DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 29 June 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination, of which claim 20 has been withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 29 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded of the duty of disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56(A). The examiner notes that Applicant has claimed priority to an Application however no IDS has been filed. The Office encourages Applicants to carefully examine: (1) prior art cited in search reports of a foreign patent office in a counterpart application and (2) the closest information over which individuals associated with filing or prosecution of a patent application believe any pending claim patentably defines, to make sure that any material contained therein is disclosed to the Office. (See MPEP 2001.04).
The examiner notes that the instant Application claims priority to Application 17/669,551, however references cited in the Office Actions in the parent case are not listed on the Information Disclosure Statement in the instant case.
Drawings
Figures 17 and 18 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 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, 6, and 15-19
Claims 1, 6, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 7,037,027 to Steinbeck (hereinafter “Steinbeck”).
Regarding claim 1, Steinbeck discloses a method for installing a blind fastener (see Fig. 1) into a hole (holes 23, 24) in a structure (33, 34), the blind fastener (Fig. 1) comprising a sleeve (5, 6, 7) defining an eccentric through-bore (bore defined by axis 12; see Figs. 1 and 4) and comprising a stop (unnumbered leftmost surfaces of portion 5, adjacent to nut surfaces at 8), a core bolt (9) at least partially received in the eccentric through-bore of the sleeve (5, 6, 7), the core bolt (9) defining a core bolt central axis (longitudinal axis 14 through bolt 9), and an eccentric nut (8) threaded into engagement with the core bolt (see Col. 5, lines 24-39; nut 8 and core bolt 9 are in threaded engagement), the method comprising: inserting the blind fastener (5, 6, 7) into the hole (see Col. 6, line 43 - Col. 7, line 13); and rotating the core bolt (9) about the core bolt (14) central axis in a tightening direction (see Col. 8, line 58 – Col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 6, Steinbeck discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Steinbeck discloses that the rotating the core bolt (9) comprises engaging a torquing feature head 17) with a tool (see Col. 9, lines 50-57).
Regarding claim 7, Steinbeck discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Steinbeck discloses that the rotating the core bolt (9) comprises transferring torque from a tool (see Col. 9, lines 50-57) to the core bolt (9; bolt is tightened using tools).
Regarding claim 8, Steinbeck discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Steinbeck discloses during the rotating the core bolt (9), applying an axial bearing force (via threaded engagement; see Col. 6, lines 9-14 and lines 43-57) to the sleeve (5, 6, 7) of the blind fastener to axially retain the sleeve (5, 6, 7) against the structure (33, 34).
Regarding claim 9, Steinbeck discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Steinbeck discloses that rotating the core bolt (9) initially causes the eccentric nut (8) to rotate with the core bolt (see Col. 8, lines 30-49; nut may be permanently fixed to end of core bolt, such that during rotation of the core bolt the nut will also rotate).
Regarding claim 15, Steinbeck discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Steinbeck discloses that the structure (33, 34) comprises at least a first member (3) and a second member (4), and wherein at least one of the first member and the second member comprises a composite material (see Col. 4, lines 48-59).
Regarding claim 16, Steinbeck discloses a method for one-sided binding of at least two members (33, 34) to be sandwiched together with a blind fastener (see Fig. 1) the blind fastener (Fig. 1) comprising a sleeve (5, 6, 7) having a sleeve head (rightmost portion of sleeve in Fig. 1; at flanged portion of 6), the sleeve defining an eccentric through-bore (bore defined by axis 12; see Figs. 1 and 4) and comprising a stop (unnumbered leftmost surfaces of portion 5, adjacent to nut surfaces at 8), a core bolt (9) having a core bolt head (17), the core bolt at least partially received in the eccentric through-bore of the sleeve (5, 6, 7), the core bolt (9) defining a core bolt central axis (longitudinal axis 14 through bolt 9), and an eccentric nut (8) threaded into engagement with the core bolt (see Col. 5, lines 24-39; nut 8 and core bolt 9 are in threaded engagement), the method comprising: inserting the blind fastener (5, 6, 7) into the hole (see Col. 6, line 43 - Col. 7, line 13); and rotating the core bolt (9) about the core bolt (14) central axis in a tightening direction (see Col. 8, line 58 – Col. 9, line 3) to sandwich the at least two members (33, 34) between the sleeve head (rightmost side of sleeve; see Fig. 1) and the eccentric nut (8), wherein the sleeve head is clamped against a proximal end of the sleeve and the eccentric nut is clamped against a distal end portion of the sleeve upon rotating (see Col. 9, lines 46-49).
Regarding claim 17, Steinbeck discloses the limitations of claim 16, and further Steinbeck discloses that the rotating causes a clamping force provided by the sleeve head (at flanged portion of 6) and the core bolt head (17) at the proximal end portion and the eccentric nut (8) at the distal end portion (see Col. 8, line 58 – Col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 18, Steinbeck discloses the limitations of claim 16, and further Steinbeck discloses that the rotating the core bolt (9) initially causes the eccentric nut (8) to rotate with the core bolt (see Col. 8, lines 45-49; nut may be fixed to the end of the shaft of the core bolt, such that it will rotate together during the rotating).
Regarding claim 19, Steinbeck discloses the limitations of claim 16, and further Steinbeck discloses that, upon the eccentric nut (8) engaging the stop (unnumbered leftmost surfaces of portion 5, adjacent to nut surfaces at 8), the eccentric nut (8) retains the sleeve (5, 6, 7) between the eccentric nut and a sleeve head (at flanged portion of 6 towards rightmost end of Fig. 1; form locking occurs, see Col. 8, line 58 – Col. 9, line 10).
Claims 5 and 14 and, alternatively, Claims 1 and 6-7
Claims 1, 5-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 7,736,108 to Bruce et al. (hereinafter “Bruce”).
Regarding claim 1, Bruce discloses a method for installing a blind fastener (10; see Figs. 4a – 4c) into a hole (36) in a structure (42), the blind fastener (10) comprising a sleeve (14 and 16) defining an eccentric through-bore (22) and comprising a stop (at 30), a core bolt (26) at least partially received in the eccentric through-bore of the sleeve (see Fig. 5), the core bolt (26) defining a core bolt central axis (vertical axis through center of fastener 26, not labeled, in Fig. 5), and an eccentric nut (12; see Fig. 5) threaded into engagement with the core bolt (nut shown engaged with threaded portion of bolt; see Fig. 5), the method comprising: inserting the blind fastener (26) into the hole (36; see Col. 3, lines 43-44); and rotating the core bolt (26) about the core bolt central axis in a tightening direction (see Col. 3, lines 57-61).
Regarding claim 5, Bruce discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Bruce discloses that the core bolt (10) comprises a torquing feature (stop washer 27; see Col. 2, lines 49-57).
Regarding claim 6, Bruce discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Bruce discloses that rotating the core bolt (26) comprises engaging a torquing feature with a tool (“other mechanisms” of “by hand or other mechanisms” understood to disclose a tool; see Col. 3, lines 57-61).
Regarding claim 7, Bruce discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Bruce discloses that the rotating the core bolt (26) comprises transferring torque from a tool (“other mechanisms” of “by hand or other mechanisms” understood to disclose a tool; see Col. 3, lines 57-61) to the core bolt (26; threading of bolt 26 threaded within the opening 22).
Regarding claim 14, Bruce discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Bruce discloses that the rotating the core bolt (26) causes clamping of the structure (42) between the sleeve (14 and 16) and the eccentric nut (12; see Fig. 4b).
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.
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.
Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 10, Bruce discloses the limitations of claim 9. Bruce does not explicitly disclose that after at least 45 degrees of rotation of the core bolt about the core bolt central axis in the tightening direction, the eccentric nut engages the stop. However, Bruce appears to teach that the stop (at 30) would be engaged at the core bolt once the core bolt has been placed in threaded engagement (see Figs. 4a, 4b) with the eccentric nut. Bruce appears to be silent regarding how much rotation of the core bolt can be performed before the eccentric nut engages the stop. The MPEP teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimension would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to select threading and bolt dimensions such that any desired number of rotations causes the nut to engage with the stop. So long as the number of turns results in the clamping behavior described by Bruce (see Fig. 4c), any number of turns greater than an eighth turn will read on the claimed limitation.
Thus, Bruce teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that “after at least 90 degrees of rotation of the core bolt about the core bolt central axis in the tightening direction, the eccentric nut engages the stop, and wherein, after the eccentric nut engages the stop, further rotation of the core bolt about the core bolt central axis in the tightening direction causes axial movement of the eccentric nut along the core bolt central axis” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Steinbeck teaches its core bolt may be attached to the eccentric nut (see Col. 5, lines 30-39) such that the eccentric nut and the core bolt cannot fairly be understood to cause axial movement of the nut relative to the core bolt after the nut engages the stop.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “seating a countersink portion of the sleeve into a countersunk portion of the hole; preventing rotation of the eccentric nut during the rotating; and tightening the blind fastener until a desired toque is achieved,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Steinbeck is understood to teach its core bolt may be attached to the eccentric nut such that the eccentric nut cannot be fairly understood to be prevented from rotating during the rotating. Bruce teaches that its nut (12) may be prevented from rotating during tightening, but does not fairly teach or suggest a countersink portion or a countersunk portion in the structure.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that “after the eccentric nut engages the stop, further rotation of the core bolt about the core bolt central axis in the tightening direction causes axial movement of the eccentric nut along the core bolt central axis,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Bruce is relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 10, however Bruce teaches rigid linked portion at 30 which is understood to prevent axial movement of the nut (12) in the direction of the threaded bolt once the bolt is threadedly engaged with the opening (22) in the nut.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent 5,141,357 to Sherman et al. (hereinafter “Sherman”) teaches a fastener assembly including a core bolt (27) and an eccentric sleeve (10) having an eccentrically positioned opening therein, but does not explicitly disclose that the core bolt engages the nut (unnumbered, see Fig. 1d) in a threaded manner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights