DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 46-63 and 65-73 remain unchanged and Claims 73-74 have been cancelled. The Examiner also acknowledges the Notice of Appeal filed on 10 August 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (or lack thereof) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has not provided any arguments or amendments towards the 112 or Prior Art rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 46-63 and 65-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In Claim 72, the Specification does not set forth the first and second threaded bores being blind holes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 46-58, 65 and 69-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,511,019 to Espinosa.
Regarding claim 72, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated below], a reinforced (Column 4, Line 44) building wall (Column 4, Line 51), comprising: a first stud wall (A) (Column 5, Lines 28-29) including a first bottom plate (B) and a first top plate (C); a second stud wall (D) (Column 5, Line 1) disposed above the first stud wall (A) including a second bottom plate (E) and a second top plate (F); a tie rod (12) [coupling (Column 4, Line 42)] in the first stud wall (A), the tie rod (12) having a first end with a first threaded bore [for threaded rod 8] and a second end with a second threaded bore [for threaded rod 10], a first rod (8) including a first end portion operably attached to a foundation (6) (Column 4, Lines 39-40), the first rod (8) (Column 4, Line 41) including a second end portion being operably attached to the first threaded bore [of the tie rod 12]; and a second rod (10) (Column 4, Line 41) including a first end portion being threaded to the second threaded bore [of the tie rod 12], the second rod (10) including a second end portion being operably attached to the second stud wall (D). Espinosa does not teach the first and second threaded bores being blind holes but also does not state that they are not. As the Applicant notes on Page 8 of the response, blind holes are a known thing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a blind hole since a simple substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain predictable results. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to not have the bore go all the way through in order to maintain structural integrity of the coupler and be able to withstand the forces of reinforcing the stud wall. Furthermore, Figure 7 shows the tie rod (12) couples two rods (8 and 10) therefore the coupler need not to have a thru bore.
PNG
media_image1.png
797
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 46, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the second rod (10) is operably attached to the second bottom plate (E) [via hold down device 74].
Regarding claim 47, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], a bearing plate (90) (Column 5, Lines 58-59) is disposed on the second bottom plate (E); and the second rod (10) is operably attached to the bearing plate (90) with a connector (74).
Regarding claim 48, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the connector (74) includes a nut (94) (Column 5, Line 60).
Regarding claim 49, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the connector (74) includes an expanding connector (Column 4, Lines 48-50).
Regarding claim 50, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], a cross member (66) [bridge (Column 5, Line 65)] is operably attached to the second stud wall (D); and the second rod (10) is operably attached to the cross-member (66).
Regarding claim 51, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], a bearing plate (96) (Column 5, Line 66) is disposed on the cross member (66); and the second rod (10) is operably attached to the bearing plate (96) with a connector (76).
Regarding claim 52, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the connector (76) includes a nut (Column 5, Lines 65-66).
Regarding claim 53, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the connector (76) includes an expanding connector (Column 4, Lines 48-49).
Regarding claim 54, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the second rod (10) is operably attached to the second top plate (F).
Regarding claim 55, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], a bearing plate (104) (Column 6, Line 6) is disposed on the second top plate (F) and the second rod (10) is operably attached to the bearing plate (104).
Regarding claim 56, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the second rod (10) is operably attached to the bearing plate (104) with a connector (78).
Regarding claim 57, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the connector (78) includes a nut (Column 6, Line 6).
Regarding claim 58, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the connector (78) includes an expanding connector (Column 4, Lines 48-49).
Regarding claim 65, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the tie rod (12) includes a first section (12) and a second section (10’) joined end-to-end.
Regarding claim 69, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the tie rod (12) is circular in cross-section.
Regarding claim 70, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the first rod (8) includes threaded first and second ends (Column 4, Line 41).
Regarding claim 71, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], the first rod (8) is all-thread (Column 4, Line 41).
Regarding claim 73, Espinosa teaches in Figure 7 [annotated above], a coupling (110) [nut (Column 6, Lines 10-13)] is attached to the second end portion of the second rod (10).
Claims 59-63 and 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,511,019 to Espinosa in view of US Patent # 7,985,041 to Lin.
Regarding claim 59, Espinosa teaches a reinforced building wall with the tie rod but does not teach it includes first and second inspection holes. However, Lin teaches in Figure 1, a tie rod (1) [coupler nut (Column 4, Lines 6-7)] that includes a first inspection hole (13) [opening (Column 4, Line 60)] at a first end (5) and a second inspection hole (13) at the second end (4). 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 hold down system of Espinosa with the coupler of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success because Lin teaches the inspection holes allow one to check to see whether and how far an object has been threaded into the coupler (Column 4, Lines 61-63).
Regarding claims 60-61 and 67, Espinosa teaches a reinforced building wall with a tie rod but does not teach the first threaded bore includes a smaller diameter threaded bore and a larger diameter threaded bore. However, Lin teaches in Figure 4A, a tie rod (1) [coupler nut (Column 4, Lines 6-7)] that includes a smaller diameter (6) (Column 5, Line 23) threaded bore (7) (Column 5, Lines 23-24) and a larger diameter (8) (Column 5, Line 25) threaded bore (9) (Column 5, Line 26); wherein the smaller diameter bore (7), and the larger diameter bore (9) include inspection holes (13) [opening (Column 4, Line 60)] respectively; wherein the inspection holes (13) are disposed at bottom portions of the respective smaller diameter bore (7) and the larger diameter bore (9). 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 hold down system of Espinosa with the coupler of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success because Lin teaches the coupler nut allows rod members of non-matching sizes to be connected by a single coupler nut (Column 5, Lines 41-44).
Regarding claims 62-63 and 68, Espinosa teaches a reinforced building wall with the tie rod but does not teach the second threaded bore includes a smaller diameter threaded bore and a larger diameter threaded bore. However, Lin teaches in Figure 4A, a tie rod (1) [coupler nut (Column 4, Lines 6-7)] that includes a smaller diameter (6) (Column 5, Line 23) threaded bore (7) (Column 5, Lines 23-24) and a larger diameter (8) (Column 5, Line 25) threaded bore (9) (Column 5, Line 26); wherein the smaller diameter bore (7), and the larger diameter bore (9) include inspection holes (13) [opening (Column 4, Line 60)] respectively; wherein the inspection holes (13) are disposed at bottom portions of the respective smaller diameter bore (7) and the larger diameter bore (9). 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 hold down system of Espinosa with the coupler of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success because Lin teaches the coupler nut allows rod members of non-matching sizes to be connected by a single coupler nut (Column 5, Lines 41-44).
Claims 65-66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,511,019 to Espinosa in view of US Patent # 9,097,001 to Espinosa.
Regarding claims 65-66, Espinosa teaches a reinforced building wall with the tie rod but does not teach a stud bolt. However, Espinosa teaches in Figure 1 [annotated below], in a different Patent, a tie rod (A) includes a first section (14) and a second section (B) joined end-to-end; wherein the first section (14) incudes a third threaded bore; the second section (B) includes a fourth threaded bore; and a stud bolt (8) is threaded to the third bore and the fourth bore. 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 hold down system of Espinosa with the concrete anchor of Espinosa with a reasonable expectation of success because Espinosa teaches the connectors are used to connect several sections together to make it a continuous length (Column 3, Lines 32-33).
PNG
media_image2.png
815
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm EST.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights