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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the middle section has a sixth diameter that is greater than both the fourth diameter and the fifth diameter” in claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denham GB2094928 (hereinafter, Denham).
Regarding claim 1, Denham discloses a plug assembly similar to a sealing plug 10 for blind hole, one-sided installation, the sealing plug comprising:
a stem 14 including:
a stem body 26, and
a stem head 28 including a first portion 42 and a second portion 36,
the first portion being a tapered portion (T1, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) having a first diameter (D1, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4), a second diameter (D2, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) that is less than the first diameter, and a first sloped portion therebetween (see T1 tapered/sloped portion therebetween the first and the second diameter), and
the second portion 36 having a third diameter (D3, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) that is less than the first and second diameters (see Figs. 4-5); and
a sleeve (12, see Figs. 1-2) that surrounds at least a portion of the stem head (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding claim 2, Denham discloses the sealing plug of claim 1, wherein the first portion is a first tapered portion (T1),
the stem head further includes a second tapered portion 38 between the first tapered portion (T1) and the second portion 34, and
the second tapered portion 38 has a fourth diameter (D4, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4), a fifth diameter (D5, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) that is less than the fourth diameter, and a second sloped portion 38 therebetween.
Regarding claim 4, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 2, wherein the third diameter D3 is less than each of the first diameter D1, the second diameter D2, and the fourth diameter D4, and the third diameter D3 is the same as fifth diameter D5.
Regarding claim 6, Denham discloses the sealing plug of claim 1, wherein the stem head 28 includes a first end 52 and an opposing second end (end towards the second portion 34 & 36),
the second end of the stem head is disposed nearer to the stem body than the first end of the stem head (see Figs. 4-5),
the stem head 28 including a skirt member 56 disposed at the second end of the
stem head and connected to the second portion (see Fig. 4),
the skirt member has a flap (see Fig. 4) separated from a body 54 of the stem head,
and the flap extends around at least a portion of the second end of the stem
head (see peripheral locking skirt 56 in Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 11, Denham discloses the sealing plug of claim 1, wherein the stem body 26 has a fourth diameter (diameter of the shank 26 is less than the third diameter D3, see annotated Fig. 4) that is less than the third diameter,
the stem further includes a breaker groove 32 between the stem head 28 and the stem body 26, and
the breaker groove has a fifth diameter (see Fig. 4 showing groove 32 having diameter less than third and fourth diameter) that is less than the both the third diameter and the fourth diameter.
Regarding claim 18, A stem head 28 for using in sealing plug for blind hole, one-sided installation, the stem head having a first end (52, see Fig. 4) and an opposing second end (end towards the second portion 34 & 36), the stem head comprising:
a lip member (L, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) disposed at the first end and having a first diameter (see diameter of the top portion of the head in Fig. 4),
a skirt member 56 disposed at the second end and have a second diameter (see a second diameter around the skirt member 56 is less than the first diameter at the lip member in Fig. 4) that is less than the first diameter, and
a tapered portion (T1, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) disposed between the lip member and the skirt member and having a third diameter D1, a fourth diameter D2 that is less than the third diameter, and a first sloped portion (see tapered portion also a sloped portion therebetween in Fig. 4) therebetween, the third and fourth diameters being less than the first diameter (see annotated Fig. 4 above) and greater than the second diameter (see Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 7-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denham.
Regarding claim 3, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 2, wherein the stem head has a first length (FL, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4).
Denham fails to expressly teach wherein,
the first tapered portion has a second length greater than or equal to about 36 % to less than or equal to about 44 % of the first length,
the second portion has a third length greater than or equal to about 7% to less than or equal to about 14 % of the first length, and
the second tapered portion has a fourth length greater than or equal to about 11 % to less than or equal to about 16 % of the first length.
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the length of first tapered portion, second portion and second tapered portion to be as stated above in the claim in order for the stem to retain sleeve and accommodate different size substrates (see Fig. 5), since it has been held that where the general conditions of claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 5, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 1, wherein the stem head 28 includes a first end 52 and an opposing second end (end towards the second portion 36 and 34),
the second end of the stem head is disposed nearer to the stem body 26 than the first end of the stem head (see Figs. 4-5),
the stem head including a lip member (L, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) disposed at the first end 52 of the stem head and connected to the first portion.
Denham fails to teach wherein the lip member has a fourth diameter greater than a remainder of the stem head, the remainder of the stem head including the first portion and the second portion.
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lip member with a fourth diameter greater than a remainder of the stem head so the lip member may be used with different diameter sleeve and prevent from being easily broken, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Further, it is noted that it is a design choice to have the lip diameter be relatively larger than the rest of the head diameter, 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.
Regarding claim 7, Denham teaches and/or make obvious of the sealing plug of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the sleeve has a first length greater than or equal to about 13.7 % to less than or equal to about 14.5% of a second length of the stem.
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have first length of the sleeve greater than or equal to about 13.7% to less than or equal to about 14.5% of a second length of the stem in order to be used with lip member and bolt member having diameters and sizes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Further, it is noted that it is a design choice to have the first length of the sleeve as claimed above, 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.
Regarding claim 8, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 1, Denham further teaches the sleeve is made of an aluminum alloy, but fails to expressly teach wherein the sealing plug is an all-aluminum sealing plug, the stem is aluminum alloy.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealing plug in Denham to be made of all-aluminum so the sealing plug is corrosion-resistant and versatile, 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 engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Denham teaches and/or make obvious of the sealing plug of claim 8, but fails to expressly teach wherein at least one of the stem and the sleeve includes aluminum grades 6061, 3103, 7075, or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at least one of the stem and the sleeve includes aluminum grades above in order for the stem and the sleeve to be light-weight and versatile, 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 engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the stem has a first hardness that is greater than a second hardness of the sleeve, and the sleeve has a first ductility that is greater than a second ductility of the stem.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the stem so the stem has a first hardness that is greater than a second hardness of the sleeve, and the sleeve has a first ductility that is greater than a second ductility of the stem in order for the sleeve having second hardness to be expandable, 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 engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 1, wherein the sleeve has a central bore 16 having a first section (see first section towards bore 18), a second section (see second section towards bore 24), and
a middle section (see middle section including bore 16 in Fig. 2) disposed therebetween,
the first section has a fourth diameter (see diameter of the counterbore 18 in Fig. 2),
the second section has a fifth diameter (see diameter of the counterbore 20 that is same as the fourth diameter) that is the same as or different from the fourth diameter.
Denham fails to teach wherein the middle section has a sixth diameter that is greater than both the fourth diameter and the fifth diameter.
However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the size of the middle section to be greater than both the fourth and the fifth diameter in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the size of the middle section in para. [0019]. 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 13, Denham teaches and/or make obvious of the sealing plug of claim 12, wherein the sleeve 12 has a first end (upper end of the sleeve 12 in Fig. 2) and an opposing section end (bottom end of the sleeve 12 in Fig. 2),
the second end of the sleeve is disposed nearer to the stem body than the first end of the sleeve (see Fig. 1 showing the second end of the sleeve is disposed closer to the stem body than the first end),
the sleeve has a chamfered portion 22 disposed at the first end of the sleeve (see Fig. 2),
and the chamfered portion being angled inward toward the central bore of the sleeve (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the chamfered portion has a first length that is greater than or equal to about 18 % to less than or equal to about 24 % of a second length of the sleeve.
However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the length of the chamfered portion to be greater than or equal to about 18% to less than or equal to about 24% of a second length of the sleeve so the sleeve may expand easily as user intended. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the size of the middle section in para. [0021]. 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 15, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein the stem body includes a plurality of threads, the plurality of threads extending along greater than or equal to about 60 % to less than or equal to about 95 % of a length of the stem body.
Denham discloses a ribbed and grooved gripping portion 48 but lacks a plurality of threads, and it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Denham to have body includes a plurality of threads to the stem is well mounted on the substrate preventing any unwanted loosening. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the plurality of threads in para. [0022]. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the ribbed and grooved gripping portion to threaded portion as an obvious change in shape.
Further, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the plurality of threads extending along greater than or equal to about 60 % to less than or equal to about 95 % of a length of the stem body, in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the size of the middle section in para. [0022]. 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 16, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 15, wherein the first portion 42 is a first tapered portion (see Fig. 4),
the stem body 26 has a first end (end towards the head) and an opposing second end (end towards the tip),
the first end of the stem body is disposed nearer to the stem head 28 than the second end of the stem body,
the stem body includes a first thread-free portion 46 disposed at the first end of the stem body and a second thread-free portion (see tip of the shank 26 in Fig. 5) disposed at the second end of the stem body, and
the second thread-free portion (see tip of the shank 26 thread free) is a second tapered portion (see tip portion of the shank tapered) that includes a fourth diameter (transition section of the shank 26 and tapered portion at the tip of the stem includes a fourth diameter), a fifth diameter (diameter of the tapered portion at the tip of the stem in Fig. 5) that is less than the fourth diameter, and a second sloped portion (tapered portion of the tip in Fig. 5 includes a sloped portion) therebetween.
Regarding claim 17, As best understood, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the stem head has a first length greater than or equal to about 15 % to less than or equal to about 18 % of a second length of the stem body.
However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the stem head has a first length greater than or equal to about 15 % to less than or equal to about 18 % of a second length of the stem body, in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the size of the middle section in para. [0024]. 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Further, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to modify the length as user intended to strengthen certain part of the stem as desired.
Regarding claim 19, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 18, wherein
the tapered portion T1 is a first tapered portion,
the stem head further includes a second tapered portion 38 between the first tapered portion T1 and the skirt member 56,
the second tapered portion has a fifth diameter D4, a sixth diameter D5 that is less than the fifth diameter, and a second sloped portion (see tapered portion 38 having a slope in Fig. 4) therebetween.
Denham fails to teach wherein the fifth and sixth diameters being less than the third and fourth diameter and greater than the second diameter.
However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified wherein the fifth and sixth diameters being less than the third and fourth diameter and greater than the second diameter in order to improve insertion of the stem in the sleeve or the substrate and/or in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the size of the middle section in para. [0027]. 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 20, Denham teaches the sealing plug of claim 19, wherein
the stem head 28 further includes a waist member 36 between the second tapered
portion 38 and the skirt member 56.
Denham fails to teach wherein the waist member having a seventh diameter that is same as the second diameter.
However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified wherein the waist member having a seventh diameter that is same as the second diameter in order to improve the insertion of the stem in the sleeve and/or in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the size of the middle section in para. [0028]. 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US4046053 (Alvi et al.) discloses a blind rivet for fastening apertured sheets, comprising a mandrel having an enlarged head, a breaker groove, an integral peripheral skirt and grooved shank (see Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights