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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “bayonet connection” in anchor housing is not shown in Figs. 2A-2C must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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 1-2, 5-7, 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson US9181691 (hereinafter, Thompson) in view of Espinosa US20150184373 (hereinafter, Espinosa).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a cast-in-place anchor system for anchoring objects to a concrete structure after concrete pouring and concrete setting, the cast-in-place anchor system comprising:
an anchor housing 13, the anchor housing including an opening (central opening of the housing 13) therein along a longitudinal axis (vertical direction) thereof for receiving an elongate load bearing member (threaded rods 19 21), the anchor housing also including a jaw assembly (see threaded locking region 43 & 47 or 45 & 49 in Figs. 6-7) for lockingly engaging and axially securing the elongate load bearing member relative to the anchor housing (see Figs. 5-7),
a wood anchor assembly (see Figs. 14-15) including a base housing 69 and at least one elongate wood fastener 71, the base housing including a receptacle (see Figs. 14-15 where anchor housing 13 is being received in receptacle of the base housing 69) for receiving and supporting the anchor housing, the base housing further including an opening 26 for receiving the load bearing member, the receptacle and the opening generally aligned along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 15 where opening 26 and the receptacle are aligned vertically),
a metal anchor assembly (see Fig. 16-17) including a bias member 83, a plate 15, and a nose-piece 85.
wherein, the anchor housing 13 is alternately connectable to the wood anchor assembly (see Figs. 14-15) and to the metal anchor assembly (see Figs. 16-17).
Thompson fails to expressly teach wherein the nose-piece including an anchor connector configured to releasably engage a nose connector of the anchor housing.
However, Espinosa teaches an anchor assembly for metal decks in Figs. 13-14. The nose piece 90 including an anchor connector (see threaded section 26 receiving male thread 98 in Fig. 14) configured to releasably engage a nose connector 98 of the anchor housing 96.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the housing in Thompson to be modified to be releasably engage a nose connector of the anchor housing as taught by Espinosa so the nose piece 90 is secured and held back from being pulled out as shown in Fig. 14.
Regarding claim 2, Thompson in view of Espinosa teaches and/or make obvious of the cast-in-place anchor system of claim 1, wherein Thompson further teaches the nose-piece 85 further includes an opening 14 for receiving the elongate load bearing member 19, 21, the nose connector and the opening generally aligned along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 17 where the nose connector and opening aligned vertically).
Regarding claim 5, Thompson in view of Espinosa teaches and/or make obvious of the cast-in-place anchor system of claim 1, Espinosa further teaches wherein the anchor connector includes nose projections (see threads 26 in Fig. 14) and the nose connector includes anchor projection (see threads 98) and wherein the anchor projections and nose projections engage each other to connect the nose-piece to the anchor housing (see Fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the anchor connector and nose connector of Thompson to threaded connection as taught by Espinosa so the nose piece 90 is secured and held back from being pulled out as shown in Fig. 14.
Regarding claim 6, Thompson in view of Espinosa teaches and/or make obvious of the cast-in-place anchor system of claim 5, wherein Espinosa further teaches the selective removal is by twisting and axial movement of the nose piece.
It is the examiner’s position that Thompson modified by Espinosa teaches and/or make obvious of the such functional limitations of twisting and axial movement as threaded connection of threaded sections 98 and 26 in Fig. 14 requires such steps for selective removal.
Regarding claim 7, Thompson in view of Espinosa teaches and/or make obvious of the cast-in-place anchor system of claim 1, wherein Thompson further teaches the jaw assembly includes threads (see threads 43 & 47 and 45 & 49 in Figs. 6-7) for the locking engaging and axially securing of the elongate load bearing member 19, 21.
Regarding claim 10, As established in claim 1 above, Thompson in view of Espinosa teaches a cast-in-place anchor assembly (see Fig. 5 of Thompson) for anchoring objects to a concrete structure after concrete pouring and concrete setting, the cast-in-place anchor assembly comprising:
an anchor housing 13, the anchor housing including an opening (central opening of the housing 13) therein along a longitudinal axis (vertical direction) thereof for receiving the elongate load bearing member (threaded rod 19, 21), the anchor housing also including a jaw assembly (see threaded locking regions 43 & 47 and 45 & 49) for lockingly engaging and axially securing the elongate load bearing member relative to the anchor housing (see Figs. 5-7),
an anchor body including a bias member 83, a plate 15, and a nose-piece 85, the nose-piece including an anchor connector (the Examiner interprets the portion of the housing 13 coupled to the one end of the fingers/connections 87 to be a nose connector).
Thompson fails to teach wherein an anchor connector configured to releasably engage a nose connector of the anchor housing.
However, Espinosa teaches an anchor assembly for metal decks in Figs. 13-14. The nose piece 90 including an anchor connector (see threaded section 26 receiving male thread 98 in Fig. 14) configured to releasably engage a nose connector 98 of the anchor housing 96.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the housing in Thompson to be modified to be releasably engage a nose connector of the anchor housing as taught by Espinosa so the nose piece 90 is secured and held back from being pulled out as shown in Fig. 14.
Regarding claim 13, Thompson in view of Espinosa teaches and/or make obvious of the cast-in-place anchor system of claim 10, wherein the anchor connector includes nose projections and the nose connector includes anchor projections and wherein the anchor projections and nose projections engage each other to connect the nose-piece to the anchor housing.
(Limitations in claim 13 are similar to claim 5. Therefore, Thompson in view of Espinosa still teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 5).
Regarding claim 14, The cast-in-place anchor system of claim 13, wherein the releasably engagement is by friction fit.
(Limitations in claim 14 are similar to claim 10. Therefore, Thompson in view of Espinosa still teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations. Please refer to rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 4).
Claims 3-4, 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Espinosa, in further view of Reiling US3676986 (hereinafter, Reiling).
Regarding claim 3, Thompson in view of Espinosa teaches and/or make obvious of the cast-in-place anchor system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the anchor connector and the nose connector engage with each other as a bayonet connection.
However, Reiling teaches a connection between a housing 20 and a cap 27, similar to a nose piece and a housing respectively, having the anchor connector 29 and the nose connector 28 engage with each other as a bayonet connection (see column 2, lines 28-48).
It is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the anchor housing and the nose piece to have bayonet connector for mutually slidable interconnection, which is effective and easily removable compared to other type of connections, i.e. friction fit.
Regarding claim 4, Thompson in view of Espinosa teaches and/or make obvious of the cast-in-place anchor system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the anchor connector and the nose connector engage with each other as a rotational lock connection.
However, Reiling teaches the anchor connector 29 and the nose connector 28 engage with each other as a rotational lock connection (see Figs. 2-3).
It is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the anchor housing and the nose piece to have rotational lock connection as taught by Reiling for mutually slidable interconnection, which is effective and easily removable compared to other type of connections, i.e. friction fit.
Regarding claim 8, Thompson in view of Espinosa teaches the cast-in-place anchor system of claim 1, wherein Thompson in view of Reiling teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor housing is lockably connected to the base housing (please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth in claim 3 above regarding bayonet connection).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson in view of Espinosa teaches the cast-in-place anchor system of claim 8, wherein Thompson in view of Reiling fails to teach that the lockable connection includes a friction fit between the base housing and the anchor.
However, Thompson does shows connection between the base housing and the anchor housing in Figs. 15 and 17 appear to be a friction fit.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have a friction fit between the base housing and the anchor for pre-loading of the anchor system to the structure since the anchor system is set to be installed in concrete or wood by nails securely. Also, the disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the friction fit in para. [0021 & 0024].
Regarding claim 11, The cast-in-place anchor system of claim 10, wherein the anchor connector and the nose connector engage with each other as a bayonet connection.
(Limitations in claim 11 are similar to claim 3. Therefore, Thompson in view of Espinosa, in further view of Reiling still teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations. Please refer to rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 3).
Regarding claim 12, The cast-in-place anchor system of claim 10, wherein the anchor connector and the nose connector engage with each other as a rotational lock connection.
(Limitations in claim 12 are similar to claim 4. Therefore, Thompson in view of Espinosa, in further view of Reiling still teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations. Please refer to rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument in response to previous drawing objection has been found unpersuasive because the applicant is claiming anchor housing 120 is alternately connectable to the wood anchor assembly or the metal anchor assembly (see claim 1), however examiner doesn’t see how the housing in Figs. 2A-2C is alternately connectable to metal anchor without the locking structure 128 in Fig. 2A-2C.
Therefore, previous drawing objection still stands.
Applicant argues Thompson does not disclose the anchor assembly is alternatively connectable to both.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Thompson discloses housing 13 being used in wood anchor in Figs. 14-15 and in metal anchor in Figs. 16-17. Hence, applicant’s argument has been found unpersuasive. Please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights