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 § 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 15-20 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 15 recites the limitation "the bottom sheet" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm (DE19701150A1, machine translation relied on) in view of Endo (US 5,277,049).
Re Claim 1, as best understood, Timm discloses a self-piercing riveting (SPR) system for forming a joint between a top sheet 1 and a bottom sheet 1, the system comprising:a die 3, a punch 4 and a rivet 2 (Fig. 2);the top sheet 1 and the bottom sheet 1, wherein the top sheet is layered above the bottom sheet, wherein the top sheet and bottom sheet [are disposed between the die and the blank holder], and wherein the punch is structured to drive the rivet through the top sheet into the bottom sheet to form a joint therebetween (Fig. 2; para. 4, 11-20); and a barrier 5 disposed between the bottom sheet and the die, wherein the barrier is clamped to the bottom sheet (see Fig. 2 where the setup is identical to the instant invention; under BRI the barrier is considered being clamped due to being between the bottom sheet and the die and clamped via gravitational forces and force from mass of the sheets), the barrier comprising a sacrificial sheet (para. 11-12) and [is configured to reduce stress concentrations during formation of the joint between the top sheet and the bottom sheet], the barrier [being removable from between the bottom sheet and the die after formation of the joint] (Fig. 1-2; para. 4, 11-20). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components claimed, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the system of Timm is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed. It appears to be implicit that the system of Timm comprises a blank holder and die as part of a c-frame and blank holder containing a punch and a rivet as this is standard equipment in the art. However, since Timm only shows the punch and for the sake of clarity a secondary reference will be used. Timm does not explicitly disclose a c-frame comprising a blank holder and the die, the blank holder containing the punch and the rivet. However, Endo teaches a system for forming a joint between sheets (Fig. 6), comprising a c-frame 53 comprising a blank holder and a die, 54 the blank holder containing the punch and the rivet (Fig. 1-8, 15-16; col. 4, lines 50-60; col. 1-2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a c-frame comprising a blank holder and the die, the blank holder containing the punch and the rivet, as taught by Endo, for the purpose of contacting the sheet at the punch side to press the sheet against the die to ensure optimal rivet placement and efficiency in the riveting process and also since this is well-known equipment in the art and is able to effectively allow rivets to be punched into sheets.
Re Claim 2, Timm discloses the top sheet comprises at least one of an aluminum layer, a magnesium layer, a plastic layer, a steel layer, or a fiber reinforced layer (para. 6, 14).
Re Claim 3, Timm discloses the bottom sheet comprises an aluminum layer, magnesium layer, a plastic layer, a steel layer, or a fiber reinforced layer (para. 6, 14).
Re Claim 8, Timm does not explicitly disclose the barrier comprises at least one of a polymeric or fibrous material. Timm does disclose use of composite material sheets (para. 6). Further, it would be obvious to utilize fiber reinforcement or a strong polymer in the barrier with the same goal of protecting the sheets and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Claim 9, Timm does not explicitly disclose the barrier has a yield strength of 110 MPa. However, Timm discloses using different materials of joining sheets (para. 6) which in turn could be used with different strength barrier layers. It would be obvious to specifically have a barrier material with a yield strength of 110 MPa for the purpose of obtaining a barrier with optimal properties and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (thereby obtaining a specific yield strength) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Claim 11, Timm does not explicitly disclose the barrier comprises a composite material. Timm does disclose use of composite material sheets (para. 6). Further, it would be obvious to utilize fiber reinforcement or a strong composite in the barrier with the same goal of protecting the sheets and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Claim 12, Timm does not disclose the barrier has a length of approximately 6 inches and a width of approximately 4 inches. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize barrier in the claimed size range for the purpose of providing optimal size and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re Claim 13, Timm discloses the barrier comprises an aluminum alloy (para. 14).
Re Claim 14, Timm discloses the top sheet is clamped to the bottom sheet (Fig. 1-2; para. 4).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm in view of Endo and further in view of Jimbo (PGPub 2019/0105700).
Re Claim 4, Timm discloses the barrier is a steel sheet (para. 11) but does not disclose the barrier is at least one of a cold formed or a dual phase steel. However, Jimbo teaches cold forming steel sheets (para. 19). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize cold formed steel, as taught by Jimbo, for the purpose of obtaining a steel sheet with optimal properties and since it is a well-known technique and material type and also since It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm in view of Endo and further in view of Iwase (JP2003340543A).
Re Claim 5, Timm does not disclose the barrier has a yield strength greater than or equal to 200MPa. Timm discloses using different materials of joining sheets (para. 6) which in turn could be used with different strength barrier layers. Iwase teaches barrier has a yield strength greater than 150MPa (pg. 3-4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize yield strength in this range, as taught by Jimbo, for the purpose of obtaining a barrier with optimal properties and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Claim 6-7, Timm does not disclose the barrier has a thickness between approximately 0.5mm and 2.0mm, the barrier has a thickness between approximately 0.8mm and 1.00mm. Timm does mention making the thickness appropriate to the parts being joined (para. 11). Further, Iwase teaches barrier has a thickness in the range of 0.3 mm and 1.3mm and has an example of 0.6mm (page 5 of translation). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize barrier in the claimed thickness range, as taught by Iwase, for the purpose of providing a strong component which protects the sheets being joined while not interfering or adversely affecting the riveting process and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm in view of Endo and further in view of Behrendt (DE102016200533A1, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 10, Timm does not disclose the top sheet comprises an epoxy coating. However, Behrendt teaches forming joints comprising a sheet which comprises an epoxy coating (para. 12, 16, 23). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a sheet which comprises an epoxy coating, as taught by Behrendt, for the purpose of providing a desired exterior texture and strength profile and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 15-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm in view of Furusako (US 10,722,935).
Re Claim 15, as best understood, Timm discloses a self-piercing riveting (SPR) system for forming a joint between a first sheet 1 and a second sheet 1, the system comprising:a die 3, a punch 4 and a rivet 2 (Fig. 2); the first sheet layered with the second sheet, wherein the first sheet and the second sheet are disposed between the die and the punch, the punch structured to drive the rivet through the first sheet and the second sheet to form the joint therebetween (Fig. 2); and a barrier disposed between the second sheet and the die, wherein the barrier is clamped to the bottom sheet (see Fig. 2 where the setup is identical to the instant invention; under BRI the barrier is considered being clamped due to being between the bottom sheet and the die and clamped via gravitational forces and force from mass of the sheets), the barrier comprising a sacrificial sheet (para. 11-12) and [configured to reduce stress concentrations during formation of a joint between the first sheet and the second sheet], wherein the barrier [is removable from between the second sheet and the die after formation of the joint] (Fig. 1-2; para. 4, 11-20). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components claimed, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the system of Timm is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed. Timm does not disclose a blank holder containing a punch and a rivet, the first sheet and the second sheet are disposed between the die and the blank holder. However, Furusako teaches forming a joint between a first sheet and a second sheet, a die and a blank holder 7 containing a punch and a rivet, the first sheet and the second sheet are disposed between the die and the blank holder (col. 8, lines 45-60; fig. 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a blank holder, as taught by Furusako, for the purpose of contacting the sheet at the punch side to press the sheet against the die to ensure optimal rivet placement and efficiency in the riveting process.
Re Claim 16, Timm does not explicitly disclose the barrier comprises a composite material. Timm does disclose use of composite material sheets (para. 6). Further, it would be obvious to utilize fiber reinforcement or a strong composite in the barrier with the same goal of protecting the sheets and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Claim 19, Timm discloses the first sheet is layered above the second sheet (Fig. 1-2; para. 4, 11-20).
Re Claim 20, Timm discloses the first sheet comprises one of a steel alloy (para. 14) but does not disclose the second sheet comprises a first magnesium alloy. However, Furusako teaches a sheet comprises magnesium (col. 9 , line 35+). It would be obvious to utilize a magnesium alloy, as taught by Furusako, for the purpose of obtaining desired strength characteristics and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm in view of Furusako in further view of Jimbo (PGPub 2019/0105700).
Re Claim 17, Timm discloses the barrier is a steel sheet (para. 11) but does not disclose the barrier is at least one of a cold formed or a dual phase steel. However, Jimbo teaches cold forming steel sheets (para. 19). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize cold formed steel, as taught by Jimbo, for the purpose of obtaining a steel sheet with optimal properties and since it is a well-known technique and material type and also since It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm in view of Furusako in further view of Iwase (JP2003340543A).
Re Claim 18, Timm does not disclose the barrier has a thickness between approximately 0.5mm and 2.0mm. Timm does mention making the thickness appropriate to the parts being joined (para. 11). However, Iwase teaches barrier has a thickness between approximately 0.5mm and 2.0mm (page 5 of translation). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize barrier in this thickness range, as taught by Iwase, for the purpose of providing a strong component which protects the sheets being joined while not interfering or adversely affecting the riveting process and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Timm does not disclose that the barrier layer is clamped to the bottom sheet and comprises a sacrificial sheet. -In response, as explained in the rejection above, see Fig. 2 where the setup is identical to the instant invention; under BRI the barrier is considered being clamped due to being between the bottom sheet and the die and clamped via gravitational forces and force from mass of the sheets. Note that para. 11-12 of Timm explicitly recite a sacrificial sheet. Note that claim 15 recites clamping to bottom sheet which lacks antecedent basis.
All other arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and/or upheld rejections.
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 RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights