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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 5th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 mentioned in the description: 17. 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the present abstract filed on contains reference numbers "()". It is suggested that the reference numbers "()" are removed. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: "an elongate handle part should read --“an elongated handle part (60)-- (see Fig. 1 and ¶0047 of the Specification). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Fixing mechanism in claim 16 (Lines 5 and 8) and claim 18 (Line 2)
Fixing connection in claim 17 (Lines 3 and 4)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 16 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gilbert et al. (DE60212091T2), hereinafter "Gilbert". For text citation of Gilbert refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 16, Gilbert discloses a riveting device (Fig. 1), comprising: a collection container (Fig. 1, Element 21) for rivet mandrel remnants (¶0001); a support structure (Figs. 3A and 4A-B, Element 37) for the collection container; and a fixing mechanism (Fig. 3A, Elements 27, 34, 35 and 36), wherein the fixing mechanism is configured such that the collection container is brought into a fixing position (Fig. 2A; ¶0021, Lines 6-8; ¶0021, Lines 14-17) on the support structure by a translational movement with respect to the support structure (Figs. 3A and 2A; ¶0021, Lines 6-8; ¶0021, Lines 14-17) along a spatial axis (see 1st annotated Fig. 3A of Gilbert reproduced below), and wherein the fixing mechanism is configured such that the collection container is released from the fixing position by a rotational movement with respect to the support structure around the spatial axis (Fig. 3A; ¶0021, Lines 8-13).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1st annotated Fig. 3A of Gilbert
Regarding Claim 27, Gilbert anticipates the riveting device as claimed in Claim 16 as explained above.
Gilbert further discloses wherein the support structure has a circumferential wall surface (see 2nd annotated Fig. 3A of Gilbert reproduced below) around the spatial axis (see 2nd annotated Fig. 3A of Gilbert reproduced below), wherein the circumferential wall surface corresponds to a circumferential surface (see 2nd annotated Fig. 3A of Gilbert reproduced below) of the collection container, and wherein in the fixing position (Fig. 2A) the circumferential wall surface and the circumferential surface overlap each other and form a plug connection (Fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image2.png
349
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2nd annotated Fig. 3A of Gilbert
Regarding Claim 28, Gilbert anticipates the riveting device as claimed in Claim 16 as explained above.
Gilbert further discloses wherein the riveting device is a hand riveting device (¶0014, Lines 1-2) and has an elongate handle part (see annotated Fig. 1 of Gilbert reproduced below), and wherein the elongate handle part extends with its longitudinal extension (see annotated Fig. 1 of Gilbert reproduced below) transverse to the spatial axis (see annotated Fig. 1 of Gilbert reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
481
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Gilbert
Regarding Claim 29, Gilbert discloses a method (¶0021) for mounting and removing a collection container (¶0021; Fig. 1, Element 21) for rivet mandrel remnants (¶0001), comprising:
providing the riveting device (Fig. 1) according to claim 16 (as explained above);
translationally moving the collection container (Figs. 3A and 2A; ¶0021, Lines 6-8; ¶0021, Lines 14-17) along a spatial axis (A) (see annotated Fig. 1 of Gilbert reproduced above) into a fixing position (Fig. 2A) on the support structure (Figs. 3A and 4A-B, Element 37) of the riveting device; and
rotating the collection container (Fig. 3A; ¶0021, Lines 8-13) with respect to the support structure around the spatial axis in order to release the collection container (¶0021, Lines 8-13) from the fixing position on the support structure.
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.
Claims 17-22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert in view of Rieger (DE102017215097A1), hereinafter "Rieger". For text citation of Rieger refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 17, Gilbert anticipates the riveting device as claimed in Claim 16 as explained above.
Gilbert further discloses wherein the fixing mechanism comprises fixing connections (Figs. 3A, Elements 35 and 36) including a first fixing connection (Figs. 3A, Element 35) coupled to the collection container and a second fixing connection (Figs. 3A, Element 36) coupled to the support structure.
Gilbert fails to disclose wherein the first fixing connection forms a snap connection with the second fixing connection in the fixing position.
Nonetheless, Rieger teaches wherein a first fixing connection (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced below) forms a snap connection (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced below) with a second fixing connection (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced below) in the fixing position (Fig. 2).
Gilbert and Rieger are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of riveting devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Rieger wherein the first fixing connection forms a snap connection with the second fixing connection in the fixing position and add a snap connection to the riveting device disclosed by Gilbert since such as snap connection allows for particularly quick, easy, and safe attachment and removal of the collection container to and from the riveting device (¶0013).
PNG
media_image4.png
553
914
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger renders the riveting device as claimed in Claim 17 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger further teaches wherein the fixing mechanism (Gilbert - Fig. 3A, Elements 27, 34, 35 and 36) is configured to block the collection container in the snap connection (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above) against rotation around the spatial axis (Gilbert - ¶0021; see 1st annotated Fig. 3A of Gilbert reproduced above) relative to the support structure (Gilbert - Figs. 3A and 4A-B, Element 37) up to a predetermined rotational force (Gilbert - ¶0021, by means of Element 27).
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger renders the riveting device as claimed in Claim 17 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger further teaches wherein one of the fixing connections (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above) has at least one latching projection (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced below) and another of the fixing connections (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above) has at least one recess (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above), and wherein the at least one recess (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above) has a latching edge (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above) extending transverse to the spatial axis (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above) and is closed at ends (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above) in a circumferential direction (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced below) relative to the spatial axis (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above).
PNG
media_image5.png
368
589
media_image5.png
Greyscale
1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger renders the riveting device as claimed in Claim 19 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger further teaches wherein the latching projection (see annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above) and/or the recess has a rounded contour (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above) on at least one end section (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above) in the circumferential direction (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above) relative to the spatial axis (A).
Regarding Claim 21, the prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger renders the riveting device as claimed in Claim 19 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger further teaches wherein the latching projection (7) (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above) and/or the recess has a slanted contour (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above, specifically end sections on at least one end section (see annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above, specifically end sections (3/3)) in the circumferential direction (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above) relative to the spatial axis (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 22, the prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger renders the riveting device as claimed in Claim 21 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger further teaches wherein the at least one end section (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above) of the latching projection (7) (see1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above) and an associated at least one end section (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above) of the recess (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above) are formed to be aligned with each other (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above) in the circumferential direction (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above) relative to the spatial axis (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 25, the prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger renders the riveting device as claimed in Claim 17 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger further teaches wherein the support structure (Gilbert - Figs. 3A and 4A-B, Element 37) is formed on a tubular housing part (see annotated Fig. 1 of Gilbert reproduced above), wherein the tubular housing part forms one of the fixing connections (Gilbert - Figs. 3A, Element 36) on opposing level surface sections (see 1st annotated Fig. 3A of Gilbert reproduced above) of its outer circumference (see 1st annotated Fig. 3A of Gilbert reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 26, the prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger renders the riveting device as claimed in Claim 25 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger further teaches further comprising: a riveting tool (Gilbert - Fig. 1, Element 14); and a drive device (Gilbert - ¶0014; Element 11 and piston that move along bore 13) present in the tubular housing part (Gilbert - Figs. 3A) for actuating the riveting tool (Gilbert - ¶0014), wherein the riveting tool is arranged on one longitudinal end (see annotated Fig. 1 of Gilbert reproduced above) of the tubular housing part and the collection container (Gilbert - Fig. 1, Element 21) is arranged on an opposing longitudinal end (see annotated Fig. 1 of Gilbert reproduced above; Gilbert - Fig. 4B) of the tubular housing part (16).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert in view of Rieger as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Scharfenberd et al. (DE102016224555A1), hereinafter "Scharfenberd". For text citation of Scharfenberd refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 23, the prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger renders the riveting device as claimed in Claim 19 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger further teaches wherein the latching projection (see 1st annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above) or the recess is arranged on a snap lug (2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced below) of at least two snap lugs (snap lug see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced below), wherein the at least two snap lugs (12, extend in a direction of the spatial axis (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced below) with their longitudinal extension (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced below), wherein the at least two resilient snap lugs are at a radial distance from each other (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced below) in relation to the spatial axis.
The prior art combination of Gilbert and Rieger fails to teach resilient snap lugs and , and wherein the at least two resilient snap lugs are sprung towards each other.
Nonetheless, Scharfenberd teaches a resilient snap lug (Fig. 2, Element 150; ¶0014, 0036).
Gilbert, Rieger, and Scharfenberd are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of riveting devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Scharfenberd of using resilient snap lugs into the riveting device disclosed by Gilbert and modified by Rieger such that the latching projection or the recess is arranged on a resilient snap lug of at least two resilient snap lugs, wherein the at least two resilient snap lugs extend in a direction of the spatial axis with their longitudinal extension, wherein the at least two resilient snap lugs are at a radial distance from each other in relation to the spatial axis to provide a locking and unlocking mechanism that can be made very easy with the snap connection being secured by the spring action after locking and unlocking (¶0014).
After modifications the prior art combination of Gilbert, Rieger, and Scharfenberd further teaches wherein the at least two resilient snap lugs are sprung towards each other (by nature of their resiliency when in its lock/or fixing position).
PNG
media_image6.png
419
724
media_image6.png
Greyscale
2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger
Regarding Claim 24, the prior art combination of Gilbert, Rieger, and Scharfenberd renders the riveting device as claimed in Claim 23 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Gilbert, Rieger, and Scharfenberd further teaches wherein the at least two resilient snap lugs (see 2nd annotated Fig. 1 of Rieger reproduced above) are provided on one of the fixing connections (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above) and in the fixing position (Rieger - Fig. 2) act from an outside (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above, specifically the first fixing connection; Scharfenberd - ¶0014) against a circumference of another of the fixing connections (see annotated Fig. 2 of Rieger reproduced above, specifically the second fixing connection).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US4704888A - Riveting device
DE3336157A1, US7160047B2, & US11707776B2 - Snap connection
US7694399B2 - Wall surface & opposing level surface sections of outer circumference
US20080189929A1 & US20100064500A1- Snap lug
EP4230327B1- Collector with snap connections
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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.
/A.M.O.
Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights