (depending on the nature of the shoulder and its engagement), and internal threads (86), said internal threads are operative to engage with said external threads (paragraph 39). Fenstemaker is further designed to provide an elongated shaft/handle to various interchangeable tools 6. The tools 6 are assembled via a cylindrical shank 20/22 by first passing the shank 6 through said coupler internal cavity and into said shaft pocket, next said internal and external threads (of 70 and 72) are engaged with each other and upon further engagement of said threads, said tool shank is urged to mate into said shaft pocket (paragraph 39), wherein after assembly said bucking bar system fully incorporates said tool to become a joined rigid body (implied in paragraph 3).
Thus, from the above, both the claimed PRIOR ART equipment, as well as an elongated shaft/handle/coupler arrangement for receiving various tools, are known separately in the prior art. The prior art does not necessarily teach a method for forming a bucking bar system by joining the PRIOR ART equipment to the shaft/handle/coupler arrangement. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mounted the PRIOR ART riveting tool to a handle/shaft/coupler arrangement as taught by Fenstemaker, since the operation of one is in no way dependent on the other, and they could be used in combination with the predictable result of extending the gripping surface and reach of the riveting device, for example (MPEP 2143 I. A.).
Finally, the PRIOR ART external shoulder would not necessarily be engaged with said coupler internal shoulder. However, Wick teaches that an external shoulder (130) of a tool shank (122) may engage with an internal shoulder (135) of a threaded coupling of a handle in order to secure the tool from axial separation (paragraph 67). It thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided for a similar engagement between the PRIOR ART external shoulder and the Fenstemaker coupler in order to have further secured the PRIOR ART equipment to the handle.
Claim 18: Said elongated shaft of Fenstemaker has a neutral axis (generally the longitudinal axis of the shaft/handle 4) and said PRIOR art has a neutral axis (see e.g. instant Detailed Description at page 3, line 12) and wherein upon said joining, said PRIOR ART anvil body and said shaft pocket would be at least one of, concentric to each other, and neutral axes colinear to each other (based on the alignment of the anvil body 4 analogously to the tool shanks 20/22 of Fenstemaker within the shaft/coupler cavity as in Fig. 3A).
Claim 19: The mass centroid of the Fenstemaker/PRIOR ART tool is presumed to be urged away from the anvil face, at least relative to the anvil alone, by virtue of the handle adding mass distal from the anvil face. This interpretation appears to be consistent with Applicant’s intent, in spite of the indefinites issue raised above. The reminder of claim 19 pertains to results which, for lack of evidence to the contrary, are presumed to flow naturally from the structure of the tool, that is the relative length and resulting centroid location being more rearward due to the elongate structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examine has cited certain references listed in the specification.
U.S. Patent 4,649,733 discloses another example of an elongate rivet bucking bar system.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726