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 Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 17-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims use inconsistent terminology. Claims 1, 10, and 17 recite “stand-off members,” “spacing members”, and “stand-offs” to describe the same component. The use of different terms for a single component is unnecessarily confusing. 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.
Claims 7, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inner side flange" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “the inner side of the flange” for consistency with claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second side of the panel" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim has been construed as reciting “across the opening at a
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first side of the panel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim has been construed as reciting “a first side of the panel.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stumpf (US 2020/0096036) in view of Druke (US 10,400,806).
Stumpf teaches a fastening insert (1) configured to be inserted in a first component, the fastening insert comprising: a hollow cylindrical shaft (40) made of a first material, the hollow cylindrical shaft including a central opening and a centerline extending along the opening; and an insert disc (10) made of a second material which is connected to the shaft and extends laterally beyond the shaft, the insert disc having opposing fastening sides (12,14); wherein the first and second materials are different from one another; wherein an opposing fastening side which faces the first component is configured to receive an adhesive and position the adhesive on the first component laterally outward beyond the shaft; and wherein the insert disc is transparent and/or can be irradiated with UV light (See Figures; [0038]-[0045]; [0064]-[0066]; [0094]-[0095]). The fastening insert (1), hollow cylindrical shaft (40), and insert disc (10) read on the instantly claimed fastener, body, and flange, respectively. Stumpf teaches that the shaft may comprise a polymer with reinforcements such that the shaft is not transparent, while the reinforcements are omitted in the insert disc such that it remains transparent (See [0130]), which meets the limitation “wherein the first material comprises a lower transmissibility of UV light than the second material.”
Stumpf does not expressly disclose stand-off members which are connected to an inner side of the flange and spaced laterally outward away from the body, wherein the stand-off members comprise flat surfaces positioned outward along the centerline beyond the inner side to provide spacing for the adhesive between the flange and a panel to which the fastening insert is attached (i.e. the first component).
Druke teaches a connecting element (1,1’) comprising a pin section (20) and a disk (40,40’) which extends laterally from the pin section, wherein the disk includes support points (49) extending from an attachment surface (44) in order to provide spacing for glue (See Figures; col. 6, line 50 to col. 7, line 14; col. 10, lines 9-22). The connecting element, pin section, disk, support points, attachment surface, and glue of Druke correspond to the instantly claimed fastener, body, flange, stand-off members, inner side, and adhesive, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the support points of Druke on the opposing fastening side of the insert disc of Stumpf which faces the first component. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Druke that to do so would predictably guarantee a minimum spacing to prevent the adhesive from being squeezed out and increasing service life of the connection made by the adhesive (See col. 10, lines 9-22).
Regarding claim 2, the insert disc of Stumpf is connected to a second end of the shaft spaced away from the first end as claimed (See Figures).
Regarding claim 4, Stumpf teaches that the disc may be include a central opening (11) into which the shaft is positioned (See Figures; [0110]; [0138]).
Regarding claim 5, Stumpf teaches a metallic functional structure (60) such as a wire thread insert (D) positioned within the body, including at the first end (See Figures; [0096]-[0097]). Since the thread insert is metallic, it is a third material which is different from the first and second polymeric materials as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Stumpf teaches a tapered lip which is wider than a main portion of the shaft, extends beyond an inner side of the insert disc, and occupies the claimed position, as shown below:
Regarding claim 8, Stumpf teaches that the second end of the shaft may be open (See [0096]).
Regarding claim 9, the shaft of Stumpf may comprise a polymer with reinforcements, wherein the reinforcements render the shaft opaque, while the disc may comprise the same polymer without reinforcements in order to allow UV light to pass therethrough (See [0130]).
Regarding claim 10 contains many of the same limitations as claim 1 with minor changes in phrasing. The invention taught by the combination of Stumpf and Druke meets all such limitations for the same reasons detailed above. Examiner notes that the spacing members recited in claim 10 are substantially the same as the stand-off members recited in claim 1 and are taught by Druke for the same reasons detailed above.
Regarding claim 11, the shaft of Stumpf may comprise a polymer with reinforcements, wherein the reinforcements render the shaft opaque, while the disc may comprise the same polymer without reinforcements in order to allow UV light to pass therethrough (See [0130]).
Regarding claim 12, the shaft of Stumpf is cylindrical and the insert disc comprises a disc shape as claimed (See Figures).
Regarding claim 13, the disc of Stumpf extends completely around the shaft (See Figures).
Regarding claim 14, Stumpf teaches that the disc may be include a central opening (11) into which the shaft is positioned (See Figures; [0110]; [0138]).
Regarding claim 15, Stumpf teaches a metallic functional structure (60) such as a wire thread insert (D) positioned within the body, including at the first end (See Figures; [0096]-[0097]). Since the thread insert is metallic, it is a different material from the first and second polymeric materials as claimed.
Claim 17 recites a method utilizing a fastener defined by the same structures found in claims 1-2 and 8-11. The invention taught by the combination of Stumpf and Druke includes all such structures, as detailed above. Stumpf also teaches method steps of positioning the insert disc across an opening in a composite material, positioning adhesive the insert disc, and securing the fastening insert to the composite material by passing UV light through the insert disc and curing the adhesive (See Figures; [0009]-[0011]; [0106]). Regarding the steps of “contacting flat surfaces of stand-offs that extend outward from the flange against the second side of the panel and creating a gap between the flange and the second side of the panel” and “positioning adhesive in the gap,” Druke teaches such steps with regard to the support points (49) (See Figures; col. 10, lines 9-22).
Regarding claim 18, Stumpf teaches applying adhesive to the disc, as detailed above. Since the adhesive is only later described as fixing the fastener to the composite material, it is reasonable to conclude that the adhesive is applied prior to the parts being brought together. Druke also teaches application of glue to the flange prior to engagement of the flange with a component surface (See col. 10, lines 59-66).
Regarding claim 19, the shaft of Stumpf occupies an opening in the composite material. In order for the shaft to be inserted into an opening, the shaft must first be aligned with a surface of the composite material where the opening is formed, which meets the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Stumpf and Druke only describe application of adhesive to insert disc and disk and not the pin section or shaft, respectively.
Regarding claim 21, the support points (49) of Druke are discrete members which are spaced apart along an outer edge of the disk (See Figures).
Regarding claim 22, the shaft (40) of Stumpf is cylindrical and therefore has a circular cross-section shape (See Figures). Regarding the lip having a non-circular shape, Stumpf teaches that the cylindrical shaft may be inserted into a non-circular opening (11) (e.g. hexagonal in the Figures) with a fastening end (42) of the shaft adapted to the shape of the opening (See Figures; [0023]-[0024]; [0110]). In such a configuration, the non-circular fastening end which is shaped to match the non-circular opening reads on the instantly claimed lip.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stumpf (US 2020/0096036) in view of Druke (US 10,400,806) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nagayama (US 6,139,237).
Stumpf and Druke combine to teach a fastening insert, as detailed above.
Stumpf and Druke do not expressly disclose grooves to crimp the shaft as claimed.
Nagayama teaches a tee nut which includes crimping grooves (150e) (See Figures; col. 21, line 18 to col. 22, line 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include crimping grooves on the shaft of Stumpf because Nagayama teaches that such grooves were recognized in the art as being suitable for such a purpose (See Figures; col. 21, line 18 to col. 22, line 14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) which were based on materials having different melting points have been fully considered and are persuasive. The indefinite melting point limitations have been deleted from the claims, and the rejections based on such limitations have been withdrawn.
Examiner notes that Applicant has not made any amendments to claims 17 and 19 to address the lack of antecedent basis in the claims or presented any arguments regarding the previously applied rejections of such claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). These rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 8-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stumpf have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims have been amended to recite stand-off members (also recited as spacing members or stand-offs) which are absent in the Stumpf reference. Therefore, the claims are no longer anticipated by Stumpf, and the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Druke.
Applicant argues that the secondary references previously relied upon by the Examiner, including the Druke reference, do not remedy the deficiencies of Stumpf (i.e. do not teach the instantly claimed stand-off members). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Druke reference clearly teaches the stand-off members absent in the Stumpf reference and provides clear motivation for utilizing the stand-off members in the fastening insert of Stumpf, as detailed in the rejections above.
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 CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746