DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Purdy US 8534132. Regarding claim 1, Purdy discloses an electrical safety system comprising:
a conductive coupler (50, 52, 54, 56), for electrically coupling (i.e., capable of coupling, note that the coupler is inherently metal, which is inherently conductive, see col. 1, lines 1-30) the electrical safety system to a conductive element and be cast into concrete or similar material with the conductive element; and
a housing (58, optionally including 42 and 24) coupled and housing the conductive coupler (bolt 50 is inside housing 58), configured to be at least partially cast into the concrete or similar material to provide external access to the conductive coupler and thereby the conductive element,
wherein a length of the housing 58 is inherently adjustable (e.g., by cutting) after being cast into the concrete or similar material to enable the housing to sit flush with a finished surface of or associated with the concrete.
Per claim 2, the housing 58 is inherently configured to be cut (i.e., capable of being cut) to length after being cast into the concrete.
Per claim 3, the housing is inherently sealable.
Per claim 4, the housing is adapted to be sealed (i.e., capable of being sealed by) by a conductive member that extends from an outside of the housing, through the housing, to the conductive coupler.
Per claim 5, the housing is adapted to be sealed (i.e., capable of being sealed by) by a conductive member (which is not positively claimed), wherein the conductive member includes a threaded portion, configured to engage with a corresponding threaded portion of the conductive coupler.
Per claim 6, the housing is adapted to be sealed (i.e., capable of being sealed by) by a conductive member (which is not positively claimed), the conductive member is adjustable in length.
Per claim 7, the housing is adapted to be sealed (i.e., capable of being sealed by) by a conductive member (which is not positively claimed), wherein the conductive member includes a plurality of threaded portions, separated by narrow portions, thereby defining adjustment points for adjusting a length of the conductive member.
Per claim 8, the housing is uniform in cross section along at least part of its length.
Per claim 9, the housing is at least partly tube- shaped.
Per claim 10, the housing is sealed from below by the conductive coupler (see figure 1).
Per claim 12, the housing includes an aperture (30) through which an earth wire may be (electrically) coupled to the conductive coupler.
Per claim 13, the conductive coupler comprises a clamp member 56 configured to clamp (i.e., capable of clamping) the conductive element (such as a wire) that is to be cast into concrete, prior to casting into the concrete.
Per claim 14, the conductive coupler includes a threaded member (52, 56), wherein clamping is provided through relative rotation of the threaded member.
Per claim 17 the Purdy system is inherently adapted to be used (capable of being used) in a concrete floor or wall.
Per claim 18, the Purdy system is inherently adapted to be used (capable of being used) in a concrete floor or wall, wherein the floor or wall comprises a floor or wall of a wet area or pool.
Per claim 19, the Purdy system is inherently for coupling (i.e., capable of coupling) the electrical safety system to a conductive element, where the conductive element comprises metal reinforcing. For example, the Purdy plate 54 is inherently capable of being attached to metal reinforcing.
Claim Rejections - and 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Purdy. Regarding claim 11, Purdy does not disclose whether the housing 58 is non-conductive. The examiner takes Official notice that various pipes made out of non-conductive materials such as PVC or PEX were known in the art. It would have been obvious to use a commonly available pipe for the Purdy housing 58, such as PVC or PEX pipe. The reason for doing so would have been to use a common widely available product. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious. Sinclair & Carroll Col. V. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Purdy discloses an electrical safety method comprising:
Electrically coupling a conductive coupler (50, 56, 58) to a conductive element 54 (note that the anchor plate 54 and conductive coupler 50/56 are inherently metal, therefore inherently conductive, therefore inherently electrically coupled when placed in direct contact with each other) to be cast into concrete or similar material, the conductive coupler including a housing 58 coupled thereto;
casting the conductive element, conductive coupler and at least part of the housing into concrete or similar material, the housing 58 coupled to and housing the conductive coupler,
and implicitly, adjusting a length of the housing to enable the housing to sit flush with a finished surface of or associated with the concrete or similar material, as shown in figure 1. Purdy does not explicitly state that the housing 58 is cut after being cast in the concrete. The housing 58 must either be cut before or after being casted in the concrete. It would have been obvious to cut the housing 58 to the height as shown in figure 1 after being cast in the concrete to prevent the flowing concrete from going into the housing during pouring of the concrete. "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy in view of Kowalczyk et al. US 7492996 (“Kowalczyk”). Regarding claim 15, Purdy does not disclose that the clamp member includes a cut-out, configured to receive the conductive element. Kowalczyk discloses the well known structure of a split threaded bolt 208 including a cut-out 216, threads 214, and nut 212. It would have been obvious to form the Purdy bolt end 52 as a well known split end such as taught in Kowalczyk. The reason would have been to facilitate attachment of cables, wires, rods, pipes, etc., as taught in Kowalczyk (see Kowalczyk at 102, 104) to the bolt 50 as was well known in the art.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy in view of Franks, Jr., US 7122739 (“Franks”). Regarding claim 16, Purdy discloses the conductive coupler includes an electrical earth coupling for coupling (i.e. capable of coupling) to an earth wire to earth the coupler and thus the conductive element. Purdy does not disclose that the electrical earth coupling including a screw, for attaching an earth wire. Franks discloses a conductive coupler 10 for coupling to an earth wire 38, the electrical earth coupling including a screw 34. It would have been obvious to use various grounding structure on the Purdy assembly, for attaching grounding wires, such as the assembly 10 as taught in Frank. It would have been obvious to attach the Frank strap 14 (and associated studs 18, 34) to the end 52 of the Purdy bolt 50. The reason would have been to facilitate attachment of a ground wire (Frank at 38) to the bolt. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered. Applicant argues the Purdy does not disclose “an electrical safety system.” Purdy discloses the invention as claimed because Purdy discloses all the claimed elements of the invention. The particular name that applicant assigns to the invention does not define the invention. The invention is defined by what is claimed. The applicant’s intended use for the invention does not define the invention. Applicant’s argued intended use for the invention does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The invention is defined by what is claimed as the invention, regardless of how applicant intends the invention to be used.
Regarding claim 11, applicant argues that making the Purdy housing 58 non-conductive would “change the Purdy operates.” This is untrue. The tension of the bolt 50 is what is being monitored. There is no inherent tension in the housing 58.
Regarding claim 20, as shown in figure 1, the housing 58 is clearly cast in the concrete. The figures clearly show that the concrete extends below the nut and anchor plate and that the actual lateral ends of the plate 54 are not shown, meaning that the plate is not mounted on a flat underside of a concrete slab, but is rather encased in the concrete. Applicant’s speculation that anchor plate is installed after the concrete has been cast is not persuasive.
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 ROSS GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 571-272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834