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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 10, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 17, 20-21, and 37-38 have been amended. Claims 19 and 40 have been cancelled. Claims 41-42 have been added. Therefore, claims 17-18, 20-39, and 41-42 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed July 10, 2025.
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 "flowing hardenable mortar in the bulge zone channels" of claim 42 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 Objections
Claims 39 and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 39, line 2, “an intermediate zone” should read “the intermediate zone”
In claim 42, line 4, “bulge zone channels” should read “bulged zone channels”
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.
Claim(s) 17-18, 20-25, 29-30, 32-39, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa et a. (JP2007198572A), hereinafter "Hosokawa", in view of Frischmann et al. (WO8204461A1), hereinafter "Frischmann".
Regarding claim 17, Hosokawa teaches an expansion anchor (Fig 6, expansion anchor 31) comprising:
an anchor bolt (Fig 6, bolt 32); and
at least one expansion shell (Fig 6, expansion portion 33) located (see Fig 6) at the anchor bolt (32);
the anchor bolt (32) including:
a wedge zone (Fig 6, cone portion 324) for expanding (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0035) the at least one expansion shell (33);
an abutment zone (Fig 6, stopper portion 325) forming a rearward stop (see Fig 6) for the at least one expansion shell (33), the abutment zone (325) being located rearwardly (see Fig 6; Examiner’s Note: recitation of direction without a frame of reference is relative terminology and can be given little to no patentable weight) of the wedge zone (324);
a rear zone (Fig 6, shaft portion 321) for intruding tensile force (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0035) into the anchor bolt (32), the rear zone (321) being located rearwardly (see Fig 6) of the abutment zone (325);
between (see Fig 6) the abutment zone (325) and the rear zone (321), and spaced (see Fig 6) from the abutment zone (325), as an integral part (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0036) of the anchor bolt (32), a bulged zone (Fig 6, abutment portion 326) radially protruding (see Fig 6) on the anchor bolt (32); and
an intermediate zone (see Fig 6, Examiner notes a portion of bolt 32 between stopper portion 325 and abutment portion 326 as an intermediate zone, i.e. body portion 322, Paragraph 0034) located between (see Fig 6) the bulged zone (326) and the abutment zone (325);
the bulged zone (326) being spaced (see Fig 6) from a threaded section (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0033, Examiner notes nut 34 screwed to a screw shaft portion 321 as a threaded section) of the rear zone (321), the bulged zone (326) protruding (see Fig 6) with respect to the intermediate zone (see Fig 6).
Hosokawa fails to teach a threadless section and the bulged zone protruding with respect to the threadless section.
However, Frischmann teaches it is known to provide a threadless section (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper section of collar 6 tapering towards thread 5 as a threadless section) and the bulged zone (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a central section of collar 6 between tapering sections as the bulged zone) protruding (see Fig 2) with respect to the threadless section (see Fig 2).
Therefore, as evidenced by Frischmann, 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, shaped, and positioned threadless section and the bulged zone protruding with respect to the threadless section as taught by Frischmann to Hosokawa. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to reduce stress concentrations, break sharp corners, etc.
Regarding claim 18, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 and further teaches wherein in the bulged zone (326), the anchor bolt (32) has a larger maximum radius or a larger maximum diameter (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0036) than in the abutment zone (625).
Regarding claim 20, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 and further teaches wherein the intermediate zone (see Fig 6) is threadless (see Fig 6).
Regarding claim 21, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 and further teaches wherein the intermediate zone (see Fig 6) has a greater longitudinal extension (see Fig 6) than the abutment zone (325).
Regarding claim 22, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 and further teaches wherein a distance (see Fig 6) of at least parts (see Fig 6) of the bulged zone (326) from the abutment zone (325) equals (see Fig 6) a distance (see Fig 6) of at least parts (see Fig 6) of the wedge zone (324) from the abutment zone (324).
Regarding claim 23, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 but fails to teach wherein the bulged zone has bulged zone channels.
However, Hosokawa in an alternative embodiment of Fig 3a, teaches it is known to provide wherein the bulged zone (see Fig 3a, Examiner notes a zone of body 14 having protrusions 14g as the bulged zone) has bulged zone channels (see Fig 3a, Paragraphs 0021 and 0036-0037).
Therefore, as evidenced by the alternative embodiment of Fig 3a of Hosokawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine adequately sized, shaped, and positioned bulged zone channels as taught by Hosokawa to modified Hosokawa. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to suppress bending deformation of the anchor resulting in improving shear rigidity (Hosokawa, Paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 24, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 23 and further teaches wherein the bulged zone channels (Hosokawa, see Fig 3a) run parallel (Hosokawa, see Fig 3a, Paragraphs 0021 and 0036-0037, Hosokawa indicates long, narrow vertical rib along the length) to a longitudinal axis (see Fig 6) of the anchor bolt (32).
Regarding claim 25, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 23 and further teaches wherein the bulged zone channels (Hosokawa, see Fig 3a) are surface grooves (Hosokawa, see Fig 3a, Paragraphs 0021 and 0036-0037, Examiner notes grooves between protrusions as are surface grooves).
Regarding claim 29, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 and further teaches wherein in the abutment zone (325), the anchor bolt (32) includes an abutment ring (see Fig 6, Examiner notes a lower ring of stopper portion 325 as includes an abutment ring) radially protruding (see Fig 6) on the anchor bolt (32).
Regarding claim 30, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 and further teaches wherein in the rear zone (321), the anchor bolt (32) includes an outer thread (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0033, Examiner notes nut 34 screwed to a screw shaft portion 321 as includes an outer thread).
Regarding claim 32, modified Hosokawa teaches a method (see Fig 6, Paragraphs 0032-0037) for installing an expansion anchor (Fig 6, expansion anchor 31) as recited in claim 17 (see claim 17) and further teaches the method (see Fig 6) comprising:
inserting (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0036) the expansion anchor (31) into a hole (Fig 6, hole 111) to position (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0036) the bulged zone (326) in an area (Fig 6, surface 113) of the hole (111) in which a minimum diameter of the hole (111) is smaller than a maximum diameter of the anchor bolt (32) in the bulged zone (326) (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0036, Examiner notes hole wall abutment portion 326 is housed within the pilot hole 111 in a state of direct contact with the inner wall surface 113 of the pilot hole 111 as a minimum diameter of the hole is smaller than a maximum diameter of the anchor bolt in the bulged zone).
Regarding claim 33, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 and further teaches wherein the anchor bolt (32) includes a neck zone (Fig 6, neck portion 323) located adjacent to (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0034) and rearwards (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0034) of the wedge zone (324).
Regarding claim 34, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 29 and further teaches wherein the abutment ring (see Fig 6) has a forwardly facing ring-shaped shoulder (see Fig 6) for axially engaging (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0034) the at least one expansion shell (33).
Regarding claim 35, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 and further teaches wherein the bulged zone (326) is abuttable (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0036) on a hole wall (Fig 6, inner wall surface 113).
Regarding claim 36, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 and further teaches wherein the bulged zone (326) is free radially outwardly (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0036) to permit contact (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0036) with a hole wall (Fig 6, inner wall surface 113).
Regarding claim 37, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 and further teaches wherein the intermediate zone (see Fig 6) is free (see Fig 6) of the at least one expansion shell (33).
Regarding claim 38, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 17 but fails to teach wherein the bulged zone slopes in one direction toward the intermediate zone and in an other direction toward the rear zone.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have wherein the bulged zone slopes in one direction toward the intermediate zone and in an other direction toward the rear zone, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed bulged zone was significant. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a shape based on application and requirements, e.g. optimizing anchor rod performance, cost, and weight relative to anchor rod material requirements, improving manufacturing and pre-assembly complexity, etc.
Regarding claim 39, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 29 and further teaches wherein the abutment ring (see Fig 6) is spaced (see Fig 6) from the bulged zone (326) by an intermediate zone (see Fig 6), the abutment ring (see Fig 6) protruding (see Fig 6) with respect to the intermediate zone (see Fig 6).
Regarding claim 41, modified Hosokawa teaches the expansion anchor (31) as recited in claim 28 but fails to teach wherein the bulged zone channels number six.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the bulged zone channels as disclosed by modified Hosokawa to number six, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, i.e. quantity of bulged zone channels. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide a quantity based on application and requirements, e.g. optimizing anchor rod performance, cost, weight, manufacturability, etc.
Claim(s) 17, 26-28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimahara et al. (US20140133933A1), hereinafter "Shimahara", in view of Hosokawa and Frischmann.
Regarding claim 17, Shimahara teaches an expansion anchor (Fig 1, expansion anchor 1) comprising:
an anchor bolt (Fig 1, bolt 3); and
at least one expansion shell (Fig 1, expansion sleeve 2) located (see Fig 1) at the anchor bolt (3);
the anchor bolt (3) including:
a wedge zone (Fig 1, expansion body 7) for expanding (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0025) the at least one expansion shell (2);
an abutment zone (Fig 1, collar 15) forming a rearward stop (see Fig 1) for the at least one expansion shell (2), the abutment zone (15) being located rearwardly (see Fig 1; Examiner’s Note: recitation of direction without a frame of reference is relative terminology and can be given little to no patentable weight) of the wedge zone (7);
a rear zone (Fig 1, shaft 5) for intruding tensile force (Paragraphs 0024-0030) into the anchor bolt (3), the rear zone (5) being located rearwardly (see Fig 1) of the abutment zone (15).
Shimahara fails to teach between the abutment zone and the rear zone, and spaced from the abutment zone, as an integral part of the anchor bolt, a bulged zone radially protruding on the anchor bolt; and an intermediate zone located between the bulged zone and the abutment zone; the bulged zone being spaced from a threaded section of the rear zone by a threadless section, the bulged zone protruding with respect to both the threadless section and the intermediate zone.
However, Hosokawa teaches it is known to provide between (see Fig 6) the abutment zone (Fig 6, stopper portion 325) and the rear zone (Fig 6, shaft portion 321), and spaced (see Fig 6) from the abutment zone (325), as an integral part (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0036) of the anchor bolt (Fig 6, bolt 32), a bulged zone (Fig 6, abutment portion 326) radially protruding (see Fig 6) on the anchor bolt (32); and an intermediate zone (see Fig 6, Examiner notes a portion of bolt 32 between stopper portion 325 and abutment portion 326 as an intermediate zone, i.e. body portion 322, Paragraph 0034) located between (see Fig 6) the bulged zone (326) and the abutment zone (325); the bulged zone (326) being spaced (see Fig 6) from a threaded section (see Fig 6, Paragraph 0033, Examiner notes nut 34 screwed to a screw shaft portion 321 as a threaded section) of the rear zone (321), the bulged zone (326) protruding (see Fig 6) with respect to the intermediate zone (see Fig 6).
Therefore, as evidenced by Hosokawa, 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, shaped, and positioned bulged zone as taught by Hosokawa to Shimahara. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to suppress bending deformation of the anchor resulting in improving shear rigidity (Hosokawa, Paragraph 0037).
Shimahara, in view of Hosokawa fails to teach a threadless section and the bulged zone protruding with respect to the threadless section.
However, Frischmann teaches it is known to provide a threadless section (see Fig 2, Examiner notes an upper section of collar 6 tapering towards thread 5 as a threadless section) and the bulged zone (see Fig 2, Examiner notes a central section of collar 6 between tapering sections as the bulged zone) protruding (see Fig 2) with respect to the threadless section (see Fig 2).
Therefore, as evidenced by Frischmann, 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, shaped, and positioned threadless section and the bulged zone protruding with respect to the threadless section as taught by Frischmann to modified Shimahara. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to reduce stress concentrations, break sharp corners, etc.
Regarding claim 26, modified Shimahara teaches the expansion anchor (1) as recited in claim 17 and further teaches wherein the wedge zone (7) has wedge zone channels (Fig 1, grooves 31).
Regarding claim 27, modified Shimahara teaches the expansion anchor (1) as recited in claim 26 and further teaches wherein the wedge zone channels (7) are surface grooves (see Figs 1 and 3-4, Paragraph 0033, Examiner notes grooves 31 alternating with ribs 30 as are surface grooves).
Regarding claim 28, modified Shimahara teaches the expansion anchor (1) as recited in claim 26 but fails to teach wherein the bulged zone (326) has bulged zone channels and at least some of the wedge zone channels (31) are axially aligned with the bulged zone channels.
However, Hosokawa in an alternative embodiment of Fig 3a, teaches it is known to provide wherein the bulged zone (see Fig 3a, Examiner notes a zone of body 14 having protrusions 14g as the bulged zone) has bulged zone channels (see Fig 3a, Paragraphs 0021 and 0036-0037).
Therefore, as evidenced by the alternative embodiment of Fig 3a of Hosokawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine adequately sized, shaped, and positioned bulged zone channels as taught by Hosokawa to axially align with at least some of the wedge zone channels of modified Shimahara. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to suppress bending deformation of the anchor resulting in improving shear rigidity (Hosokawa, Paragraph 0037) as well as reduce complexity in manufacturing, e.g. reducing tool design difficulty and costs, simplifying preventative maintenance of equipment, etc.
Regarding claim 31, modified Shimahara teaches a method for manufacturing (see Figs 6-7, Abstract, Shimahara indicates a method of producing the anchor bolt) an expansion anchor (Fig 1, expansion anchor 1) as recited in claim 17 (see claim 17) and further teaches the method (see Figs 6-7) comprising: forming (see Figs 6-7, Paragraphs 0045-0047) the anchor bolt (3) using a cross wedge rolling step (see Figs 6-7, Paragraphs 0045-0047).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokawa, in view of Frischmann and Frischmann (EP1333184A2), hereinafter "Frischmann-1".
Regarding claim 42, modified Hosokawa teaches the method (see Fig 6) as recited in claim 32 but fails to teach wherein the bulged zone has bulged zone channels running parallel to a longitudinal axis of the anchor bolt and the bulged zone channels are surface grooves, the method further comprising flowing hardenable mortar in the bulge zone channels.
However, Hosokawa in an alternative embodiment of Fig 3a, teaches it is known to provide wherein the bulged zone (see Fig 3a, Examiner notes a zone of body 14 having protrusions 14g as the bulged zone) has bulged zone channels (see Fig 3a, Paragraphs 0021 and 0036-0037) running parallel (see Fig 3a, Paragraphs 0021 and 0036-0037, Hosokawa indicates long, narrow vertical rib along the length) to a longitudinal axis (see Fig 6) of the anchor bolt (32) and the bulged zone channels (see Fig 3a) are surface grooves (see Fig 3a, Paragraphs 0021 and 0036-0037, Examiner notes grooves between protrusions as are surface grooves).
Therefore, as evidenced by the alternative embodiment of Fig 3a of Hosokawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine adequately sized, shaped, and positioned bulged zone channels as taught by Hosokawa to modified Hosokawa. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to suppress bending deformation of the anchor resulting in improving shear rigidity (Hosokawa, Paragraph 0037).
Hosokawa, in view of Frischmann fails to teach the method further comprising flowing hardenable mortar in the bulge zone channels.
However, Frischmann-1 teaches it is known to provide the method further comprising flowing hardenable mortar (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0015, Examiner notes after anchoring of the expansion anchor 10, mortar is filled or pressed as the method further comprising flowing hardenable mortar).
Therefore, as evidenced by Frischmann-1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method further comprising flowing hardenable mortar as taught by Frischmann-1 into the bulge zone channels of modified Hosokawa. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to provide support to both the anchor shaft in the borehole and the object to be fastened on the anchor shaft, whereby a transverse support (radially to the anchor shaft) of the object to be fastened is improved (Frischmann-1, Paragraph 0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 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
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