DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Avdel Textron (GB 2 314 794).
As to claim 1, Avdel Textron discloses a riveted assembly comprising:
a first component 10 having opposing first and second sidewalls;
a second component 11 having opposing third and fourth sidewalls; and
a rivet 15 extending between a head along a shank to an end, the rivet piercing the first sidewall with the end of the rivet being between the first and fourth sidewalls, wherein the end of the rivet is deformed and interlocks the first and second components (Figures 1-5).
As to claim 2, Avdel Textron discloses a riveted assembly wherein the second surface of the first component 10 abuts the third sidewall of the second component 11 (Figures 1-5).
As to claim 3, Avdel Textron discloses a riveted assembly wherein the rivet 15 comprises Al or Al alloy (Figures 1-5; P8 L3-6).
As to claim 4, Avdel Textron discloses a riveted assembly wherein the shank of the rivet 15 is tubular and solid (Figures 1-5; P8 L3-6).
As to claim 5, Avdel Textron discloses a riveted assembly wherein the rivet 15 comprises Al or Mg and pierces the fourth sidewall of the second component 11 (Figures 1-5; P8 L3-6).
As to claim 6, Avdel Textron discloses a method for affixing at least two components using a rivet, the method comprising:
providing a first component 10 having opposing first and second sidewalls;
providing a second component 11 having opposing third and fourth sidewalls;
providing a rivet 15 extending between a head along a shank to an end; and
projecting the rivet through at least the third sidewall of the second component to deform and form an affixing interface to interlock the first and second components (Figures 1-5).
As to claim 7, Avdel Textron discloses a method comprising abutting the second sidewall of the first component 10 to the third sidewall of the second component 11 (Figures 1-5).
As to claim 9, Avdel Textron discloses a method wherein the rivet 15 includes a blunt head (Figures 1-5).
As to claim 10, Avdel Textron discloses a method wherein the rivet 15 includes a blunt end (Figures 1-5).
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.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avdel Textron in view of Bollhoff Berbindungstechnik (GB 2 428 077).
As to claim 8, Avdel Textron fails to disclose a method wherein the rivet includes a flanged head.
Bollhoff Berbindungstechnik teaches a method wherein a rivet 16c includes a flanged head; the flanged head being counter sunk within a first component 8, providing for more secure seating of the rivet within the first component (Figures 1-6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rivet disclosed by Avdel Textron to comprise a flanged head, as taught by Bollhoff Berbindungstechnik, in order to provide for more secure seating of the rivet within the first component.
As to claim 11, Avdel Textron fails to disclose a method wherein the rivet includes a conical end.
Bollhoff Berbindungstechnik teaches a method wherein a rivet 16c includes a conical end 22c; the conical end providing for easier penetration of the rivet into first component 8 (Figures 1-6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rivet disclosed by Avdel Textron to comprise a conical end, as taught by Bollhoff Berbindungstechnik, in order to provide for easier penetration of the rivet into the first component.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avdel Textron in view of Draht et al. (US 10,589,374).
As to claim 12, Avdel Textron fails to disclose a method wherein the rivet includes a hemispherical end.
Draht et al. teach teaches a method wherein a rivet 10 includes a hemispherical end 11; the hemispherical end providing for easier penetration of the rivet into first component (Figures 1-4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rivet disclosed by Avdel Textron to comprise a hemispherical end, as taught by Draht et al., in order to provide for easier penetration of the rivet into the first component.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 13 and 17-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,460,059). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the “first component”, “second component” and “rivet” of patent claims 1 and 13 encompass the “first component”, “second component” and “rivet” of instant claims 1 and 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
05/01/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights