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 § 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 34-36 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 34 recites “the rods” in line 2, which conflicts with the “one or more rods” previously established, i.e. that as few as one rod may exist.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the base of the frame" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 35.
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 23-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0230691, cited in IDS) in view of Woods et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0211566).
Claim 23: Simpson et al. discloses a tool (200/300 - Figs. 2-3) for installing a fastener (301) into an opening of a structure (e.g. 150 as in Fig. 1A), the fastener including a sleeve (326) and a pin (312/314/316/322) threadably received into the sleeve (implicitly similar to Figs. 1A-1C), the tool comprising: a frame (202); a clamp (230) mounted to the frame and configured to grab a pintail of the and to move longitudinally relative to the frame (e.g. paragraphs 27-28); a linear actuator (250/330) operatively coupled to the clamp and configured (activated) to drive longitudinal movement of the clamp (e.g. paragraphs 28, 31, 40); a wrench (260/362) mounted to the frame and configured to grab the pintail of the pin and to rotate relative to the frame (e.g. paragraphs 28, 32); and a rotary actuator (260) operatively coupled to the wrench and configured (activated) to drive rotation of the wrench (e.g. via a power tool 530 - paragraph 41 and Fig. 5C).
Simpson is further operated by controlling longitudinal displacement of the pin relative to the sleeve to deform a tail of the sleeve radially outward and controlling rotation of the pin relative to the sleeve to shear the pintail from a shaft of the pin (as cited above). Simpson does not disclose at least one processor in communication with the linear actuator and the rotary actuator and configured to control activation of the linear actuator and the rotary actuator. However, Woods teaches a similar fastening tool (e.g. paragraph 40) using a processor (48) to control various operations thereof (paragraphs 48-49). 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 processor in the tool of Simpson in order to have automated the tool and its functions.
Claim 24: Simpson further discloses that the rotation occurs following the longitudinal displacement (paragraphs 23, 28). Thus implementing some degree of a predetermined delay between controlling the longitudinal displacement of the pin and controlling the rotation of the pin to shear the pintail from the shaft of the pin would have been an obvious provision in order to have ensured this sequence of events.
Claim 25: The tool is generally configured to control activation of the rotary actuator to rotate the pin relative to the sleeve until the pintail breaks from the shaft of the pin (paragraphs 24, 32). Thus, configuring the processor to control the tool in such a manner would have been obvious for the purpose of automating the tool’s basic function.
Claim 26: The tool is generally configured to control activation of the linear actuator to pull the pin longitudinally relative to the sleeve to deform the tail of the sleeve radially outward as cited above, and so configuring the processor to control the tool in such a manner would have been obvious for the purpose of automating the tool’s basic function.
Claim 27: The at least one processor would be configured to control activation of the linear actuator to brace the tool against a side of the structure and a flange of the sleeve during deformation of the tail of the sleeve insomuch as the tool would be generally capable of performing this function, noting that this does not necessarily affect the scope of the tool per se and neither the fastener nor the structure are positively recited elements of the claimed invention.
Claim 28: The tool is generally configured to control the wrench to rotate relative to the clamp during shearing of the pintail from the shaft of the pin as cited above, and so configuring the processor to control the tool in such a manner would have been obvious for the purpose of automating the tool’s basic function.
Claim 29: Woods further teaches that the fastener driving element (560) of the tool may also be used to insert the fastener into the opening (implicitly automatically via processor control - paragraphs 39-40; 48-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have similarly configured the tool of Simpson to automatically insert the fastener into the opening by activating the linear actuator to drive the clamp toward the structure in order to have further automated the setting of fasteners. With regard to an interference fit, it is noted that this would be dependent upon the relative sizes of the fastener and opening and does not necessarily limit the tool per se.
Claim 30: The tool is generally configured to cause the clamp to clamp a neck (314/316) of the pintail prior to deforming the tail of the sleeve (paragraph 28; Fig. 3), and so configuring the processor to control the tool in such a manner would have been obvious for the purpose of automating the tool’s basic function.
Claim 31: The tool is generally operated such as to coordinate activation of the linear actuator and the rotary actuator to execute an installation sequence as cited previously, and so configuring the processor to control the tool in such a manner would have been obvious for the purpose of automating the tool’s basic function. Woods further discloses the processor executes instructions from a memory (306 - paragraph 48), as would also be typically understood for a processor, and so it would have further been obvious to have operated the at least one processor to execute an installation sequence stored in a memory associated with the processor for the purpose of this automation.
Claim 32: Woods further teaches positioning of the tool at an intended location of the structure within which the fastener is being installed (paragraphs 36, 40-41, 43, implicitly automatically by the processor as for other functions cited previously). It would have further been obvious to have operated the at least one processor to control positioning of the tool at an intended location of the structure for the purpose of automation.
Claim 33: The frame (202) extends along a central longitudinal axis (340) and includes a base (“base” is broad and could refer to any portion thereof) positioned at a first end (either end, e.g. the left end in Fig. 3) of the frame.
Claim 34: The frame includes one or more rods (330 - see paragraph 38) extending parallel to a central longitudinal axis of the frame, the clamp being mounted on the rods (Id.).
Claim 35: The base of the frame includes one or more legs (e.g. 220) extending from the base.
Claim 36: The one or more legs extend toward a sleeve flange of the fastener when the fastener is positioned within the tool (noting that the fastener non-positively recited and thus does not necessarily limit the claim, but see also flange 324 in Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, and 22 are allowable as previously indicated.
Claim 19 is again allowable in view of the corrective amendments made therein. The prior art fails to disclose or teach the limitations thereof for the reasons indicated in the 8/25/2025 Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered. Each of Applicant’s arguments is listed or summarized below in italics and followed by the examiner’s response.
Claim 23 requires a tool architecture including a linear actuator operatively coupled to the clamp, a rotary actuator operatively coupled to the wrench, and at least one processor in communication with the linear actuator and the rotary actuator and configured to control activation of the actuators according to an installation sequence. Thus, the claim requires a self-contained tool in which distinct actuators are activated under processor control to perform the installation operations.
The Examiner maps Simpson's drive actuator 250 and pull slide 330 to the claimed linear actuator and maps the power tool 530 to the claimed rotary actuator. However, a review of Simpson shows that these components do not correspond to the actuator architecture required by Claim 23.
The claim does not specifically recite how the processor is “in communication with the linear actuator and the rotary actuator” otherwise than “to control activation of the linear actuator and the rotary actuator” in the claimed sequence. The communication may be functional, mechanical, or otherwise so long as the actuators are “activated”.
The Simpson tool has two distinct actuators as previously cited. The rotary and linear actuators are separately defined by their respective mechanical structures, and are driven (activated) via separate input elements 250 and 260, which are in turn driven (activated) by some powered means such as described in paragraph 41 and Fig. 5C. A processor to control actuation of a tool is known as taught by Woods. Thus, the art would suggest the use of a processor to broadly communicate with the processors to control activation thereof.
The claim does not recite anything about “a self-contained tool”. Nevertheless, the overall assembly shown in Fig. 5C can be considered as the tool, which comprises the actuators among other claimed elements as discussed above.
The power tool 530 is not simultaneously operatively coupled to both the pulling mechanism and the torque sleeve. Rather, the power tool selectively engages different components of the nosepiece to perform different functions. Thus, Simpson does not disclose separate actuators operatively coupled to the clamp and wrench as required by Claim 23.
It is unclear from where Applicant draws this conclusion. Simpson describes in paragraph 41 that “The blind fastener tool 500 may thus comprise a tool nosepiece integrated within a tool. The power tool 530 may rotate the drive actuator 250 to pull the drive element and initially form the bulb at the blind side of the hole. The power tool 530 may also engage the external tubular body of the torque sleeve 260 to rotate the drive element and complete installation of the blind fastener into the hole.” Besides, the claim does not necessarily preclude selective engagement even if such were the case.
Woods does not disclose a processor that controls a linear actuator and a rotary actuator to perform the installation sequence recited in Claim 23. Instead, the processing device in Woods analyzes sensor data associated with fastener installation in order to verify that the installation has been properly completed.
The examiner maintains that Simpson substantially discloses the claimed structure for the reasons discussed above, with the exception of a processor to broadly communicate with and control the actuators. Woods merely teaches the use of a processor to control a similar tool.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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