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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-11, 14, 18, 20, 24, 26-27, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KILJUNEN et al. (US 2011/0223417) in view of HAACK et al. (US 2015/0266269) and DIETZE et al. (US 2018/0355215).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 11, 24, and 30, KILJUNEN teaches bonding a metal to a wood material via glue adhesive bonding (para. 42), but does not teach riveting. HAACK teaches a method of bonding dissimilar materials via applying adhesive to a material, stacking the material with a second material, curing the adhesives, and inserting self-piercing rivet through the material stack, in order (paras. 6-8 and 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the riveting step of HAACK in the method of KILUNEN in order to improve joining strength between the substrates (HAACK; para. 4). HAACK does not teach placing the stack on a riveting machine, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to place the stack on a riveting machine during riveting in order to support pressing a rivet through the laminate. KILJUNEN teaches applying an adhesive to a portion of one material and contacting the materials to bond (para. 42), but does not teach curing the adhesive. DIETZE teaches an adhesive for bonding metal to wood comprising methyl methacrylate adhesive that is reactively cured during bonding, which is time curing, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the adhesive of DIETZE as the adhesive of KILJUNEN in order to join very sensitive substrates (DIETZ; paras. 11, 107, and 111).
Regarding claim 4, KILJUNEN teaches aluminum or steel material as a second substrate (para. 18).
Regarding claim 9, KILJUNEN teaches priming and other surface treatments before adhesion (paras. 21-22).
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize general J, P, or R rivets, as there would have been a reasonable expectation of securing the laminate of HAACK in the same manner utilizing any self-piercing rivets (MPEP 2141; KSR).
Regarding claim 18, HAACK does not teach a particular riveting speed, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a maximum speed possible without destruction of products or apparatus.
Regarding claim 20, HAACK teaches a rivet head that is substantially flush with a surface of the first material (fig. 7).
Regarding claims 26-27, HAACK teaches bonding the materials to form an automotive device part (para. 26).
Regarding claim 29, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize densified wood as the wood because there would be a reasonable expectation of producing essentially the same product (MPEP 2141).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as combined as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YAMAGUCHI et al. (US 2021/0283678).
Regarding claim 16, HAACK does not explicitly teach a force utilized to insert the rivet. YAMAGUCHI teaches another method of applying self-piercing rivets wherein a force of 20-100 kN is utilized, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize 20-100 kN in the insertion of the rivet of HAACK (para. 66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a force of 20-50 kN because the claimed range overlaps that of the prior art (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 9-11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26-27, and 29-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is based upon the new amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights