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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Shell . 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. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Clamping blocks is referenced as 51 and 52 on page 6.
Clamping sleeve is referenced as 50 and 51 on page 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “at least partially” in claims 11, 14, 18, 21, 24, and 28 is unclear. Regarding claims 11, 14, 21, and 24, the amount of clamping teeth removed from a front section of the clamping block cannot be ascertained. Regarding claims 18 and 28, the degree in which the clamping block is in surface-to-surface contact with a peripheral surface of a mandrel cannot be ascertained..
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-14 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu CN 2210050 Y in view of Bettington US 2,336,058 A. CN 2210050 Y is published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Zhu patent; and US 2,336,058 A is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Bettington patent.
Regarding claim 11, Zhu discloses a setting tool for a blind rivet, the setting tool comprising a shell (Zhu – Cylinder 224, FIG. 2); a drive unit (Zhu – Pushing Cylinder 33, FIG. 2); a pull unit (Zhu – Pulling Head 3, FIG. 2); a clamping unit (Zhu – Claw 32, Claw Sheet Sleeve 36, FIG. 2); and a nose part (Zhu – Pull Pin Sleeve 30, FIG. 1), the drive unit (Zhu – 33), pull unit (Zhu – 3), clamping unit (Zhu – 32) and nose part (Zhu – 30) contained in the shell (Zhu – 224)(See Zhu FIG. 2)(Applicant’s shell 2 does not contain parts 5 and 6. That same interpretation is being used by the examiner.), the clamping unit (Zhu – 32) including a clamping sleeve (Zhu – Claw Sheet Sleeve 36, FIG. 2) connected to the pull unit (Zhu – 3)(Zhu Description Page 3, Lines 8-9: the pulling head 3 and cylinder 22 front end connected with pulling nail sleeve 30, claw sheet sleeves 36, claw 32, the pushing cylinder 33, a coupler 35, a pawl spring 34), a plurality of clamping blocks angularly arrayed around a pulling direction (See Zhu FIG. 4 below), and a clamping spring (Zhu – Pawl Spring 34, FIG. 2); the clamping sleeve (Zhu – 36) having an enclosing wall and a clamping opening defined by the enclosing wall (See Zu FIG. 4 below); backs of the clamping blocks abutting against an inner wall of the enclosing wall (See Zu FIG. 4 below); the clamping blocks (Zhu – 32) including a plurality of clamping teeth (Zhu – Clamp Tooth 321, FIG. 4) on an inner side, facing a mandrel of a blind rivet (Zhu – Rivet 5, FIG. 2), to improve clamping of the clamping blocks to the mandrel of the blind rivet (See Zhu FIG. 5); the clamping spring (Zhu – 34) configured such that the clamping blocks (Zhu – 32) are movable in the clamping sleeve (Zhu – 36) between an initial position and a final position (Zhu Description Page 3, Lines 15-20 and Lines 42-46). Zhu fails to disclose the setting tool when the clamping block is located at the final position, a front section of the clamping block protruding from the clamping opening, and a rear section of the clamping block being retained in the clamping sleeve; and the clamping teeth located at the front section of the clamping block are at least partially removed in advance.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhu FIG. 4
Bettington teaches when the clamping block (Bettington – Jaws 7, FIG. 3) is located at the final position, a front section of the clamping block protruding from the clamping opening, and a rear section of the clamping block being retained in the clamping sleeve (See Bettington FIG. 2; Page 2, Col. 1, Lines 38-41: whereby the upper end of the carrier 4 may project outwardly beyond the upper end of the sleeve 2 as clearly shown in Figures 2 and 3); and the clamping teeth located at the front section of the clamping block are at least partially removed in advance (Bettington Page 2, Col. 1, Lines 51-56: each jaw having a straight inner face 8 disposed toward the axial bore 5 in the carrier 4 and substantially parallel therewith, which face is provided with a series of transverse serrations which terminate at the upper end of said face in a beveled portion 8').
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the camping block of the setting tool disclosed by Zhu, such that the clamping teeth located at the front section of the clamping block at partially removed in advance, as taught by Bettington, to keep the jaws of the clamping block open as the jaws comes in contact with the mandrel of the rivet (Bettington, Page 2, Col 2, Lines 17-23: In this position the jaw or jaws 1 are free to move outwardly toward the internally tapered surface of the sleeve 2, said jaw or jaws being freely movable to non-gripping position due to the initial contact between the end of the mandrel and the tapered or beveled surfaces 8' at the upper ends of the jaws 7.)
Regarding claim 12, Zhu in view of Bettington discloses the setting tool as recited in claim 11 (See claim 11 rejection above), wherein the clamping teeth at the front section of the clamping block are all removed (See Bettington FIG. 3.A below).
PNG
media_image2.png
639
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bettington FIG. 3.A
Regarding claim 13, Zhu in view of Bettington discloses the setting tool as recited in claim 11 (See claim 11 rejection above), wherein the clamping teeth at the front section of the clamping block are partially removed and are lower than the clamping teeth at the rear section of the clamping block (Bettington Page 2, Col. 2, Lines 22-23: the tapered or beveled surfaces 8' at the upper ends of the jaws 7).
Regarding claim 14, Zhu in view of Bettington discloses the setting tool as recited in claim 11 (See claim 11 rejection above), wherein, when the clamping blocks are located at the final position, the clamping teeth, closest to the clamping opening, at the front sections of the clamping blocks are all or at least partially removed (See Bettington FIG. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
612
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bettington FIG. 2
Regarding claim 21, Zhu discloses a setting tool for a blind rivet, the setting tool comprising a shell (Zhu – Cylinder 224, FIG. 2); a drive unit (Zhu – Pushing Cylinder 33, FIG. 2); a pull unit (Zhu – Pulling Head 3, FIG. 2); a clamping unit (Zhu – Claw 32, Claw Sheet Sleeve 36, FIG. 2); and a nose part (Zhu – Pull Pin Sleeve 30, FIG. 1), the drive unit (Zhu – 33), pull unit (Zhu – 3), clamping unit (Zhu – 32) and nose part (Zhu – 30) contained in the shell (Zhu – 224)(See Zhu FIG. 2) (Applicant’s shell 2 does not contain parts 5 and 6. That same interpretation is being used by the examiner.), the clamping unit (Zhu – 32) including a clamping sleeve (Zhu – Claw Sheet Sleeve 36, FIG. 2) connected to the pull unit (Zhu – 3)(Zhu Description Page 3, Lines 8-9: the pulling head 3 and cylinder 22 front end connected with pulling nail sleeve 30, claw sheet sleeves 36, claw 32, the pushing cylinder 33, a coupler 35, a pawl spring 34), a plurality of clamping blocks angularly arrayed around a pulling direction (See Zhu FIG. 4 above), and a clamping spring (Zhu – Pawl Spring 34, FIG. 2); the clamping sleeve (Zhu – 36) having an enclosing wall and a clamping opening defined by the enclosing wall (See Zu FIG. 4 above); backs of the clamping blocks abutting against an inner wall of the enclosing wall (See Zu FIG. 4 above); the clamping blocks (Zhu – 32) including a plurality of clamping teeth (Zhu – Clamp Tooth 321, FIG. 4) on an inner side, facing a mandrel of a blind rivet (Zhu – Rivet 5, FIG. 2), to improve clamping of the clamping blocks to the mandrel of the blind rivet (See Zhu FIG. 5); the clamping spring (Zhu – 34) configured such that the clamping blocks (Zhu – 32) are movable in the clamping sleeve (Zhu – 36) between an initial position and a final position (Zhu Description Page 3, Lines 15-20 and Lines 42-46). Zhu fails to disclose the setting tool when the clamping block is located at the final position, a front section of the clamping block protruding from the clamping opening, and a rear section of the clamping block being retained in the clamping sleeve. Zhu fails to disclose the front section of the clamping block being at least partially free of the clamping teeth or being lower than the clamping teeth at the rear section of the clamping block.
Bettington teaches the front section of the clamping block being at least partially free of the clamping teeth or being lower than the clamping teeth at the rear section of the clamping block (Bettington Page 2, Col. 2, Lines 22-23: the tapered or beveled surfaces 8' at the upper ends of the jaws 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the camping block of the setting tool disclosed by Zhu, such that the clamping block being at least partially free of the clamping teeth, as taught by Bettington, to keep the jaws of the clamping block open as the jaws comes in contact with the mandrel of the rivet (Bettington, Page 2, Col 2, Lines 17-23: In this position the jaw or jaws 1 are free to move outwardly toward the internally tapered surface of the sleeve 2, said jaw or jaws being freely movable to non-gripping position due to the initial contact between the end of the mandrel and the tapered or beveled surfaces 8' at the upper ends of the jaws 7.)
Regarding claim 22, Zhu in view of Bettington discloses the setting tool as recited in claim 21 (See claim 21 rejection above), wherein the clamping teeth at the front section of the clamping block are all removed (See Bettington FIG. 3 above).
Regarding claim 23, Zhu in view of Bettington discloses the setting tool as recited in claim 21 (See claim 21 rejection above), wherein the clamping teeth at the front section of the clamping block are lower than the clamping teeth at the rear section of the clamping block (Bettington Page 2, Col. 2, Lines 22-23: the tapered or beveled surfaces 8' at the upper ends of the jaws 7).
Regarding claim 24, Zhu in view of Bettington discloses the setting tool as recited in claim 21 (See claim 21 rejection above), wherein, when the clamping blocks are located at the final position, the clamping teeth, closest to the clamping opening, at the front sections of the clamping blocks are all or at least partially absent (See Bettington FIG. 2 above).
Claims 15-18, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bettington as applied to claims 11 and 21 respectively above, and further in view of Cobzaru et al. US 2007/0169327 A1. 2007/0169327 A1 is a published patent application, hereinafter to be referred to as the Cabzaru patent.
Regarding claim 15, Zhu in view of Bettington discloses the setting tool recited in claim 11 (See claim 11 rejection above), however, Zhu in view of Bettington fails to disclose wherein the clamping teeth are formed as convex ribs uniformly arrayed on the clamping block in the pulling direction; the convex rib including a top edge, a first side surface, and a second side surface, wherein the top edge is perpendicular to a central line of the mandrel; the first side surface faces the drive unit and extends from the top edge to a root of the corresponding clamping tooth at a first angle to the pulling direction; and the second side surface faces the nose part and extends from the top edge to the root of the clamping tooth at a second angle to the pulling direction.
Cobzaru teaches clamping teeth (Cobzaru – Serrations 392, FIG. 12) formed as convex ribs uniformly arrayed on a clamping block (Cobzaru – Jaws 374, FIG. 8) in the pulling direction; the convex rib including a top edge, a first side surface, and a second side surface, wherein the top edge is perpendicular to a central line of the mandrel; the first side surface faces the drive unit and extends from the top edge to a root of the corresponding clamping tooth at a first angle to the pulling direction; and the second side surface faces the nose part and extends from the top edge to the root of the clamping tooth at a second angle to the pulling direction (Cobzaru Para [0040]: each of the serrations 392 has angled end portions 394)(See Cobzaru FIG. 12 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
571
727
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Cobzaru FIG. 12.A
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamping teeth of the setting tool disclosed by Zhu in view of Bettington, to be formed as convex ribs uniformly arrayed on the clamping block in the pulling direction, as taught by Cobzaru, wherein the angled direction of the clamping tooth in the pulling direction allows for the clamping block to receive a large range of rivet stem sizes without weaking or causing unnecessary wear on the clamping block (Cobzaru Para [0040]: The serrations 392 are configured such that they can grip a wide range of size fastener stems. Specifically, as shown in FIGS. 12-14, each of the serrations 392 has angled end portions 394 which allow bigger size sterns to be inserted into the jaws 374 without weakening or causing unnecessary wear on the jaws 374).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru, discloses the setting tool recited in claim 15 (See claim 15 rejection above), wherein a rounded corner with a smooth transition portion is formed at the root of the clamping teeth by the first side surface and the second side surface (See Cobzaru FIG. 13 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
388
641
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Cobzaru FIG. 13
Regarding claim 17, Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru, discloses the setting tool recited in claim 15 (See claim 15 rejection above), wherein the first angle is larger than the second angle (See Cobzaru FIG. 12.B below).
PNG
media_image6.png
525
619
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Cobzaru FIG. 12.B
Regarding claim 18, Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru, discloses the setting tool recited in claim 15 (See claim 15 rejection above), wherein the top edge of the clamping tooth at the rear section of the clamping block is at least partially in surface-to-surface contact with a peripheral surface of the mandrel (See Bettington FIG. 3.B below).
PNG
media_image7.png
634
559
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Bettington FIG. 3.B
Regarding claim 25, Zhu in view of Bettington, discloses the setting tool recited in claim 21 (See claim 21 rejection above), however, Zhu in view of Bettington fails to disclose wherein the clamping teeth are formed as convex ribs uniformly arrayed on the clamping block in the pulling direction; the convex rib including a top edge, a first side surface, and a second side surface, wherein the top edge is perpendicular to a central line of the mandrel; the first side surface faces the drive unit and extends from the top edge to a root of the corresponding clamping tooth at a first angle to the pulling direction; and the second side surface faces the nose part and extends from the top edge to the root of the clamping tooth at a second angle to the pulling direction.
Cobzaru teaches clamping teeth (Cobzaru – Serrations 392, FIG. 12) formed as convex ribs uniformly arrayed on a clamping block (Cobzaru – Jaws 374, FIG. 8) in the pulling direction; the convex rib including a top edge, a first side surface, and a second side surface, wherein the top edge is perpendicular to a central line of the mandrel; the first side surface faces the drive unit and extends from the top edge to a root of the corresponding clamping tooth at a first angle to the pulling direction; and the second side surface faces the nose part and extends from the top edge to the root of the clamping tooth at a second angle to the pulling direction (Cobzaru Para [0040]: each of the serrations 392 has angled end portions 394)(See Cobzaru FIG. 12.A above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamping teeth of the setting tool disclosed by Zhu in view of Bettington, to be formed as convex ribs uniformly arrayed on the clamping block in the pulling direction, as taught by Cobzaru, wherein the angled direction of the clamping tooth in the pulling direction allows for the clamping block to receive a large range of rivet stem sizes without weaking or causing unnecessary wear on the clamping block (Cobzaru Para [0040]: The serrations 392 are configured such that they can grip a wide range of size fastener stems. Specifically, as shown in FIGS. 12-14, each of the serrations 392 has angled end portions 394 which allow bigger size sterns to be inserted into the jaws 374 without weakening or causing unnecessary wear on the jaws 374).
Regarding claim 26, Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru, discloses the setting tool recited in claim 25 (See claim 25 rejection above), wherein a rounded corner with a smooth transition portion is formed at the root of the clamping teeth by the first side surface and the second side surface (See Cobzaru FIG. 13 above).
Regarding claim 27, Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru, discloses the setting tool recited in claim 25 (See claim 25 rejection above), wherein the first angle is larger than the second angle (See Cobzaru FIG. 12.B above).
Regarding claim 28, , Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru, discloses the setting tool recited in claim 25 (See claim 25 rejection above), wherein the top edge of the clamping tooth at the rear section of the clamping block is at least partially in surface-to-surface contact with a peripheral surface of the mandrel (See Bettington FIG. 3.B above).
Claims 19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru as applied to claims 15 and 25 respectively above, and further in view of Cobzaru et al. US 2008/0184545 A1. US 2008/0184545 A1 is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Cobzaru II patent.
Regarding claim 19, Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru disclose the setting tool as recited in claim 15 (See claim 15 rejection above), however, Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru fails to disclose the setting tool, wherein the clamping blocks are made from medium-carbon nickel-chromium-molybdenum alloy steel with a nickel content of about 1.6%-2.0%. Cobzaru II teaches a clamping block (Cobzaru – Jaws 1024, FIG. 7) are made from low alloy steel (Cobzaru II Para [0045]: As discussed above, the jaws 1024 are preferably either manufactured or cast out of a low alloy steel and case hardened). It is well known in the art that medium-carbon nickel-chromium-molybdenum alloy steel is regarded as a low alloy steel, wherein the low alloy steel is comprised of 1.65%-2.00% nickel content.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of the clamping blocks disclosed by Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru to be made from low alloy steel, as taught by Cobzaru II, to optimize the strength and toughness of the clamping blocks (Cobzaru Para [0045]: the jaws 1024 are preferably either manufactured or cast out of a low alloy steel and case hardened, in order to optimize strength and toughness.). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the clamping blocks from medium-carbon nickel-chromium-molybdenum alloy steel with a nickel content of about 1.6%-2.0%, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 29, Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru disclose the setting tool as recited in claim 25 (See claim 25 rejection above), however, Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru fails to disclose the setting tool, wherein the clamping blocks are made from medium-carbon nickel-chromium-molybdenum alloy steel with a nickel content of about 1.6%-2.0%. Cobzaru II teaches a clamping block (Cobzaru – Jaws 1024, FIG. 7) are made from low alloy steel (Cobzaru II Para [0045]: As discussed above, the jaws 1024 are preferably either manufactured or cast out of a low alloy steel and case hardened). It is well known in the art that medium-carbon nickel-chromium-molybdenum alloy steel is regarded as a low alloy steel, wherein the low alloy steel is comprised of 1.65%-2.00% nickel content.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of the clamping blocks disclosed by Zhu in view of Bettington and Cobzaru to be made from low alloy steel, as taught by Cobzaru II, to optimize the strength and toughness of the clamping blocks (Cobzaru Para [0045]: the jaws 1024 are preferably either manufactured or cast out of a low alloy steel and case hardened, in order to optimize strength and toughness.). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the clamping blocks from medium-carbon nickel-chromium-molybdenum alloy steel with a nickel content of about 1.6%-2.0%, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 20 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bettington, Cobzaru, and Cobzaru II as applied to claims 19 and 29 respectively above, and further in view of Yamauchi JP 2006144949 A. JP 2006144949 A is a published patent application hereinafter to be referred to as the Yamauchi patent.
Regarding claim 20, Zhu in view of Bettington, Cobzaru, and Cobzaru II discloses the setting tool recited in claim 19 (See claim 19 rejection above), however, Zhu in view of Bettington, Cobzaru, and Cobzaru II fails to disclose the setting tool, wherein, after the clamping blocks are subjected to heat treatment, the depth of a hardened layer ranges from 0.5 mm to 0.8 mm, and the surface hardness is not less than HV680.
Yamauchi teaches a surface hardness of 54 to 64 HRC formed by heat treatment (Yamauchi Description Page 8, Lines 31-32: on the inner periphery of the hub wheel 18, a concavo-convex portion 29 having a surface hardness of 54 to 64 HRC is formed by heat treatment.). It is known in the art that a Rockwell C hardness of 58-64 HRC is roughly equivalent to about 600–680 HV. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subject the clamping blocks to heat treatment, wherein the surface hardness is not less than HV680, as taught by Yamauchi, where it is known in the art that a HV680 surface hardness indicates that a material has a strong resistance to deformation.
Yamauchi also teaches the hardened layer depth being set by quenching by high-frequency induction heating (Page 8, Lines 33-35). Changing the set depth increases the hardness of the clamping blocks; thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the depth from 0.5 mm to 0.8 mm, since it has been held that 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).
Regarding claim 30, Zhu in view of Bettington, Cobzaru, and Cobzaru II discloses the setting tool recited in claim 29 (See claim 29 rejection above), however, Zhu in view of Bettington, Cobzaru, and Cobzaru II fails to disclose the setting tool, wherein, after the clamping blocks are subjected to heat treatment, the depth of a hardened layer ranges from 0.5 mm to 0.8 mm, and the surface hardness is not less than HV680.
Yamauchi teaches a surface hardness of 54 to 64 HRC formed by heat treatment (Yamauchi Description Page 8, Lines 31-32: on the inner periphery of the hub wheel 18, a concavo-convex portion 29 having a surface hardness of 54 to 64 HRC is formed by heat treatment.). It is known in the art that a Rockwell C hardness of 58-64 HRC is roughly equivalent to about 600–680 HV. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subject the clamping blocks to heat treatment, wherein the surface hardness is not less than HV680, as taught by Yamauchi, where it is known in the art that a HV680 surface hardness indicates that a material has a strong resistance to deformation.
Yamauchi also teaches the hardened layer depth being set by quenching by high-frequency induction heating (Page 8, Lines 33-35). Changing the set depth increases the hardness of the clamping blocks; thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the depth from 0.5 mm to 0.8 mm, since it has been held that 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
D.N.I.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights