DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 1, 2025 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on June 3, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Numbers 11,738,384 and 12,121,954 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1 – 12 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein the clamp is forcibly controlled by an actuator” in the fifth paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a setting tool.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘forcibly control the clamp by an actuator,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method of setting a blind fastener by a setting tool,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth functional language of the ‘clamp,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘setting tool’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the clamp is configured to be forcibly controlled by an actuator.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 6, and 8 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honsel (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0114383) in view of Young (U.S. Patent Number 5,031,489).
As to claim 1, Honsel teaches a setting tool for setting by crimping a blind fastener including a head and a shank partially defining an axial bore including an internal thread (abstract), and the setting tool comprises: a tool housing (figure 1, elements 31 and 27 being the ‘tool housing’; paragraphs 31 and 33); a screw tool including an external thread that is rotationally and translationally movable within the tool housing along and around a tool axis between a retracted position and an extended position (figure 1, elements 10 and 15 being the ‘screw tool’ and element 37 being the ‘external thread’; paragraphs 31 – 37); a first electric motor including a first drive shaft (figure 1, element 12 being the ‘first electric motor’; paragraph 35); a second electric motor with a second drive shaft (figure 1, element 11 being the ‘second electric motor’; paragraph 32).
However, Honsel does not teach the setting tool further comprising a clamp. Young teaches a setting tool for setting a fastener including a head and a shank (abstract), and the setting tool comprising: a tool housing (figures 1 and 2, element 32 being the ‘tool housing’; column 3, lines 24 – 28); and a screw tool that is rotationally and translationally movable within the tool housing along and around a tool axis between a retracted position and an extended position (figure 2, element 28 being the ‘screw tool’; column 3, lines 6 – 12). Young further teaches a clamp movable relative to the tool axis and operable for clamping the shank of the blind fastener for engaging with the screw tool, wherein the clamp is configured to be forcibly controlled by an actuator (figures 2 and 3, elements 36 being the ‘clamp,’ see below; column 3, line 49 – column 4, line 11). Examiner notes that this can be found because Yong teaches that the clamp is at least partially controlled by a set of springs (figures 2 and 3, element 41; column 3, lines 61 – 64). Examiner notes that the springs of Young may reasonably be considered ‘actuators’ because “actuator” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a mechanical device for moving or controlling something.”
PNG
media_image1.png
376
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the setting tool of Honsel with the clamp of Young, because one skilled in the art would have appreciated that the clamp of Young would provide the benefit of further securing the fastener to the setting tool of Honsel.
As to claim 2, Young teaches that the clamp includes a plurality of jaws (figure 3, elements 37 being the ‘plurality of jaws’; column 3, lines 58 – 61).
As to claim 3, Young teaches that plurality of jaws includes a first jaw and a second jaw radially opposed to each other and radially movable from an open position to a closed position (figure 3, elements 37; column 3, line 49 – column 4, line 11).
As to claim 6, Honsel further teaches a retaining lever operable for holding the blind fastener axially retained in the clamp before clamping (figure 1, element 27 being the ‘retaining lever’; paragraph 38).
As to claim 8, Honsel teaches that the setting tool includes an anvil sleeve coaxial with the screw tool and movable axially relative to the tool housing (figure 1, element 18 being the ‘anvil sleeve’; paragraph 36).
As to claim 9, Honsel teaches that the anvil sleeve is adapted to contact the clamp during crimping of the blind fastener (figure 1, element 18).
As to claim 10, Young teaches that the clamp is operable for holding the anvil sleeve against axial movement while the screw tool is moving axially toward the retracted position for crimping the blind fastener (figure 3, elements 37; column 3, line 49 – column 4, line 11).
As to claim 11, the setting tool of Honsel is configured such that spinning of the first drive shaft and the second drive shaft at different speeds drives an axial movement and a rotationally movement of the screw tool, such that the external thread on the screw tool can engage or disengage the internal thread of the blind fastener (figure 1, elements 12, 11, 15, and 10; paragraphs 31 – 37).
As to claim 12, the setting tool of Honsel is configured such that spinning of the first drive shaft while not spinning the second drive shaft drives an axial movement without rotation of the screw tool along the tool axis from the extended position and toward the retracted position for crimping the blind fastener (figure 1, elements 12, 11, 15, and 10; paragraphs 31 – 37).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honsel in view of Young as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Albright (U.S. Patent Number 5,733,089).
As to claim 4, Young does not teach the shape of the two jaws. Albright teaches a setting tool for setting by crimping a fastener (abstract), the setting tool comprising: a clamp movable relative to a tool axis and operatable for clamping the fastener for engaging with a screw tool (figure 15, element 216 being the clamp; column 8, lines 51 – 58), wherein the clamp includes a plurality of jaws (figure 15, elements 242a and 242b being the ‘plurality of jaws’; column 8, lines 51 – 58), wherein the plurality of jaws includes a pair of two jaws radially opposed to each and radially movable from an open position to a closed position (figure 15, elements 242a and 242b; column 5, lines 51 – 58). Albright further teaches that each of the two jaws comprises a catching surface including a first segment and a second segment, the first segment being angled relative to the second segment, and the first segment is flat, and the second segment includes a bulge adapted to create a dissymmetrical profile operable to orienting the blind fastener within the clamp (figure 15, inner surface of elements 242a and 242b being the ‘catching surface’ and element 266a being the ‘second segment’, see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
418
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honsel in view of Young and Albright.
As to claim 13, the discussion of claims 1, 3, and 4 are incorporated herein.
Young further teaches that the clamp is slidably movable relative to the tool axis (figures 2 and 3, elements 36 being the ‘clamp’; column 3, line 49 – column 4, line 11). This can be found because Young teaches that the first and second jaws of the clamp are each pivotable about a respective pin (figure 3, elements 37 and 38; column 3, lines 57 – 61) and “slide” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “to change position.” Therefore, because Young teaches that the first and second jaws of the clamp are configured to change position relative to the tool axis, the clamp of Young is “slidably movable” relative to the tool axis.
Albright further teaches that the first jaw and the second jaw are configured such that as they move to the closed position, the blind fastener is aligned with the flat first segment of both the first jaw and the second jaw for clamping (figure 14, elements 242a and 242b). Examiner notes that this can be found because Albright teaches the, when the first and second jaws are in the closed position, the flat first segments of the first and second jaws are aligned with an axis or longitudinal centerline of the blind fastener (figure 14, elements 242a and 242b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 – 20 are allowed.
Examiner notes that the closest art and reasons for allowance in regard to claims 14 – 20 have been presented and discussed in a previous Office Action.
Claims 5 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 5, Young does not teach that the first jaw and the second jaw are configured such that as they move to the closed position, at least one dissymmetrical profile causes the blind fastener to rotate about the tool axis, thereby aligning the blind fastener shank with the flat first segment of both the first jaw and the second jaw for clamping.
Regarding claim 8, Honsel does not teach the retaining lever being movable between a holding and a releasing position, wherein in the holding position the retaining lever hold the blind fastener axially retained in the clamp and in the releasing position the retaining lever is not obstructing the tool axis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 8 – 9, that the clamp of Young is not configured to be ‘forcibly controlled by an actuator,’ as required by claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Young teaches that the clamp is at least partially and forcibly controlled by a set of springs (figures 2 and 3, elements 36 and 41; column 3, lines 61 – 64). Examiner notes that the springs of Young may reasonably be considered ‘actuators’ because “actuator” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a mechanical device for moving or controlling something.”
PNG
media_image1.png
376
1118
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant next argues, on pages 9 – 11, that Young does not teach that the clamp is “slidably movable relative to the tool axis” as recited by claim 13. Examiner again disagrees. Young teaches that the first and second jaws of the clamp are each pivotable about a respective pin (figure 3, elements 37 and 38; column 3, lines 57 – 61) and “slide” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “to change position.” Therefore, because Young teaches that the first and second jaws of the clamp are configured to change position relative to the tool axis, the clamp of Young is “slidably movable” relative to the tool axis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights