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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 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.
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 1-3, 14-16, and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Draht et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0272419, cited in IDS).
Claim 1: Draht et al. discloses a joining method for setting a rivet (1) in a workpiece (A) comprising the steps of: providing a setting tool (Fig. 2) comprising a frame (C), a punch (3 - Fig. 7A) that is displaceable on the frame along a joining axis (e.g. paragraph 87), a die (M) that is mounted on the frame, a clamp (N/10) with which one or more components can be compressed in a joining direction (paragraph 84), and the punch being guided in the clamp by an actuator (e.g. A2/13 - e.g. paragraph 87) and a controller (K - paragraph 68); providing a predetermined maximal rivet setting speed (implied by the desired punch speed range associated with the second stage in paragraph 93), providing the rivet (1), feeding the rivet into the setting tool (by feed 5 - paragraph 85), and setting the rivet in the workpiece (e.g. paragraph 97), the setting step further comprising: in a first stage, moving the punch at a first punch speed (higher speed - e.g. paragraphs 64, 67); in a second stage, slowing the punch (Id.) from the first punch speed to a second punch speed that is less than the first punch speed, wherein the second punch speed is reached when the rivet first contacts the workpiece (implied e.g. paragraphs 93-95 in that the switchover point between the first/faster speed and the second/slower speed is "within a range in which the self-piercing rivet or the joining element is still distant from component A within a range of 0 to 20 mm, where a distance of 0mm would be the contact point), and wherein the second punch speed is less than or equal to the predetermined maximal rivet setting speed (the predetermined maximal rivet setting speed is essentially just the second speed in this case); and in a third stage (power step), moving the punch at the second punch speed to drive the rivet into the workpiece (as cited above).
Draht discloses that the predetermined maximal rivet setting speed is 10-150 mm/s (paragraph 93). This overlaps by nearly 2/3 with the claimed range of “below 100 mm/s”. Given the strong overlap and the otherwise nearly identical application of the prior art method, the examiner submits that the prior art range overlaps or touches claimed range with sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03 II.). Alternatively, a prima facie obviousness exists where ranges overlap (MPEP 2144.05 I.), and so the examiner maintains that the claimed range is at least obvious in view of Draht for similar reasons. In either case, the instant disclosure contemplates maximal rivet setting speeds of 10-300 mm/s (paragraphs 17, 39 and 40) such that speeds specifically under 100 mm/s cannot be considered critical to the invention.
Claim 2: Draht further discloses a step of defining a predetermined maximal rivet length (i.e. a length value just larger than the longest rivet), and the rivet defines a length less than the predetermined maximal rivet length, and the second punch speed is reached when the punch arrives at a position equal to the predetermined maximal rivet length from the workpiece (paragraph 95 as discussed above).
Claim 3: The first (faster) punch speed is within a range of 150-1000 mm/s (paragraph 93).
Claim 33: The examiner makes similar arguments for the second punch speed being less than 50 mm/s as for speeds less than 100 mm/s. Draht contemplates speeds of 10-150 mm/s, which still overlaps substantially with the claimed range, where less than 50 mm/s lacks criticality for the same reason as discussed above.
Claim 14: Draht et al. discloses a joining method for setting a rivet (1) in a workpiece (A) comprising the steps of: providing a setting tool (Fig. 2) comprising a frame (C), a punch (3 - Fig. 7A) that is displaceable on the frame along a joining axis (e.g. paragraph 87), a die (M) that is mounted on the frame, a clamp (N/10) with which the workpiece can be compressed in a joining direction (paragraph 84), and the punch being guided in the clamp by an actuator (e.g. A2/13 - e.g. paragraph 87) and a controller (K - paragraph 68); providing a predetermined maximal rivet setting speed (implied by the desired punch speed range associated with the second stage in paragraph 93), providing the rivet (1) and the workpiece (A), feeding the rivet into the setting tool (by feed 5 - paragraph 85), and setting the rivet in the workpiece (e.g. paragraph 97), the setting step comprising: moving the punch at a first punch speed (higher speed - e.g. paragraphs 64, 67), slowing the punch from the first punch speed to a second punch speed that is less than the first punch speed (Id.), wherein the second punch speed is reached no later than when the rivet first contacts the workpiece (implied e.g. paragraphs 93-95 in that the switchover point between the first/faster speed and the second/slower speed is "within a range in which the self-piercing rivet or the joining element is still distant from component A within a range of 0 to 20 mm, where a distance of 0mm would be the contact point and greater than 0 is prior to that point), and wherein the second punch speed is less than or equal to the predetermined maximal rivet setting speed (the predetermined maximal rivet setting speed is essentially just the second speed in this case); and while the rivet penetrates into the workpiece, moving the punch at the second punch speed (i.e. the “power step”).
Draht discloses that the predetermined maximal rivet setting speed is 10-150 mm/s (paragraph 93). This overlaps by nearly 2/3 with the claimed range of “below 100 mm/s”. Given the strong overlap and the otherwise nearly identical application of the prior art method, the examiner submits that the prior art range overlaps or touches claimed range with sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03 II.). Alternatively, a prima facie obviousness exists where ranges overlap (MPEP 2144.05 I.), and so the examiner maintains that the claimed range is at least obvious in view of Draht for similar reasons. In either case, the instant disclosure contemplates maximal rivet setting speeds of 10-300 mm/s (paragraphs 17, 39 and 40) such that speeds specifically under 100 mm/s cannot be considered critical to the invention.
Claim 15: Draht further discloses a step of defining a predetermined maximal rivet length not less than a length of the rivet (i.e. a length value just larger than the longest rivet), and the second speed is reached when the punch arrives at a position equal to the predetermined maximal rivet length from the workpiece (paragraph 95).
Claim 16: The first (faster) punch speed is within a range of 150-1000 mm/s (paragraph 93).
Claim 34: The examiner makes similar arguments for the second punch speed being less than 50 mm/s as for speeds less than 100 mm/s. Draht contemplates speeds of 10-150 mm/s, which still overlaps substantially with the claimed range, where less than 50 mm/s lacks criticality for the same reason as discussed above.
Claim 30: Draht et al. discloses a setting tool (Fig. 2) for setting a rivet (1) in a workpiece (A), the setting tool comprising: a frame (C); a punch (3 - Fig. 7A) that is displaceable on the frame along a joining axis (e.g. paragraph 87); a die (M) that is mounted on the frame; a clamp (N/10) adapted to be biased toward the die (paragraph 84); an actuator (e.g. A2/13) operable to move the punch in the clamp (e.g. paragraph 87); and a controller (K) configured to control the actuator to set the rivet in the workpiece (paragraph 68) by: moving the punch at a first punch speed (higher speed - e.g. paragraphs 64, 67); slowing the punch from the first punch speed to a second punch speed that is less than the first punch speed (Id.) wherein the second punch speed is reached no later than when the rivet first contacts the workpiece (implied e.g. paragraphs 93-95 in that the switchover point between the first/faster speed and the second/slower speed is "within a range in which the self-piercing rivet or the joining element is still distant from component A within a range of 0 to 20 mm, where a distance of 0mm would be the contact point and greater than 0 is prior to that point); and while the rivet penetrates into the workpiece, moving the punch at the second punch speed (i.e. the “power step”).
Draht discloses that the predetermined maximal rivet setting speed is 10-150 mm/s (paragraph 93). This overlaps by nearly 2/3 with the claimed range of “below 100 mm/s”. Given the strong overlap and the otherwise nearly identical application of the prior art method, the examiner submits that the prior art range overlaps or touches claimed range with sufficient specificity (MPEP 2131.03 II.). Alternatively, a prima facie obviousness exists where ranges overlap (MPEP 2144.05 I.), and so the examiner maintains that the claimed range is at least obvious in view of Draht for similar reasons. In either case, the instant disclosure contemplates maximal rivet setting speeds of 10-300 mm/s (paragraphs 17, 39 and 40) such that speeds specifically under 100 mm/s cannot be considered critical to the invention.
Claim 31: The controller is configured to control the actuator to move the punch at the second punch speed until the rivet is set in the workpiece, and then return the punch to its initial position at the first punch speed (e.g. paragraphs 67, 83, and 97).
Claim 32: The examiner makes similar arguments for the second punch speed being less than 50 mm/s as for speeds less than 100 mm/s. Draht contemplates speeds of 10-150 mm/s, which still overlaps substantially with the claimed range, where less than 50 mm/s lacks criticality for the same reason as discussed above.
Claims 8-10, 21-23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draht et al. in view of Blocher et al. (U.S. PGPub 2005/0081360, cited in IDS).
Claims 8 and 21: Draht teaches a method substantially as claimed except for determining a deformation of the frame during the setting step and correcting a course of movement during the setting step as a function of the deformation. However, Blocher teaches a riveting method wherein a deformation of the frame (9) during the setting step is detected (by sensors 1 and/or 2) and a course of movement during the setting step is corrected as a function of the deformation (paragraph 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided for this in the method of Draht in order to have helped ensure a constant penetration depth of the rivet (Id.).
Claims 9 and 22: Blocher further discloses determining the frame deformation based on a first relative movement between the frame and the clamp measured by a first sensor and/or a second relative movement between the frame and the punch (referred to as the die 3) measured by a second sensor (2 - paragraph 15).
Claims 10 and 23: The first sensor and/or the second sensor is a linear path recorder (paragraph 15).
Claim 27: Blocher teaches monitoring and correction as cited above. It is also understood that the path of the riveting punch is controlled and monitored by the controller in part by the force applied and is speed (e.g. Draht, paragraphs 68-69 and 93). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have adjusted a course of movement by calculating a rectification (correction) tool force in the controller, and adjusting a position of the punch and/or the second punch speed based on the rectification tool force to achieve a predetermined target position for the rivet in the workpiece. In other words, it is the forces and speeds that ultimately determine the position of the punch, and correction of the position would logically include adjustments to those variables.
Claims 11-12 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draht et al. in view of Furasko et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0185902, cited in IDS).
Claims 11 and 24: Draht further discloses “at least two” workpieces A (paragraph 62), but not that the first workpiece is a high strength steel workpiece. However, Furasko teaches a riveting method wherein the workpieces are high strength steel (e.g. paragraph 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have riveted a high strength steel workpiece depending upon the mechanical requirements of the product being made. Furthermore, 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, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 23, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation
Claim 12 and 25: Draht implies that the workpiece further includes a third workpiece (“at least two” meaning potentially more than two), but not necessarily that the first workpiece and/or the second workpiece are two upper layers and are high strength steel workpieces. However, Furasko teaches three or more metal sheets, which may be high strength steel (paragraphs 95-96). Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have riveted a high strength steel workpiece depending upon the mechanical requirements of the product being made. Furthermore, 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, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 13, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draht et al. in view of Evans et al. (U.S. PGPub 2024/0075519).
Claims 13 and 26: Draht discloses a method substantially as claimed except for adjusting the predetermined maximal rivet setting speed based on joining operation type, workpiece material, rivet material, rivet geometry, and die geometry. However, Evans teaches that rivet setting velocity may be determined based on these factors (paragraph 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusting the predetermined maximal rivet setting speed based on the claimed parameters in order to have ensured an optimal riveting cycle.
Claim 28: Draht discloses a method substantially as claimed except for slowing the punch from the first punch speed to the second punch speed at a constant rate (the rate of deceleration is not described). However, Evans teaches a similar riveting method wherein a riveting punch is moved at a first speed and then decelerated to a second slower speed prior to rivet installation where the deceleration is at a constant rate (indicated by a straight line at segment 204 of the velocity-time curve in Fig. 2B; see also paragraph 87 which describes the use of substantially constant motor torque, with the understanding that a constant motor torque/force applied to a given mass would result in a constant acceleration). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have slowed the punch from the first punch speed to the second punch speed at a constant rate since it would simplify the control parameters by requiring constant forces, for example.
Response to Arguments
Draht does not disclose moving a punch at a speed below 100 mm/s to drive a rivet into a workpiece. Instead, Draht discloses using a punch speed within a range of 10- 150 mm/s for riveting. See Paragraph [0093]. Thus, the teachings of Draht permit rivet setting speeds that are well outside of the claimed range. For example, the upper limit of Draht's range is 50 percent greater than the upper limit of the claimed range.
In the rejection of claims 5 and 18, the Examiner asserts that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where ranges overlap, citing MPEP § 2144.05. However, a prima facie case of obviousness can be rebutted by showing the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP § 2144.05, subsection III.A. In this case, Paragraph [0017] of the present application discloses that maintaining the rivet setting speed below 100 mm/s reduces the risk of rivet cracking, notably for self-piercing rivets having a mechanical coating.
Paragraphs 17 and 40 of the instant specification contemplate 10-300 mm/s as the maximal rivet setting speed, with speeds less than 100 mm/s being only exemplary. Applicant cannot claim criticality since clearly speeds as high as 300 mm/s would still be functional to Applicant’s invention.
As previously noted, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 214.05 I.). It does not matter that Draht may consider speeds greater than 100 mm/s, since nearly two-thirds of the contemplated range falls squarely within the claimed range. This does not take away from the fact that Draht contemplates speeds in the claimed range.
The inventors of the present application discovered through experimentation that maintaining the rivet setting speed below 100 mm/s reduces the risk of rivet cracking. During the testing, a self-piercing rivet was driven into three layers of material to form a riveted joint. The inventors observed rivet cracks occurring at speeds above 100 mm/s. However, below 100 mm/s, rivet cracks appeared only sporadically. When the riveting speed was reduced further (e.g., to below 50 mm/s), the rivets were crack-free. These rivet setting speeds for reducing or preventing rivet cracking were previously unknown. While the testing was done on three-layer connections, the inventors observed a similar relationship between rivet setting speed and rivet cracking for two-layer connections.
Applicant alleges that reducing the riveting speed has a proportional effect on reducing cracking on the workpiece, particularly below 100 mm/s. However, this amounts to the arguments of counsel, and Applicant has provided no actual evidence of unexpected results or the like to show criticality for speeds specifically below 100 mm/s.
Notably, Draht does even not disclose a relationship between rivet setting speed and rivet cracking. Instead, Draht seems to disclose a lower rivet setting speed simply to achieve a higher punch force. See Paragraph [0093].
Draht’s reason for setting the lower setting speed is inconsequential to the anticipation or obviousness of the limitation in view of Draht.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726