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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/12/2026.
Newly submitted claims 19-23 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions of claims 1-10 and 19-23 are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the subcombination claims require structure “a proximal end portion, a middle portion, and distal end portion”, “a ledge portion…middle portion” and “the proximal end portion has a plastically deformable deformation portion”. The subcombination has separate utility such as being used as a nut or t nut (see references on form 892).
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 19-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
This election/restriction is made final.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Husain (US.4186787).
Husain discloses an assembly part configured to be fastened to a counterpart (e.g. counterpart is considered intended use and the assembly part is capable of this, see MPEP 2113-2114 with regard to intended use limitations), comprising a body (e.g. 50) traversed by a traversing hole (e.g. 56), a fastening insert configured to receive a fastening device in a hollow of the fastening insert along a first direction to fasten the assembly part to the counterpart (e.g. again the intended use of coupling the assembly part to counterpart is considered to be intended and the assembly part of Husain is capable being coupled to an assembly part, see MPEP 2113-2114), the fastening insert has a proximal end portion (e.g. end portion having 80) and a distal end portion (e.g. end portion having 40 and 46) in the first direction, the fastening insert is positioned in the traversing hole, a movement of the fastening insert in a second direction opposite to the first direction is blocked by a first form fit (e.g. 40 and 46 interact with 50, see figure 4) between the distal end portion and the body, a movement of the fastening insert in the first direction is blocked by a second form fit (e.g. 80interact with 60) between the proximal end portion and the body.
Regarding claim 2: Wherein a rotational movement of the fastening insert around the first direction is blocked by a third form fit (e.g. 40) between the proximal end portion and the distal end portion and a mating portion of the body.
Regarding claim 3: Wherein the distal end portion has a ledge portion (e.g. ledge formed by 40) extending beyond a cross-section of the traversing hole in at least one direction orthogonal to the first direction.
Regarding claim 4: Wherein the ledge portion realizes the first form fit (e.g. see figure 4).
Regarding claim 5: Wherein the proximal end portion has a circumferential groove (e.g. G, figure below) along an external surface of the fastening insert.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6: Wherein the circumferential groove extends in a plane orthogonal to the first direction (e.g. see figure above).
Regarding claim 7: Wherein the proximal end portion has a deformation portion extending beyond a cross-section of the traversing hole in at least one direction orthogonal to the first direction (e.g. that is the case since 80 extends beyond cylindrical portion of the traversing hole).
Regarding claim 8: Wherein the deformation portion realizes the second form fit (e.g. 80 is the second form fit).
Regarding claim 9: Wherein a portion of an internal surface of the deformation portion has a shape of a frustum of a cone having a vertex centered on the hollow (e.g. 80 has an internal surface that is shape of a frustum of cone having a vertex centered on the hollow, see figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 10: Wherein the shape of the frustum of the cone has a 45° angle with respect to the vertex (e.g. figure 4 appears to show that the shape having an angle of 45 degrees). If applicant disagrees a supplemental or second rejection is provided below based on a design optimization.
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) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Husain.
Husain appears to show an angle that may be 45 degrees for 80 but does not explicitly state 45 degrees in the reference. Husain discloses the claimed invention except for 45 degrees Discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cone shape to be 45 degrees with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice (furthermore choosing an angle which is simplest to form would only require routine experimentation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant should review all reference on form 892 (Frasca teaches in short an assembly part having ends, deformation portion 31, rotation prevention since oval shape as seen in figure 6, Hatton teaches an assembly part 18 with fastening insert in figure 3, Goshia teaches to have a deformation portion 34a, a ledge that first in square recess of assembly part B, Leistner teaches an assembly in figures 12-14, Mangapora teaches an assembly part 402 having 100 and deformation portion 122 and recess adjacent to numeral 405, Billion teaches an assembly part having 10 with cone shape 18 and ledge 13, Jones, Mettler teaches assembly part 15 having 12 with 27 and deformable portion 26, Bossenmaier teaches an assembly part 3 and 4 with counter recess 10 with receives a fastening insert with first end received in the counter recess, a second end with deformable portion 9 and counterpart 5 being attached to assembly part and the reference of Auriol {4a adjacent o deformable portion 2b} can be used to teach a recess adjacent to the deformable portion in Bossenmaier). Disantis teaches to have a groove 314 adjacent to deformable portion 304. Reysser teaches an assembly part having a fastening insert in figure 6, a first end having 5, a second end having deformable portion 8 and a groove 11 adjacent to the deformable portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-7060. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/VISHAL A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights