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 § 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 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babej el al., US8328485 (hereinafter, Babej) in view of Cochard et al., US20180231043 (hereinafter, Cochard).
Regarding claim 1, Babej teaches a functional element (see Fig. 4j) for attachment to a workpiece, said functional element comprising:
a head part 18’ having a contact surface 22” that contacts the workpiece in a fastened state of the functional element,
a fastening section 20 extending in an axial direction 24 from the head part for fastening the functional element to the workpiece, wherein the fastening section comprises a wall (see fastening section 20 form a circular wall in Fig. 4J) that bounds a hollow space (see central space in Fig. 4J) in a peripheral direction (see Fig. 4J) and that has a free edge (see free edge adjacent to section 48’ in Fig. 4J) at a side facing away from the head part (see free edge at away and opposite from the head part 18’), wherein the wall has opposing curved sections 48’ terminating at the free edge.
Babej fails to expressly teach wherein the free edge lies along a wavy peripheral curved line that is endless and continuous. However, Babej does teach raised portions 90 in order to avoid injury to sheet metal part.
Further, Cochard teaches a self-piercing rivet 1 having a free edge that lies along a wavy peripheral curved line that is endless and continuous (see Figs. 1-5).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the functional element and raised portions in Babej to be and have curved free edge as taught by Cochard to reduce dust and fiber-tearing during piercing (see para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 1, wherein Cochard further teaches the free edge 3 has a corrugated shape with curved peaks and valleys in the axial direction (see Figs. 1-5 and rationale set forth above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 1, Cochard further teaches wherein the free edge 3 is rotationally symmetrical with respect to a center axis (axis A) of the functional element (see para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Babej in view Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 1, Cochard further teaches wherein the free edge 3 does not lie completely in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the functional element (see the piercing end 3 of Cochard lies in endless peripheral curved line, and refer to claim 1 for rejection and rationale).
Regarding claim 5, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 4, wherein Babej further teaches the free edge comprises sections curved in the axial direction (see Fig. 4J having a curved section 48’).
Regarding claim 6, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 1, Cochard further teaches wherein the free edge 3 has a corrugated shape (see Figs. 3-5 and rejection established in claim 1 above) in a side view perpendicular to the axial direction (axis A).
Regarding claim 8, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 1, Babej further teaches wherein the free edge (50’ in Fig. 4J) merges into an inner side of the wall facing the hollow space by way of an inner transition section (see 50’ cutting surface and a transition surface) that is straight but inclined relative to the axial direction (see inner side of the free end 59 in Fig. 4Iv as a reference).
Regarding claim 9, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 1, wherein the wall (see wall of rivet portion 20 in Fig. 4J) has a substantially constant thickness (see Fig. 4Iv for the reference).
Regarding claim 10, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 1, wherein Babej further teaches the head part contact surface 22” is provided with at least one feature 28 providing security against rotation of the functional element relative to an attached workpiece (see Fig. 4J).
Regarding claim 11, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 10, wherein Babej further teaches the head part contact surface 22” is provided with a plurality of features 28 providing security against rotation that are regularly distributed in the peripheral direction (see Fig. 4J).
Regarding claim 12, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 1, wherein the head part contact surface 22” is conically inclined (see arcuate region/section of 22” in Fig. 4J).
Regarding claim 13, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 1, wherein the head part contact surface 22” is conically inclined and converges (see Fig. 4J) towards the fastening section 20.
Regarding claim 14, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 1, wherein Babej further teaches the free edge is a punching edge so that the functional element is self-punching (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 15, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 14, wherein Babej modified by Cochard teaches a spacing (see distance of the body 4 in Figs. 3-5 of Cochard showing different due to uneven piercing end 3) of the punching edge from the head part is not constant in the peripheral direction and/or wherein the punching edge viewed in the peripheral direction does not lie completely in a plane that is arranged perpendicular to a longitudinal axis or to a punching direction of the functional element (see rejection and rationale set forth in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element of claim 1, wherein Babej further teaches the fastening section 20 has a corrugated outer wall comprising axially extending radial bulges 70 and indentations 26 that are each radially curved (see Fig. 4J).
Regarding claim 17, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element of claim 16, wherein Babej further teaches the bulges and indentations differ in axial length (see Fig. 4J).
Regarding claim 18, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element of claim 2, wherein Babej further teacehs the fastening section 20 has a corrugated outer wall (see Fig. 4J) comprising axially extending radial bulges 70 and indentations 26 that are curved in a radial plane (see both bulges and indentations having certain radial width) and differ in their respective curvatures (see Fig. 4J).
Regarding claim 19, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element of claim 16 wherein Babej the indentations 26 and bulges 70 that appears to differ in their respective degree of curvature (see Fig. 4J).
In any event, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the curvature degree as claimed in order to improve security against rotation, 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 20, Babej in view of Cochard teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element of claim 2, wherein Babej further teaches the free edge (see 50’ in Fig. 4J) merges into an inner side of the wall by way of an inner transition section that is straight but inclined relative to the axial direction (please refer to Fig. 4lv as a reference showing inner transition surface 59 straight but inclined relative to the axial direction).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babej in view of Cochard, in further view of Diehl et al., US20160221069 (hereinafter, Diehl).
Regarding claim 7, Babej in view of Diehl teaches and/or make obvious of the functional element according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the free edge and/or the wall comprises/comprise sections curved concavely and convexly in the peripheral direction.
However, Diehl teaches a rivet element having a free edge and/or the wall comprises/comprise sections curved concavely and convexly in the peripheral direction (see Figs. 1-2 and 4).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified fastener of Babej with features in Rivet Element of Diehl for effective and efficient rivet connection as disclosed by Diehl (please refer to Figs. 7-9).
Conclusion
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