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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siebol (US 3192821).
Regarding claim 13, Siebol teaches a spring-loaded rivet (fig 7), comprising: a rivet head fig 7, item 16); a rivet shank (col 1, lines 30-50, “the entire length of such tubular body, shank, “); a rivet tail (col 8, lines 1-15, “ pin for setting said rivet received in said passage with a tail portion protruding from the top end and a head protruding from the other end of said body, “); and a spring element positioned around the rivet shank (fig 7, items 42a-c) wherein the spring-loaded rivet fastens a first component to a second component (col 5, lines 16-25, “ two overlapping metal sheets 46 and 48, between which is positioned a layer of resilient or compressible material 50 such as, for example, a Fiberglas heat insulation blanket, such that the forward shoulder of flange 18 of the rivet ;head is pressed into firm contact with the accessible front surface of the outer sheet 46, and the shank portion 14 and pin head 32 are punched through the insulation layer 50”).
Regarding claim 14, Siebol teaches the rivet tail provides a clamping force that biases the first component toward the second component, and wherein the rivet head provides a clamping force that biases the second component toward the first component (col 5, lines 16-25, “ two overlapping metal sheets 46 and 48, between which is positioned a layer of resilient or compressible material 50 such as, for example, a Fiberglas heat insulation blanket, such that the forward shoulder of flange 18 of the rivet ;head is pressed into firm contact with the accessible front surface of the outer sheet 46, and the shank portion 14 and pin head 32 are punched through the insulation layer 50”).
Regarding claim 18, Siebol teaches the spring-loaded rivet is a blind rivet (col 5, lines 16-25, “ The blind rivet assembly 10 is then inserted, shank end first”).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al (KR 20050049629) in view of Schweizer er al (US 20200181967).
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA) waveguide (page 3, paragraph 3, “It is preferable that the fixing part of the method for manufacturing a printed circuit board with an optical waveguide according to the present invention is at least one of a pin, a rivet, and a pin mounted spring”) assembly, comprising: a PCBA; a waveguide (page 3, paragraph 3, “It is preferable that the fixing part of the method for manufacturing a printed circuit board with an optical waveguide according to the present invention is at least one of a pin, a rivet, and a pin mounted spring”); and a spring-loaded rivet (page 8, paragraph 2, “The fixing portion is a pin (pin), rivet (rivet), a printed circuit board having an optical waveguide, characterized in that at least one of a pin (pin mounted spring) is mounted”), wherein the spring-loaded rivet fastens the PBCA to the waveguide (page 8, paragraph 2, “It is preferable that the fixing part of the method for manufacturing a printed circuit board with an optical waveguide according to the present invention is at least one of a pin, a rivet, and a pin mounted spring”).
Regarding claim 1, Schweizer teaches a rivet head, a rivet shank, a rivet tail, and a spring element (fig 3). It would have been obvious to modify Shin to include a rivet head, a rivet shank, a rivet tail, and a spring element because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet of Shin for the rivet of Schweizer to yield a predictable rivet.
Regarding claim 4, Shin teaches the PCBA and the waveguide comprise a rivet channel in which the spring-loaded rivet is positioned (fig 2f).
Regarding claim 5, Shin teaches the rivet channel has a larger diameter than the rivet shank (fig 2f).
Regarding claim 6, Schweizer teaches the spring element has a larger diameter than the rivet channel (fig 3). It would have been obvious to modify Shin to include the spring element has a larger diameter than the rivet channel because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet of Shin for the rivet of Schweizer to yield a predictable rivet.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Schweizer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swais et al (US 20130069835).
Regarding claim 2, Swais teaches the rivet tail is deformed during installation and provides a clamping force that biases the waveguide toward the PCBA, and wherein the rivet head provides a clamping force that biases the PCBA toward the waveguide (para 47, “the original head is called the factory head 121 and the deformed end is called the shop head or buck-tail 122”). It would have been obvious to modify Shin to include the rivet tail is deformed during installation and provides a clamping force that biases the waveguide toward the PCBA, and wherein the rivet head provides a clamping force that biases the PCBA toward the waveguide because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet of Shin for the rivet of Swais to yield a predictable rivet.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Schweizer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jambor (US 3848947).
Regarding claim 3, Jambor teaches the spring element comprises a wire spring positioned around the rivet shank between the rivet head and the PCBA (fig 2). It would have been obvious to modify Shin to include the spring element comprises a wire spring positioned around the rivet shank between the rivet head and the PCBA because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet spring of Shin for the rivet spring of Jambor to yield a predictable rivet.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Schweizer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gu et al (US 20080057786).
Regarding claim 7, Gu teaches the spring element comprises a sheet metal spring (para 7, “the metal shield is made of common iron sheet while the metal spring is made of stainless steel”). It would have been obvious to modify Shin to include the spring element comprises a sheet metal spring because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet spring of Shin for the rivet spring of Gu to yield a predictable rivet.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Schweizer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 20150171674).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the spring element comprises an elastic bushing (par 165, “Spoke spring bushings 1620, shown in FIG. 24B and in more detail in FIG. 24C, may comprise a hollow elastic sleeve 1624 (such as hard synthetic rubber or polyurethane”). It would have been obvious to modify Shin to include the spring element comprises an elastic bushing because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet spring of Shin for the rivet spring of Lee to yield a predictable rivet.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Schweizer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaertner et al (US 20150285288).
Regarding claim 9, Gaertner teaches the spring-loaded rivet is a blind rivet (claim 3). It would have been obvious to modify Shin to include the spring-loaded rivet is a blind rivet because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet of Shin for the rivet of Lee to yield a predictable rivet.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Schweizer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kee (US 20240401681).
Regarding claim 10, Kee teaches the rivet tail is a slotted rivet tail (para 8, “an upset surface against which a tail of a rivet can be compressed to deform the rivet tail within the circumferential slot.”). It would have been obvious to modify Shin to include the rivet tail is a slotted rivet tail because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet of Shin for the rivet of Kee to yield a predictable rivet.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Schweizer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo (US 20220368011).
Regarding claim 11, Yoo teaches the PCBA waveguide assembly deployed in a radar sensor (para 5). It would have been obvious to modify Shin to include the PCBA waveguide assembly deployed in a radar sensor because it is merely one of multiple implementation of the PCBA waveguide of Shin to yield a predictable waveguide.
Regarding claim 12, Yoo teaches the PCBA waveguide assembly deployed in an autonomous vehicle radar sensor (para 5). It would have been obvious to modify Shin to include the PCBA waveguide assembly deployed in an autonomous vehicle radar sensor because it is merely one of multiple implementation of the PCBA waveguide of Shin to yield a predictable waveguide.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebol as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Jambor (US 3848947).
Regarding claim 15, Jambor teaches the spring element comprises a wire spring (fig 2). It would have been obvious to modify Siebol to include the spring element comprises a wire spring because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet spring of Siebol for the rivet spring of Jambor to yield a predictable rivet.
Regarding claim 15, Siebol teaches a spring force between the rivet head and the second component (fig 7). It would have been obvious to modify Siebol to include a spring force between the rivet head and the second component because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet spring of Siebol for the rivet spring of Jambor to yield a predictable rivet.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebol as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gu et al (US 20080057786).
Regarding claim 16, Gu teaches the spring element comprises a sheet metal spring (para 7, “the metal shield is made of common iron sheet while the metal spring is made of stainless steel”). It would have been obvious to modify Siebol to include the spring element comprises a sheet metal spring because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet spring of Siebol for the rivet spring of Gu to yield a predictable rivet.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebol as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 20150171674).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches the spring element comprises an elastic bushing (par 165, “Spoke spring bushings 1620, shown in FIG. 24B and in more detail in FIG. 24C, may comprise a hollow elastic sleeve 1624 (such as hard synthetic rubber or polyurethane”). It would have been obvious to modify Siebol to include the spring element comprises an elastic bushing because it is merely a substitution of a well-known rivet spring of Siebol for the rivet spring of Lee to yield a predictable rivet.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siebol as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yoo.
Regarding claim 19, Yoo teaches the spring-loaded rivet of deployed in an autonomous vehicle radar sensor (para 5). It would have been obvious to modify Siebol to include the spring-loaded rivet of deployed in an autonomous vehicle radar sensor because it is merely one of multiple implementation of the PCBA waveguide of Shin to yield a predictable waveguide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Shin et al (KR 20050049629), Schweizer er al (US 20200181967), and Siebol (US 3192821) does not teach nor make obvious deforming the rivet tail in the rivet chamber until the rivet is fully installed and clamps the PCBA and the waveguide together.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648