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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 55 has been amended. Claim 57 has been cancelled. Therefore, claims 55-56 and 58-67 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 55-56 and 58-67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimmel (DE102011011239A1), hereinafter "Rimmel", in view of Roddenberry (US20140101913A1), hereinafter "Roddenberry".
Regarding claim 55, Rimmel teaches an apparatus (Fig 1, anchor 1) comprising:
a baseplate (Fig 1, flange 16) defining a top surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of flange 16 adjacent projection 15 as defining a top surface) and a bottom surface (see Fig 1, Examiner notes a surface of flange 16 adjacent shaft 2 as a bottom surface);
a post (Fig 1, shaft 2) projecting (see Fig 1) from the bottom surface (see Fig 1) and defining a screw (see Fig 1, Examiner notes shaft 2 having external threads 5 as defining a screw);
a neck portion (Fig 1, projection 15) projecting (see Fig 1) from the top surface (see Fig 1), defining an open top (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a top of hole 4 adjacent projection 15 as defining an open top), and without external threads (see Fig 1); and
a blind bore (Fig 2, hole 4) extending (see Fig 2) from the open top (see Fig 2) into the post (2) and being at least partially threaded (Fig 2, thread 10).
Rimmel fails to teach a neck portion being externally cylindrical; and wherein: a length of the neck portion from the top surface to the open top is larger than an external diameter of the neck portion; and the neck portion defines a recessed tool port adjacent the open top configured to receive a tool for rotating.
However, Roddenberry teaches it is known to provide a neck portion (Fig 2, shaft 30) being externally cylindrical (Paragraph 0039, Roddenberry indicates cylindrical in shape); and wherein: a length (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a length of shaft 30 extending parallel to a longitudinal axis of apparatus 10 as a length) of the neck portion (30) from the top surface (Fig 2, surface 54) to the open top (Fig 2, recess 37) is larger (see Fig 2) than an external diameter (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an outer diameter of shaft 30 as an external diameter) of the neck portion (30); and the neck portion (30) defines a recessed tool port (Fig 2, receiver 39) adjacent (see Fig 2) the open top (37) configured to receive a tool for rotating (Paragraph 0039, Roddenberry indicates receiver 39 is conformed to receive a male driver).
Therefore, as evidenced by Roddenberry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection of Rimmel to be a neck portion being externally cylindrical; and wherein: a length of the neck portion from the top surface to the open top is larger than an external diameter of the neck portion; and the neck portion defines a recessed tool port adjacent the open top configured to receive a tool for rotating as taught by Roddenberry. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate attachment of varying objects (Roddenberry, Paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 56, modified Rimmel teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 55 and further teaches wherein the baseplate (16) comprises a circular washer (see Fig 3).
Regarding claim 58, modified Rimmel teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 55 and further teaches wherein the post (2) defines a lag screw (see Fig 1, Examiner notes shaft 2 having external threads 5 as defining a lag screw).
Regarding claim 59, modified Rimmel teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 55 and further teaches wherein the blind bore (4) terminates (see Fig 2) in a closed end (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an end of hole 4 in shaft 2 distal flange 16 as is in a closed end) internally (see Fig 2) defined by the post (2).
Regarding claim 60, modified Rimmel teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 59 and further teaches wherein the recessed tool port (39) is multilateral (Roddenberry, see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 61, modified Rimmel teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 55 and further teaches wherein the baseplate (16), the neck portion (30), and the post (2) are integrally joined (see Fig 2, Paragraph 0023) to form a one-piece component (see Fig 2, Paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 62, modified Rimmel teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 55 and teaches further comprising:
a base structure (Paragraph 0038, Examiner notes anchor 1 is screwed in as having a base structure); and
wherein:
the post (2) penetrates (Paragraph 0038) the base structure (Paragraph 0038).
Modified Rimmel fails to teach an outer layer overlying the base structure; wherein: the baseplate is disposed between the base structure and the outer layer; and the neck portion penetrates the outer layer.
However, Roddenberry teaches it is known to provide an outer layer (Fig 2, object 44) overlying (see Fig 2) the base structure (Paragraph 0040, Examiner notes object (not shown) to which attachment shaft 26 is attached as the base structure); wherein: the baseplate (Fig 2, plate 50) is disposed (see Fig 2) between the base structure (Paragraph 0040) and the outer layer (44); and the neck portion (Fig 2, shaft 30) penetrates (see Fig 2, Paragraph 0039) the outer layer (44).
Therefore, as evidenced by Roddenberry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an outer layer overlying the base structure; wherein: the baseplate is disposed between the base structure and the outer layer; and the neck portion penetrates the outer layer as taught by Roddenberry to modified Rimmel. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide desired objects for attachment (Roddenberry, Paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 63, modified Rimmel teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 62 and further teaches wherein the outer layer (44) is flush (Roddenberry, see Fig 2) with the top surface (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 64, modified Rimmel teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 62 but fails to teach wherein the neck portion occupies a circular opening in the outer layer.
However, Roddenberry in an alternative embodiment of Fig 11, teaches it is known to provide wherein the neck portion (Fig 11, shaft 32) occupies a circular opening (see Fig 11) in the outer layer (Fig 11, object 44).
Therefore, as evidenced Roddenberry in the alternative embodiment of Fig 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the neck portion occupies a circular opening in the outer layer as taught by Roddenberry in the alternative embodiment of Fig 11 to modified Rimmel. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a desired object to attach based on application and use requirements (Roddenberry, Paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 65, modified Rimmel teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 62 and further teaches wherein the open top (see Fig 2) is flush (Roddenberry, see Fig 2) with an outermost surface (Roddenberry, see Fig 2) of the outer layer (44).
Regarding claim 66, modified Rimmel teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 62 and further teaches wherein the post (2) threadably (Paragraph 0038) engages the base structure (Paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 67, modified Rimmel teaches the apparatus (1) of claim 62 but fails to teach further comprising a gasket between the baseplate and the base structure.
However, Rimmel in an alternative embodiment of Fig 5, teaches it is known to provide a gasket (see Fig 5, Paragraph 0041, Examiner notes seal as a gasket) between the baseplate (Fig 5, flange 16) and the base structure (Paragraph 0041, Examiner notes screw hole as having the base structure).
Therefore, as evidenced by Rimmel in the alternative embodiment of Fig 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an adequately sized and shaped gasket between the baseplate and the base structure as taught by Rimmel in the alternative embodiment of Fig 5 to modified Rimmel. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide additional protection against moisture penetrating the screw hole (Rimmel, Paragraph 0041).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 55 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (ET).
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights