DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 15 April 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-11 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 15 April 2026 is acknowledged.
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 10 and 11 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 10 recites “wherein the first and second bores are adapted to receive a rotating component of the torque converter” at lines 1-2. The Specification teaches that “The bores 182 and 184 are configured to receive a rotating component therethrough, for example, a turbine shell and hub (not shown).” The Specification further teaches that a rivet 192 may be attached, which appears to be shown in Figure 7. Figure 8 identifies components 182 and 184 with apparent hatching that does not appear to fairly identify bores. It is unclear how the bores which are understood to receive the rivet 192, best shown in Figure 7, are understood to receive a rotating component, when the Specification appears to teach that such bores are not visible in Figure 7. It is further unclear what aspect of the bores makes them especially adapted to and capable of receiving a rotating component.
The term “approximately” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm” 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 Specification as filed does not appear to provide a definition for the term “approximately” and it is unclear what deviations from the actual recited range are contemplated by Applicant as reading on the recited range.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 11
Claims 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent 2,245,933 to Moore (hereinafter “Moore”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0309775 to Potocki et al. (hereinafter “Potocki”)
Regarding claim 1, Moore discloses a method of joining a first and second workpiece, comprising: forming a first bore (4) in a first workpiece (5), the first bore (4) extending between a first side (upper side; see Fig. 1) of the first workpiece (5) and a second side (lower side) of the first workpiece (5); forming an annular ridge (see Annotated Figure) surrounding the first bore (4) on at least one of the first or second sides of the first workpiece (see Fig. 2); forming a second bore (see Annotated Figure) in a second workpiece (second member, below member 5; see Annotated Figure); forming an annular recess (see Annotated Figure) surrounding the second bore (see Annotated Figure); placing the first workpiece (5) in contact with the second workpiece (see Annotated Figure) such that the annular ridge (see Annotated Figure) is received in the annular recess (see Annotated Figure); and forming a hermetic seal (compare Figures 2 and 3; seal formed by deforming members) between the first and second workpieces by deforming the annular ridge (see Fig. 3) within the annular recess (see Annotated Figure) through application of compressive force (see Col. 1, lines 10-18) to at least one of the first or second workpieces (both member shown deformed; see Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moore does not explicitly disclose that its seal is hermetically sealed. However, it is known in the art of joining components to form a hermetic seal.
Potocki teaches a method for joining sheet members in an overlapping relationship (see Abstract). Potocki teaches an upper member (20) and a lower member (22) having a coaxial bore therethrough (24; see paragraph [0038]). A rivet (32) is positioned in the bore and deformed (see paragraph [0040]) such that the rivet is deformed on both upper and lower face of the members (see Fig. 10), forming a hermetic seal (paragraph [0042]), which advantageously prevents corrosion of the fastener or the joined members (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Moore to secure the joined sheets together using the well-known technique taught by Potocki, producing a hermetically sealed joint. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting method would advantageously reduce the opportunity for the components of the joint to suffer corrosion in the finished joint. Both Moore at least at Figure 3 and Potocki at Figure 10 show a completed joint having the rivet deformed around the bottom and top sides of the through holes through the sheet members, and it would be reasonable for one having ordinary skill in the art to expect that securing a rivet around the sheet configuration taught by Moore would be capable of producing the type of joint taught by Potocki without modification of the principles of operation of Moore.
Thus, the combination of Moore and Potocki teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Moore and Potocki teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Moore teaches that the second bore (see Annotated Figure; bores) extends between first and second sides (bores are understood to be through bores passing from upper side through lower side of second member) of the second workpiece (see Annotated Figure).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Moore and Potocki teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further Moore teaches inserting a fastener (rivet 1) through the first and second bores (see Col. 1, lines 40-46).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Moore and Potocki teaches the limitations of claim 3, and further Moore teaches that the fastener (1) includes a rivet (see Title), and wherein deforming the annular ridge is performed during installation of the rivet (see Col. 1, line 53 – Col. 2, line 6).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Moore and Potocki teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Moore teaches that the annular ridge (see Annotated Figure), prior to deformation, comprises an apex and the annular recess comprises a planar surface (see Fig. 2; uppermost surface of recess appears to be horizontally planar most adjacent the bore).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Moore and Potocki teaches the limitations of claim 5, and further Moore teaches that the apex of the annular ridge is flattened against the planar surface of the annular recess after deformation (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Moore and Potocki teaches the limitations of claim 1, however the combination does not explicitly disclose that the annular ridge protrudes from a planar main portion of the first workpiece between approximately 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm.
The MPEP teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was no patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited protrusion distance would cause the device taught by the combination to behave differently in use than a larger or smaller distance. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions of the annular ridge to be within the recited range, as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of Moore.
Thus, the combination of Moore and Potocki teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Claims 7-8
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Moore and Potocki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2010/0083480 to Carter (hereinafter “Carter”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Moore and Potocki teaches the limitations of claim 1. Moore teaches that the bore (4) and countersunk portion defining the ridge may be formed by a conventional manner (see Col. 1, lines 40-49). Potocki teaches that it is known in the art to form a bore in a workpiece by piercing (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0038]), but does not explicitly disclose forming the ridge by performing the piercing. Potocki teaches that its piercing may be performed using a suitable die and punch (26, 28), and that the punch may have any suitable shape to produce a suitable shaped hole (see paragraph [0038]).
However, it is known in the art to form a ridged portion of a workpiece by performing a piercing. For example, Carter teaches such deforming. Carter teaches a workpiece (212) which may be deformed by a piercing process with a punch (228) and die (232; see paragraph [0056]). The workpiece may be deformed by the punch (228) such that a ridge (recess portion at 240; see Fig. 4B) and an opening (at tip portion 229) is formed through the center of the ridge.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Moore and Potocki to produce the ridge and bore therethrough via a conventional process, such as a piercing as taught by Carter. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably produce a workpiece having the same shape taught by Moore. Whether the bore is formed as a through bore would depend on the dimensions of the workpiece being pierced and of the punch portion (229 of Carter). Where the thickness of the workpiece is less than the height of the tip portion of the punch, the ridge and bore taught by Moore would be formed by a piercing step as taught by Carter, without modification of the principles of operation of Moore.
Thus, the combination of Moore, Potocki, and Carter teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Moore, Potocki, and Carter teaches the limitations of claim 7, and further Carter teaches that the first bore (recess formed by tip portion 229) and the annular ridge (recess formed by surrounding punch portion 240) are formed in a single step (see Figs. 4A and 4B).
Claims 9-10
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Moore and Potocki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter the “AAPA”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Moore and Potocki teaches the limitations of claim 1, however the combination does not explicitly disclose that the first workpiece comprises a housing of a pressurized chamber of a torque converter.
However, it is known in the art of connected materials to connect a housing of a pressurized chamber of a torque converter.
For example, the AAPA teaches such a torque converter. The AAPA teaches torque converter assemblies are known in the art (see instant Specification, paragraph [0002]). The AAPA teaches that a torque converter assembly may include a housing (front cover; see paragraph [0002]) and an enclosure (paragraph [0002]). Further, the AAPA teaches that the torque converter may contain fluids (see paragraph [0004]) which may leak where rivet connections are used.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by the combination of Moore and Potocki to include joining components of a well-known structure, such as a torque converter having a conventional structure as taught by the AAPA. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting method would predictably result in a sealed joint which is sealed such that fluids are not likely to leak, as taught by Potocki, without modification of the principles of operation. While the AAPA does not explicitly use the term “pressurized chamber” one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand a torque converter defining an enclosure containing fluids as taught by the AAPA to read on a pressurized chamber. To the best of the examiner’s understand, any chamber can be construed as a pressurized chamber even where the pressure is zero.
Thus, the combination of Moore, Potocki, and the AAPA teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Moore, Potocki, and the AAPA teaches the limitations of claim 9, and further Moore teaches that the first and second bores are adapted to receive a rotating component of the torque converter (see Annotated Figures defining bores). A review of the instant Specification does not suggest that there is any particular aspect of the bores that make them capable of receiving a rotatable component, nor which limits the types of components that can be received. While the rivet (1) of Moore is received in the bores (see Annotated Figure above with respect to claim 1), the examiner understands the rivet (1) to be capable of being rotated prior to upsetting the rivet.
Thus, the combination of Moore, Potocki, and the AAPA teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent 6,106,184 to Daniels et al teaches a joint defining a ridge (at 14) received within a recess in a second workpiece (see Figs. 4-5).
United States Patent 3,930,656 teaches a joint formed between workpieces (compare Figures 5 and 6) such that a fastener may be used to clinch the workpieces together, at least one of the workpieces having a ridge (see projection 50).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights