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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, lines 1-2, “at lease one projection…” should read -- at least projection…--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun-Ju Yen. (U.S. 2025/0215915A1), in view of Jones (U.S. 2005/0019136A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chun-Ju Yen discloses a rivet assembly (see fig. 2) configured to rivet an object (2) to be riveted (see figs. 4-6 and refer to para 0077) and comprising:
a mandrel (10, fig. 2 and para 0057) comprising
a mandrel head (100, fig. 2 and para 0057);
a mandrel shank (101, fig. 2) extending from an end of the mandrel head (100) along an axial direction and having a joining section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below); and
a pull section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below) located at an end of the mandrel shank (101) away from the mandrel head (100) and having a reverse taper (1012) with a reverse tapered surface (1012; refer to para 0057) tapering from an end of the pull section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below) toward the joining section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below);
multiple engaging grooves (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below) radially formed in the reverse tapered surface (1012) of the reverse taper and arranged along the axial direction at spaced intervals to form multiple engaging rings (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below) between the multiple engaging grooves (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below); and adjacent two of the engaging rings (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below) formed besides each one of the multiple engaging grooves having a diameter difference (as a result of the tapered surface 1012); and
a rivet body (11) configured to be sleeved on the mandrel (10; see fig. 7) and comprising a rivet head (110; fig. 2 and para 0061); and
an axial hole (see figs. 2 and 7) axially formed through the rivet head (110) of the rivet body (11); wherein
the joining section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below) of the mandrel (10) is configured to be inserted within the axial hole of the rivet body (11; see fig. 2); and
the pull section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below) of the mandrel (10) is configured to extend out of the rivet body (11; see fig. 7).
However, Chun-Ju Yen fails to teach that the rivet body is configured to deform while subjecting to a stress to join with the joining section of the mandrel for riveting the object to be riveted. Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to” is related to the intended use of the apparatus. A recitation with respect to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not impose any structural limitation upon the claimed apparatus which differentiates it from a prior art reference disclosing the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.
Jones teach a rivet (210, fig. 2 and para 0029) comprising a rivet body (224) sleeved on a mandrel having a head (216). The rivet body (224) is configured to deform while subjecting to a stress to join with a joining section of the mandrel for riveting an object to be riveted (see figs. 3-4b and refer to para 0024). This process effectively secure the object to be reverted (refer to para 0020 and 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified rivet body in the assembly of Chun-Ju Yen such that it is configured to deform while subjecting to a stress to join with the joining section of the mandrel for riveting the object to be riveted, as taught by Jones, for the purpose of efficiently and effectively securing the object to be reverted (refer to para 0020 and 0024).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Chun-Ju Yen further disclose wherein multiple annular grooves (in “annular groove portions 10111; see fig. 2 and refer to para 0059) are radially formed in a peripheral surface of the joining section and are arranged at spaced intervals (see fig. 2); and at least one axial groove (10112) is parallel to the axial direction and extends through the multiple annular grooves (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 2 above; Chun-Ju Yen further disclose wherein at lease one projection is formed on an inner surface of the axial hole of the rivet body (the term projection is broad and is not limited by any specific structure. Examiner has interpreted the claimed “at least one projection” to be to be the inner “groove” of rivet body 11, shown in fig. 3), is able to linearly slide along each one of the at least one axial groove, and is able to be rotated to engage with one of the multiple annular grooves for restricting the rivet body in the axial direction (as shown in figs. 3 and 7).
Regarding claim 4, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Chun-Ju Yen further disclose wherein a fixing section (1010; see fig. 2 and refer to para 0057) is formed between the joining section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 above) and a mandrel head (100); and a diameter of the fixing section (1010) is smaller than a diameter of the mandrel head (100; as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 2 above; Chun-Ju Yen further disclose wherein a fixing section (1010; see fig. 2 and refer to para 0057) is formed between the joining section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 above) and a mandrel head (100); and a diameter of the fixing section (1010) is smaller than a diameter of the mandrel head (100; as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 3 above; Chun-Ju Yen further disclose wherein a fixing section (1010; see fig. 2 and refer to para 0057) is formed between the joining section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 above) and a mandrel head (100); and a diameter of the fixing section (1010) is smaller than a diameter of the mandrel head (100; as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Chun-Ju Yen further disclose wherein a taper angle formed between diametrically opposite sides of the reverse tapered surface of the pull section ranges from 3∘ to 8∘ (see fig. 2 and refer to para 0060).
However, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, fail to teach an angle in the ranges from 6∘to 24∘.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the taper angle of Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, to range from 6∘to 24∘ since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 8, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 2 above; Chun-Ju Yen further disclose wherein a taper angle formed between diametrically opposite sides of the reverse tapered surface of the pull section ranges from 3∘ to 8∘ (see fig. 2 and refer to para 0060).
However, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, fail to teach an angle in the ranges from 6∘to 24∘.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the taper angle of Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, to range from 6∘to 24∘ since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 9, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 3 above; Chun-Ju Yen further disclose wherein a taper angle formed between diametrically opposite sides of the reverse tapered surface of the pull section ranges from 3∘ to 8∘ (see fig. 2 and refer to para 0060).
However, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, fail to teach an angle in the ranges from 6∘to 24∘.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the taper angle of Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, to range from 6∘to 24∘ since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 10, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Chun-Ju Yen further disclose wherein a neck section (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) is formed between the joining section and the pull section of the mandrel shank of the mandrel (as shown in annotated fig. 2 above); the neck section tapers from the joining section toward the pull section (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below); and a minor diameter of the neck section is smaller than a diameter of the joining section and is substantially equal to a diameter of an end of the pull section facing toward the joining section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
439
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 2 above; Chun-Ju Yen further disclose wherein a neck section (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above) is formed between the joining section and the pull section of the mandrel shank of the mandrel (as shown in annotated fig. 2 above); the neck section tapers from the joining section toward the pull section (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above); and a minor diameter of the neck section is smaller than a diameter of the joining section and is substantially equal to a diameter of an end of the pull section facing toward the joining section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 12, Chun-Ju Yen, as modified by Jones, teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 13 above; Chun-Ju Yen further disclose wherein a neck section (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above) is formed between the joining section and the pull section of the mandrel shank of the mandrel (as shown in annotated fig. 2 above); the neck section tapers from the joining section toward the pull section (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above); and a minor diameter of the neck section is smaller than a diameter of the joining section and is substantially equal to a diameter of an end of the pull section facing toward the joining section (as shown in annotated fig. 2 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Woods et al. (U.S. 2015/0260217A1), Schmitt (U.S. 3,702,088), and King, Jr. (U.S. 4012885).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights