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) 21-24 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Czegledi (US 5582548).
Re Claim 21, Czegledi (Figs. 41-43) discloses a punch tool (tool 1000) for forming a head shape of a fastener, the punch tool comprising:
a body (concave portions 1016, 1018 and other parts of tool 1000 as shown in Fig. 1, illustrated below) having a surface (flat portions 1028, 1030) at an end of the body; and
a punch point (Fig. 41, illustrated below) at the end of the body, the punch point comprising
one or more wings (piercing portion 1004) extending away from the surface and arranged in a pattern that matches a recess pattern on a head of the fastener (“while the manufacture of the fastener head 12 has been shown in FIGS. 41 and 42 it should be understood that this has been done for purposes of illustration only” Col. 9, Lines 34-36), and
at least one pocket extending below the surface and directly adjacent to a corresponding wing of the one or more wings (Fig. 41, illustrated below).
Re Claim 22, Czegledi discloses the punch tool of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above), wherein the punch tool is configured for use within a cold-forming machine (“The method of manufacture according to the present invention utilizes a pair of novel cold-heading tools 1000, 1002, the first of which 1000 is shown in FIG. 41.” Col. 9, Lines 36-39).
Re Claim 23, Czegledi discloses the punch tool of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above), wherein each of the one or more wings includes a corresponding one of the at least one pocket adjacent to it (Fig. 41, illustrated below, shows that each wing includes a corresponding first pocket).
Re Claim 24, Czegledi discloses the punch tool of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above), wherein the at least one pocket has a greatest depth directly adjacent to the corresponding wing, and the depth of the at least one pocket decreases in a direction moving away from the corresponding wing (see Fig. 41, illustrated below).
Re Claim 26, Czegledi discloses the punch tool of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above), wherein the punch point comprises a first pocket adjacent to one side of the corresponding wing and a second pocket adjacent to an opposite side of the corresponding wing (see Fig. 41, illustrated below).
Re Claim 27, Czegledi discloses the punch tool of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above), wherein the one or more wings includes three wings arranged in a tri-cross pattern or includes two wings arranged in a flat pattern (“The method of manufacture, according to the present invention, may be utilized to manufacture each of the various fasteners shown in the various FIGS. and while the manufacture of the fastener head 12 has been shown in FIGS. 41 and 42 it should be understood that this has been done for purposes of illustration only” Col. 9, Lines 32-36 and Figs. 1-6 show that fastener head 12 is a flat pattern.).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
619
1249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 41 of Czegledi, illustrated
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
Claim(s) 25 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czegledi.
Re Claim 25, Czegledi discloses the punch tool of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above), and discloses that the punch tool can be modified to form any of the disclosed fasteners (“The method of manufacture, according to the present invention, may be utilized to manufacture each of the various fasteners shown in the various FIGS. and while the manufacture of the fastener head 12 has been shown in FIGS. 41 and 42 it should be understood that this has been done for purposes of illustration only” Col. 9, Lines 32-36).
Figs. 41 and 42 of Czegledi fail to disclose that the corresponding wing has a length that extends radially outward from a central axis passing axially through the center of the punch point, and the at least one pocket extends lengthwise along at least 50% of the length of the corresponding wing. The fastener, shown in Fig. 5, formed by the punch tool, shown in Figs. 41-42, has an overhang that runs the length on the recess which means that the punch point must have a wing and corresponding pocket that extends at least the radius of the fastener head. However, it is not known if the pocket continues to follow the wing for the region of the punch point that does not intersect with the fastener head.
The fourth embodiment of Czegledi (Figs. 13-15) teaches fastener head with a slot (slot 402) is defined in length as smaller than the diameter of the fastener head (Fig. 13) that has overhangs (projecting portions 416, 418, 420, 422) that run the entire length of the wings. Therefore, the punch tool that formed this slot must have had pockets that extended lengthwise along the entirety of the length of the corresponding wing that extends radially outward from a central axis passing axially through the center of the punch point (Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the punch tool, used in in illustrative method of Czegledi, to have pockets that extend lengthwise along the entirety of the length of the corresponding wing in order to create the fastener head of the fourth embodiment of Czegledi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success because Czegledi discloses that the method could be modified to create all of the fasteners disclosed by Czegledi (“The method of manufacture, according to the present invention, may be utilized to manufacture each of the various fasteners shown in the various FIGS. and while the manufacture of the fastener head 12 has been shown in FIGS. 41 and 42 it should be understood that this has been done for purposes of illustration only” Col. 9, Lines 32-36).
Re Claim 42, Czegledi discloses the punch tool of claim 24 (see rejection of claim 24 above), but fails to disclose that the greatest depth of the at least one pocket is between 0.014" and 0.022".
Czegledi discloses the punch tool, but does not explicitly disclose the size of the pockets. However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Czegledi in the claimed manner, since it has been held that merely changing the size of features taught in the prior art is an obvious matter of design and/or engineering choice (MPEP § 2144.04 subsection IV.A).
Claim(s) 28-29, 32, and 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czegledi as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Marroquin (US 4,033,003).
Re Claim 28, Czegledi discloses a method of forming a fastener, the method comprising:
aligning a material blank over a die shaped to form a part of the fastener (Fig. 41 shows the material blank aligned with the die)
punching the material blank with a second blow assembly the punch tool of claim 21 to form a recess pattern in a head of the fastener and one or more ramp structures arranged around the recess pattern (During use, in the first step, the central piercing portion 1004 pierces the work-piece 1008 forcing the work-piece material to flow into the concave portions 1016, 1018. During this first step, the work piece 1008 is held in a conventional mandrel or similar holding device which forms part of a conventional cold-heading machine. The mandrel 1032 is shown schematically in FIG. 41 and the tool 1000 is held in an operating portion of the cold-heading machine. The portion of the cold-heading machine which holds, advances and forms the conical surface of the fastener are well known in the art of manufacturing fasteners and therefore need not be described. In a similar manner, the apparatus within the cold-heading machine for applying a force in the direction shown by the arrow 1034 in FIG. 41 is also well known and therefore need not be described.” Col. 9, Line 49 – Col. 10, Line 4); and
punching the head of the fastener with a third blow assembly having a flat front surface, thereby bending the one or more ramp structures towards the recess pattern with the flat front surface of the third blow assembly (“The tool 1002 has a projecting portion 1036 which is disposed between a pair of flat portions 1038, 1040. The width of the projecting portion 1036 is equal to the width of the narrower portion 36 of the slot 32 as shown in FIG. 5. When the tool 1002 of FIG. 42 is forced against the work-piece 1008, the projecting portion 1036 enters the slot portion 32 and the flat portions 1038, 1040 bear against the portions 1042, 1044 of the work-piece 1008, which were formed by the portions 1016, 1018 of the tool 1000. The flat portions 1038, 1040 of the tool 1002 flatten the top of the work-piece 1008 forcing the portions 1042, 1044 to flow into the slot 32 while the projecting portion 1036 forms and maintains the configuration of the narrower portion of the slot 32. The flow of the portions 1042, 1044 into the upper portions of the slot 32 forms the projecting portions 1048, 1050 of the fastener 12.” Col. 10, Lines 16-32).
Czegledi fails to disclose aligning a material blank over a die shaped to form a part of the fastener and punching the material blank into the die using a first blow assembly.
Marroquin teaches aligning a material blank over a die shaped to form a part of the fastener (“A preform screw blank 14 is shown operatively positioned in the die 12, with a portion of the blank 14 projecting axially upwardly from the flat top surface 16 of the die 12. The screw blank 14 is preformed from a simple cylindrical blank derived from suitable rod stock fed to the heading machine and sheared off and shoved into the cavity of die 12 by conventional heading machine apparatus.” Col. 4, Lines 37-44) and punching the material blank into the die using a first blow assembly (“The preforming step is a standard procedure in the art, and is accomplished by applying a conventional spring loaded upset 17 such as that shown in FIG. 1A to the top of the simple blank in die 12.” Col. 4, Lines 45-48) in order to prevent the fastener head from cracking (“Although it is preferred to apply the method steps of the invention starting with a preform blank like the screw blank 14 so as to avoid any possibility of cracking of the head in the region of its frustoconical side surface, it is understood that the method steps of the invention may, if desired, be applied starting directly with a simple cylindrical blank” Col. 4, Lines 48-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Czegledi to include the preform step of Marroquin in order to prevent the fastener head from cracking as taught by Marroquin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 29, Czegledi, in view of Marroquin, discloses the method of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above), and Czegledi further discloses that each of the punching operations occurs in a cold-forming machine (“The method of manufacture according to the present invention utilizes a pair of novel cold-heading tools 1000, 1002, the first of which 1000 is shown in FIG. 41.” Col. 9, Lines 36-39).
Re Claim 32, Czegledi, in view of Marroquin, discloses the method of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above), and Czegledi further discloses that the one or more ramp structures have a greatest height directly adjacent to the recess pattern and have a decreasing height in a direction moving away from the recess pattern (see Fig. 41, illustrated above).
Re Claim 44, Czegledi, in view of Marroquin, discloses the method of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above), and Czegledi further discloses that wherein the recess pattern includes three wing recesses in a tri-cross pattern or two wing recesses as an elongated slot (“The method of manufacture, according to the present invention, may be utilized to manufacture each of the various fasteners shown in the various FIGS. and while the manufacture of the fastener head 12 has been shown in FIGS. 41 and 42 it should be understood that this has been done for purposes of illustration only” Col. 9, Lines 32-36 and Figs. 1-6 show that fastener head 12 is a two wing recesses as an elongated slot.).
Re Claim 45, Czegledi, in view of Marroquin, discloses the method of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above), and Czegledi further discloses that each of the one or more ramp structures is directly adjacent to a corresponding wing recess of the recess pattern (Fig. 41).
Re Claim 46, Czegledi, in view of Marroquin, discloses the method of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above), and Czegledi further discloses that a sidewall of a given wing recess is co-planar with a sidewall of a corresponding ramp structure adjacent to the given wing recess (Fig. 41).
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czegledi as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Zollmann (US 2010/0192344) and Vaughn (US 4,589,154).
Re Claim 43, Czegledi discloses the punch tool of claim 26 (see rejection of claim 26 above), but fails to disclose that the first pocket has a greatest depth directly adjacent to the corresponding wing that is higher than a greatest depth of the second pocket directly adjacent to the corresponding wing.
Zollmann discloses a fastener formed with a recess pattern wherein each wing recess contains two overhang structures, wherein each overhang structure is of a different length.
PNG
media_image3.png
329
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 18 of Zollmann, illustrated
Vaughn discloses the principle that the depth of the pocket is proportional to the size of the overhang structure (“In addition, relatively shallow channels are formed in the planar surface 64 alongside the blade portion side walls 68, wherein these channels 76 extend with decreasing width and depth away from the conical tip 74” and “Importantly, impact of this conical tip 86 in combination with the planar surface 84 of the second hammer 80 deforms the upstanding ridges 78 downwardly in cooperation with the side walls of the arcuately concave slot to provide those side walls with a generally bow-tie shaped configuration with a slight undercut diminishing in magnitude in directions away from the conical recess.”; the uppercut diminishes in size towards the ends of the slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Czegledi by having the first pocket has a greatest depth directly adjacent to the corresponding wing that is higher than a greatest depth of the second pocket directly adjacent to the corresponding wing in order to form the fastener overhangs as taught by Zollmann and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the claimed variation as predictable because Vaughn teaches the relation between depth of the pocket and size of the resulting overhang structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights