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 § 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 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al., US8011080 B2 (hereinafter, Brown) in view of Vayntraub US8950992 (hereinafter, Vayntraub), in further view of Kubic et al., US5037257 (hereinafter, Kubic).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a hinged wall and ceiling anchor similar to a clamping anchor comprising:
a body (120, see Fig. 1) having a proximal end (PE, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1), a distal end (DE, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1), upper (UP, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) and lower sides (LW, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) extending from the proximal end to the distal end, and first (FE, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) and second edges (SE, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) extending from the distal end to the proximal end, the body 120 including a blade section 115 extending from the distal end toward the proximal end, a base section (BS, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) extending from the blade section 115 toward the proximal end, and an enlarged head 125 at the proximal end;
where the blade section 115 has a width (W, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) extending laterally between and to the left (edge on the upper side (UP) of the body) and right edges (edge on the lower side (LW) of the body) of the body 120 along at least a majority of a length of the blade section 115, the width (W) of the blade section increasing with distance from the distal end, the blade section comprising a moment arm 110 projection on the lower side;
where the blade section 115 is coupled to the base section (BS) along a transverse line (114, see Fig. 5A) that is substantially perpendicular to a longitudinal axis (L, as indicated in annotated Fig. 1) such that advancing a screw or nail (900, see Fig. 10) through the screw channel (135, see Fig. 10) and into the moment arm 110 projection will cause the blade section 115 to bend or rotate (refer to the bent portion (100) in Fig. 11) upward about the transverse line (114).
where the base section (BS) defines a screw channel 135 that is configured to receive a screw 900 along a longitudinal axis (L).
Brown fails to teach the longitudinal axis is parallel to a plane of the blade section and offset from the blade section on the lower side such that the longitudinal axis extends through the moment arm projection.
However, Vayntraub in the same field of endeavor teaches a Toggle Nail assembly (assembly in Figs. 1-6) where the longitudinal axis (SX, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6) is parallel to a plane (BX, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6) of the blade section (B, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6) and offset from the blade section (B) on the lower side such that the longitudinal axis (SX) extends through the moment arm projection (70, see Fig. 6).
As evidenced above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention for hinged anchor as taught by Brown to have offset screw axis from the blade axis as taught by Vayntraub for an improved thin blade anchor requiring less material and cost.
Brown does expressly disclose that the anchor can be made of material such as metal, however Brown in view of Vayntraub fails to teach body is defined by a single piece of a sheet that is bent or folded to define each of the base section, blade section, moment arm projection and the screw channel; and wherein at least a portion of the base section is defined by a part of the single piece of sheet metal that is folded over itself to define two substantially parallel layers.
However, Kubic teaches similar Anchor Assembly where a body (plug A) is defined by a single piece of sheet metal (see Figs. 3 and 8-9) that is bent or folded (see Fig. 8) to define each of the base section 13, blade section (25 & 27), moment arms projection (7) and the screw channel (15); and where at least a portion 29 of the base section is defined by a part of the single piece of sheet metal that is folded over itself to define two substantially parallel layers (see Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to body of Brown to be defined by a single piece of sheet as taught by Kubic to provide a plug ensuring easy installation into the plaster of the panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
394
180
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding claim 2, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the anchor of claim 1, where Vayntraub further teaches a proximal surface (ps, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6) of the moment arm projection (70) is offset longitudinally from the transverse line (line running across left to right) toward the distal end of the blade section (refer to Figs. 9 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Brown to have moment art projection offset as taught by Vayntraub so the anchor is configured to increase tension between the anchor and support wall.
Regarding claim 3, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the anchor of claim 1, where Vayntraub further teaches the blade section 40 further comprising a plurality of pilot projections (60 & 130 and pp, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6), at least one of the pilot projections (pp) is configured to contact the moment arm projection 70 and to direct a force (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) received at the moment arm projection 70 to the blade section 40 to urge the blade section upward as the blade bends or rotates (see Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Brown to have a plurality of pilot projections as taught by Vayntraub so the anchor is configured to pivot and increase tension between the anchor and support wall upon tightening of the screw.
Regarding claim 4, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the anchor of claim 3, where Vayntraub further teaches the plurality of pilot projections (60, pp, 130) are spaced along a length of the blade section (B), each of the pilot projections (60, pp, 130) has a vertical dimension (v1, as indicated in annotated Fig. 6), and the vertical dimensions (v1) of the pilot projections increase with distance from the distal end (42, see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Brown to have pilot projections as taught by Vayntraub so at least one of the projections may pivot the anchor for effective tensioning of anchor to the support wall.
Regarding claim 5, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the anchor of claim 1, where Brown further teaches the moment arm projection 110 that is longitudinally curved to define a concave cam surface (column 3, lines 9-10) that faces the proximal end (PE).
Regarding claim 6, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the anchor of claim 5, where Brown further teaches the moment arm projection 110 is configured such that, as the blade section 115 rotates upward, a distal end (tip end of the screw (900) in Fig. 11) of the screw (900, see Fig. 11) contacts the moment arm projection 110 at a contact point (109, see Fig. 11), and the distance between the contact point 109 and the transverse line increases (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the anchor of claim 6, where Brown further teaches a first portion (contact portion (109) is a first portion) of the cam surface intersected by the longitudinal axis is disposed at an angle of between 5 and 90 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis.
(Refer to first portion (109) at an angle between 5 and 90 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis (L))
Regarding claim 8, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the anchor of claim 7, where Brown further teaches a second portion (SP, as indicated in annotated Fig. 9) is disposed at an angle of between 90 degrees and 120 degrees (refer to annotated Fig. 9 where portion (SP) is at the range of 90 degrees to 120 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis (L)) relative to the longitudinal axis (L).
PNG
media_image3.png
213
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9
Regarding claim 9, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the anchor of claim 8, where Brown further teaches the moment arm projection is configured such that, as the blade section 115 rotates upward (refer to Figs. 9-11), the contact point moves from the first portion of the cam surface to the second portion of the cam surface (refer to the contact point (109) movement from first portion to second portion in Fig. 9 through Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the anchor of claim 1, where Brown further teaches the moment arm 110 is laterally curved or bent (refer to the curved moment art (110) in Fig. 9) to define a screw path (135, see Fig. 9) extending along at least a portion of a length of the moment arm 110 to center a screw 900 received through the screw channel 135 to contact the moment arm 110.
Regarding claim 11, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the anchor of claim 5, where Brown further teaches a lower end (111, see Fig. 5A) of the moment arm 110 extends longitudinally under the base section (BS).
Regarding claim 12, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the anchor of claim 1, where Brown further teaches the body 120 is configured such that driving a screw 900 through the channel 135 and into the moment arm 110 will push a portion 109 of the moment arm 110 toward the distal end (DE) and cause the blade section 115 to bend or rotate, at the transverse line 114, away from the longitudinal axis (L), and the blade section 115 is configured to bend to an angle of from 5 degrees to 110 degrees (refer to bent blade section in Fig. 11) relative to the longitudinal axis (L).
Regarding claim 14, The anchor of claim 1, where a distance between the transverse line and a distal surface of the enlarged head is between 0.2 inches and 0.8 inches.
Brown as modified by Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic lacks the specific distance between the transverse line and a distal surface of the enlarged head.
However, changes in distance have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure doesn’t not provide any evidence of the criticality of the specific range, but discloses various range like 0.2-0.8 in, 0.2-0.3 in, 0.35-0.4 in, 0.4-0.6 in etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to design the distance between the transverse line and the distal surface of the enlarged head to desirable length.
Regarding claim 15, Brown in view of Vayntraub in further view of Kubic teaches a kit comprising:
one anchor of claim 1; and
Brown further teaches a screw 900 for the anchor, where screw is configured to be driven into the channel 135 of the anchor such that a distal end (Tip of the screw (900)) of the screw (900) pushes the moment arm 110 toward the distal end (DE) of the anchor body 120 and causes the blade section 115 to bend (refer to Fig. 11), at the transverse line 114, away from the longitudinal axis (L) to an angle of from 5 degrees to 110 degrees (refer to the bent blade section in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11, bent about 45 to 90 degrees) relative to the longitudinal channel 135.
Regarding claim 16, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the kit of claim 15, where Brown further teaches the one or more anchors comprises a plurality of anchors (refer to Fig. 1 through 5 where anchor intended to be driven into a wall or ceiling is discussed, and refer to Fig. 6 through 12 were difference embodiment of anchor intended for wallboard is discussed).
Regarding claim 17, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the kit of claim 16, where at least one of the plurality of anchors differs in size relative to at least one other one of the plurality of anchors (Brown teaches that the anchor taught by Brown can be supplied in variety of sizes (column 8, lines 43-46). Therefore, examiner considers it obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art would be able to figure out that right size anchor is required for each job, for example: weight limit must be considered while using the right size of anchor to the ceiling and the wall).
Regarding claim 18, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches anchor of claim 1, Brown further teaches a method (see claim 1 of Brown) comprising: inserting an anchor of claim 1 through a substrate. Brown further teaches driving a screw 900 through the channel 135 such that a distal end (tip end of the screw) of the screw pushes the moment arm 110 toward the distal end (DE) of the anchor body 120 and causes the blade section 115 to bend (refer to Fig. 10-11), at the transverse line 114, away from the longitudinal axis (L).
Regarding claim 19, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the method of claim 18, where Brown further teaches the substrate or wallboard comprises drywall (column 3, lines 50-52).
Regarding claim 20, Brown in view of Vayntraub, in further view of Kubic teaches the method of claim 19, where Brown further teaches the anchor is inserted through the substrate or wallboard without first drilling a pilot hole in the substrate or wallboard (Brown teaches the pilot hole is created by tip (105) during installation as discussed in Column 4, lines 31-36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
However, Examiner does see the applicant’s point that Kubic does not expressly teach that an anchor is made of sheet metal. However, rejection to claim 1 has been corrected to address the applicant’s argument.
The Applicant argues Kubic does not disclose an anchor defined by a single piece of any sheet material that is bent or folded to define each of the base section blade section, moment arm projection and the screw channel.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant argument.
Brown is the base reference where Brown in view of Vayntraub teaches and/or make obvious of the structural limitations of the claim which includes bent or folded anchor having blade section moment arm projection and the screw channel. However, the teaching reference “Kubic” is brought in to teach that it is obvious and/or common for the one of ordinary skill in the art to make anchor from single piece of sheet material. Please refer to corrected rejection claim 1 clarifying that the Brown discloses that the anchor may be made of metal and Kubic teaches that it is obvious to make anchor from a single piece of sheet material.
The Applicant argues Kubic does not disclose or suggest an anchor formed of any metal, much less a single piece of sheet metal.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument.
In corrected rejection of claim 1 above, Brown discloses that the anchor may be made of metal material and Kubic clearly discloses that an anchor is formed of a single piece of sheet metal (see Figs. 3 and 8-9).
In view of corrected rejection of independent claim 1, previously rejected claims stands rejected.
Conclusion
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 on (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