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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to. Referring to 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b)(1):
Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
In this case, Fig. 13 comprises a photograph where a photograph is not the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 8 and 17 are 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.
Claim 8 recites “an umbrella shape”. While an “umbrella shape” might be generally understood, the shape of an umbrella is not necessarily consistent or defined sufficiently as to form a definite shape comparison for a claim. In this case, the examiner suggests amending “an umbrella shape” to recite --a--such that claims simply recites --wherein the head portion has a shape in which the peripheral edge portion spreads while being tilted toward the first shaft portion side--.
Claim 17 recites “a metal rivet driven…in this order” in the context of a product claim. A product claim is defined by its structure, not necessarily by the method with which it is made. In this case, reciting the order of steps raises a question as to how this is limiting in a product limitation. The examiner suggests omitting “in this order”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney (U.S. PGPub 2014/0023452, cited in IDS) in view of Antoun et al. (U.S. PGPub 2024/0280130) and Driv-Lok (NPL).
Claim 1: Maloney discloses a riveting method comprising: a preparation step of laying a back surface (lower surface) of a second to-be-fastened member (31) on a front surface (top surface) of a first to-be-fastened member (33) having a prepared hole (not labeled, see Fig. 2); and a riveting step of moving a metal rivet (10 - paragraph 1) set at a position away from a front surface of the second to-be-fastened member toward a position of the prepared hole (downward - Figs. 2-3), and driving the rivet into the second to-be-fastened member and the first to-be-fastened member in this order (from top to bottom - paragraph 22) to cause the rivet to reach an inside of the prepared hole (Fig. 3), wherein the prepared hole includes a hole portion having an inner wall surface (apparent in Fig. 2), the rivet includes a first shaft (shank) portion with a tapered shape (evident in Figs. 1-2; paragraph 21), the first shaft portion includes a tip end portion (23) whose diameter decreases toward a tip end side (Id.), and a groove (threads 19) is carved on an outer peripheral surface of the first shaft portion from a base end side (15) toward the tip end side (23) of the first shaft portion.
Maloney does not disclose that the inner wall of the prepared hole has a substantially cone shape or a substantially truncated cone shape that is a tapered shape. However, Antoun discloses a tapered threaded fastener may be installed into a prepared hole wherein the inner wall of the prepared hole has a substantially cone shape or a substantially truncated cone shape that is a tapered shape (Figs. 2-3; paragraphs 68-69). 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 the hole with a tapered shape because it would have allowed for the first to-be-fastened member to be easily manufactured as a cast part in addition to easy alignment of the fastener with the hole (paragraphs 4, 70-71). It is confirmed that the relied upon portions of Antoun find support in the provisional application thereof.
Maloney further discloses an interference between the rivet and the inner wall of the prepared hole (e.g. paragraph 22). This interference, understood as essentially an oversizing of the interfering portion of the rivet relative to the corresponding wall portion, could be defined as a value obtained by dividing a difference between a circumferential length of the inner wall surface of the hole portion and a circumferential length of the first shaft portion at a position where the inner wall surface and the first shaft portion are in contact with each other after driving of the rivet by the circumferential length of the inner wall surface. However, the maximum interference that is a maximum value of the interference is not necessarily 3 to 13% (Maloney is silent to the degree of interference). However, Driv-Lok provides guidance for the level of interference when driving grooved press-fit fasteners (pages 4-6), and in some examples suggests that an appropriate degree of interference would be in the claimed range (e.g. 5% - see expanded diameters Dx compared to nominal diameters D on page 5, where an example for a ½“ fastener would have interference of (0.525-0.500)/0.500 = 0.05 or 5%, noting that diameter and circumference or “circumferential length” are directly proportional). Maloney also generally explains that insertion and holding forces vary with hole size, and thus it is a result-effective variable. 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 a maximum value of interference as 3 to 13% in order to have achieved the appropriate level of holding force for the fastener, and also as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 2: Maloney, Antoun et al., and Driv-Lok do not explicitly disclose that a rivet contact length that is a length of a contact portion where the inner wall surface and the first shaft portion are in contact with each other in an axial direction of the first shaft portion is 5 mm or more. However, the examiner submits that this could merely relate to the general size and scale of the fastening arrangement, where a larger fastener would generally have a proportionately larger contact length. Thus, a rivet contact length of 5 mm or more would have been obvious in the context of sufficiently larger fastening arrangement, e.g. for larger fastening arrangements securing large loads.
Claim 3: Referring to Maloney, the tip end portion includes a bulging portion (bulb 21) that bulges outward beyond a cone shape formed by an imaginary bottom surface at a base end of the tip end portion and a vertex at a tip end of the tip end portion (the bulge 21 can be said to bulge outwardly from an arbitrary/hypothetical cone as claimed), and the interference becomes the maximum interference in the bulging portion (being the widest part of the fastener shank, one would expect the interference to be highest at this location. See also paragraph 22).
Claim 4: Referring to Antoun, an opening diameter of the hole portion (a countersink 68) is larger than a diameter of a base end portion of the first shaft portion. 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 the countersink to have aided fastener alignment.
Claim 6: Referring to Antoun, a taper angle of the hole portion is 2 to 10° (paragraphs 69-70). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an angle in this range in order to prevent sticking in the die during casting as discussed above.
Claim 7: Referring to Maloney, the rivet further includes a head portion (11) extending from a base end of the first shaft portion, the first shaft portion extends downward from the head portion, (Fig. 1), the head portion includes a center portion connected to the first shaft portion (evident in Fig. 1) and a peripheral edge portion (12) spreading outward from the center portion, and a diameter of the peripheral edge portion is larger than a diameter of the first shaft portion (evident in Fig. 1).
Claim 16: Referring to Antoun, the first to-be-fastened member is a casted member (as cited above). The use of cast member would have been obvious as it provides manufacturing benefits as noted above.
Claim 17: Maloney discloses a fastened product (e.g. Fig. 3) comprising: a first to-be-fastened member (33) having a prepared hole (not labeled, see Fig. 2); a second to-be-fastened member (31) whose back surface (lower surface) is laid on a front surface (top surface) of the first to-be-fastened member; and a metal rivet (10 - paragraph 1) driven into the second to-be-fastened member and the first to-be-fastened member in this order (from top to bottom - paragraph 22) to reach an inside of the prepared hole (Fig. 3), wherein the prepared hole includes a hole portion having an inner wall surface (apparent in Fig. 2), the rivet includes a first shaft (shank) portion with a tapered shape (evident in Figs. 1-2; paragraph 21), the first shaft portion includes a tip end portion (23) whose diameter decreases toward a tip end side (Id.), and a groove (threads 19) is carved on an outer peripheral surface of the first shaft portion from a base end side (15) toward the tip end side (23) of the first shaft portion.
Maloney does not disclose that the inner wall of the prepared hole has a substantially cone shape or a substantially truncated cone shape that is a tapered shape. However, Antoun discloses a tapered threaded fastener may be installed into a prepared hole wherein the inner wall of the prepared hole has a substantially cone shape or a substantially truncated cone shape that is a tapered shape (Figs. 2-3; paragraphs 68-69). 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 the hole with a tapered shape because it would have allowed for the first to-be-fastened member to be easily manufactured as a cast part in addition to easy alignment of the fastener with the hole (paragraphs 4, 70-71). It is confirmed that the relied upon portions of Antoun find support in the provisional application thereof.
Maloney further discloses an interference between the rivet and the inner wall of the prepared hole (e.g. paragraph 22). This interference, understood as essentially an oversizing of the interfering portion of the rivet relative to the corresponding wall portion, could be defined as a value obtained by dividing a difference between a circumferential length of the inner wall surface of the hole portion and a circumferential length of the first shaft portion at a position where the inner wall surface and the first shaft portion are in contact with each other after driving of the rivet by the circumferential length of the inner wall surface. However, the maximum interference that is a maximum value of the interference is not necessarily 3 to 13% (Maloney is silent to the degree of interference). However, Driv-Lok provides guidance for the level of interference when driving grooved press-fit fasteners (pages 4-6), and in some examples suggests that an appropriate degree of interference would be in the claimed range (e.g. 5% - see expanded diameters Dx compared to nominal diameters D on page 5, where an example for a ½“ fastener would have interference of (0.525-0.500)/0.500 = 0.05 or 5%, noting that diameter and circumference or “circumferential length” are directly proportional). Maloney also generally explains that insertion and holding forces vary with hole size, and thus it is a result-effective variable. 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 a maximum value of interference as 3 to 13% in order to have achieved the appropriate level of holding force for the fastener, and also as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney, Antoun et al., and Driv-Lok as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ueda et al. (U.S. PGPub 2013/0340239).
Maloney, Antoun et al., and Driv-Lok teach a method substantially as claimed except for wherein a relationship between an opening diameter φ1 of the hole portion and a diameter φ 2 of a base end portion of the first shaft portion is l.0x φ2< φ1 <= l. l x φ2. However, Ueda suggests that a clearance between a fastener shaft and a hole into which it is inserted may be minimized, or enlarged according to demand, based upon the desired fastening and clamping forces (paragraphs 50-51, 97), and thus it is a result-effective variable. 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 the claimed relationship in order to have achieved the appropriate level of holding force for the fastener, and also as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 8-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney, Antoun et al., and Driv-Lok as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hori et al. (JP2019039535, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Claim 8: Maloney, Antoun et al., and Driv-Lok do not teach that the head portion has an umbrella shape in which the peripheral edge portion spreads while being tilted toward the first shaft portion side. However, Hori et al. teaches a helically grooved rivet wherein the head portion (2) has an umbrella shape in which the peripheral edge portion spreads while being tilted toward the first shaft portion side (Figs. 2, 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tilted the head in this way since it allows some of the energy received when the rivet is driven into the component to be fastened to be absorbed as compressive stress within the head (paragraph 28).
Claim 9: Further referring to Hori, a thickness of the peripheral edge portion of the head portion is 0.1 to 2.0 mm (paragraph 36).
Claim 10: A tilt angle of the head portion is 5 to 30° (paragraph 36).
Claim 11: Referring to Maloney, the groove is a helical groove formed in a helical shape on an outer surface of the first shaft portion (i.e. threads), and in the riveting step, the rivet set at the position away from the front surface of the second to-be-fastened member is moved toward the position of the prepared hole in a non-rotating state (pressed in - e.g. paragraph 21). The rivet is not necessarily made to reach the inside of the prepared hole by being screwed into the second to-be-fastened member and the first to-be-fastened member in this order while being rotated. However, Hori teaches that the rivet is moved toward the position of the prepared hole in a non-rotating state and is made to reach the inside of the prepared hole by being screwed into the second to-be-fastened member and the first to-be-fastened member in this order while being rotated (paragraph 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the rivet to function this way since it results in a strong fastening force (paragraph 7).
Claim 12: Referring to Hori, a helical angle of the helical groove is 60 to 360° (paragraphs 16, 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used this helical angle to provide an adequate pull-out force (e.g. paragraph 51).
Claims 14-15: Maloney further teaches that the first to-be-fastened member may be metal and the second to-be-fastened member may be any composition (paragraph 23), but not necessarily wherein the first to-be-fastened member and the second to-be-fastened member are made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, or aluminum or an aluminum alloy and resin, respectively. However, Hori further teaches that the first to-be-fastened member and the second to-be-fastened member are made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, or aluminum or an aluminum alloy and resin, respectively (e.g. paragraphs 8, 9, 11, 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected these materials for the fastened members 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, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 41, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the member material.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney, Antoun et al., and Driv-Lok as applied to claims 7 above, and further in view of Hagiwara et a. (U.S. PGPub 2023/0090931).
Maloney teaches the use of an auxiliary member (punch 20) to move the rivet toward the position of the prepared hole, but Maloney, Antoun et al., and Driv-Lok do not teach wherein the rivet further includes a second shaft portion extending from the head portion, on the opposite side of the head portion to the first shaft portion, and in the riveting step, the auxiliary member having a holding portion configured to hold the second shaft portion is used, and the rivet is moved toward the position of the prepared hole together with the auxiliary member with the auxiliary member holding the second shaft portion. However, Hagiwara teaches a rivet further includes a second shaft portion (14) extending from a head portion (22), on the opposite side of the head portion to a first shaft portion, and in the riveting step, an auxiliary member (punch 34) having a holding portion (recess 36) configured to hold the second shaft portion is used, and the rivet is moved toward the position of the prepared hole together with the auxiliary member with the auxiliary member holding the second shaft portion (e.g. Figs. 3A-3B). 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 the rivet with a second shaft portion and the auxiliary member with a holding portion in order to have allowed use of a rivet having such a second shaft portion used for later connection to other components after installation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The remaining references disclose rivets having spiral grooves or threads therein.
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 at 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