DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 59, 62 and 72 have been amended and Claims 73-74 have been added.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 72 and 73 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims recite mutually exclusive features about the combined length of the first and second threads. Page 22, Lines 19-21 of the Specification discuss this limitation and it can be seen it is referring to Figures 25 and 30. Neither of these were elected as Figure 36 was the elected species.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 72 and 73 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Claim Objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of Claims 59 and 62 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
The Applicant argues that in Espinosa, the coupler is not disclosed as having blind holes at either end. However, the Examiner reasoned that blind holes are old and well known and it would have been an obvious matter of simple substitution. The Examiner also reasoned that blind holes make the coupler stronger. And finally, the coupler of Espinosa is capable of having blind holes as the threaded rod does not go through the entire coupler but rather links two rods together.
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
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