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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/08/2026 has been entered.
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(s) 49, 51-53 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0260018 to Kalloo (“Kalloo”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0041450 to Espinosa (“Espinosa”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,729,951 to Frohlich (“Frolich”).
Regarding claim 49, Kalloo discloses a stud rail Figs. 5A-6B for being embedded in concrete, comprising: a) a first metal base (akin to base 50, par 0027, 0030-31; not labeled in Figs. 5A-6B) including a plurality of first openings (akin to opening 52, par 0030), the first base 50 including a top surface (top surface of 50 facing upwardly) and bottom surface (bottom surface of “B” facing channel 13); b) each of the first openings including a first wall (wall forming threaded opening 52) extending from the first base, the first wall being continuous around each of the first openings, the first wall being defined by a thickness having an outside surface (surface facing away from threaded opening 52) and an inside surface (surface having threads thereon), the inside surface defining the first opening; and c) a plurality of first threaded rods 60 having respective first ends attached to the respective first openings (par 0024) and respective second ends being attached to respective anchor bodies (enlarged end of rod 60 that is opposite of threaded end 62).
Kalloo does not disclose that the thickness being tapered and the anchor bodies that are individually distinct from the respective first threaded rods.
Espinosa in Figs. 49-54 discloses a concrete anchor comprising a base (Espinosa 276, 287), a first wall (Espinosa 274, 286) extending from the first base and being defined by a thickness having an outside surface and an inside surface, the inside surface defining an opening and the thickness being tapered to a conical shape wall providing an increased load bearing surface (Espinosa par 0089).
Frolich discloses a stud rail anchor wherein anchor bodies (Frolich 9, 9A) can not only be integral (Frolich 9), but can alternatively be separate from threaded rods (see Frolich 9A) before attachment to the threaded rods to accommodate specific installations (Frolich col 5, ln 34-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stud rail of Kalloo to have the thickness being tapered as taught in Espinosa with a reasonable expectation of success because the tapered thickness would predictably provide an increased load bearing surface. It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stud rail of Kalloo to have the anchor bodies that are individually distinct from the respective first threaded rods as taught in Frolich with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the stud rail to accommodate specific installations.
Regarding claim 51, Kalloo in view of Espinosa and Frohlich discloses that the first wall (wall forming 52) of each of the first openings extend from the first top surface.
Regarding claim 52, Kalloo in view of Espinosa and Frohlich discloses that the first metal base is longitudinal.
Regarding claim 53, Kalloo in view of Espinosa and Frohlich discloses that the anchor bodies (9A form the modification by Frolich) comprise metal plates.
Regarding claim 55, Kalloo in view of Espinosa and Frolich discloses that the first threaded rods include unthreaded intermediate portions (between the head and threaded portion 62).
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalloo in view of Espinosa and Frolich as applied to claim 53 above and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0067849 to Espinosa (“Espinosa II”).
Regarding claim 54, Kalloo in view of Espinosa and Frohlich discloses that each of the metal plates including a surface, each of the first metal plates including a threaded opening, but does not disclose a wall extending from the surface.
Espinosa II in Fig. 14 discloses a concrete anchor comprising metal plates (Espinosa II 75) including a surface, each of the first metal plates including a threaded opening and a wall (Espinosa II) extending from the surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stud rail of Kalloo to have each of the metal plates including a wall extending from the surface as taught in Espinosa II with a reasonable expectation of success because the tapered thickness would predictably provide stability.
Claim(s) 206 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0260018 to Kalloo (“Kalloo”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0067849 to Espinosa (“Espinosa II”) and Publication No. 2011/0041450 to Espinosa (“Espinosa”).
Regarding claim 206, Kalloo discloses a stud rail Figs. 5A-6B for being embedded in concrete, comprising: a) a metal base (not labeled, akin to base 50, par 0027, 0030-31; not labeled in Figs. 5A-6B) including a plurality of openings (akin to opening 52, par 0030), the base including a first thickness; b) each of the openings including a wall (wall forming threaded opening 52) extending from the base, the wall being defined by a second thickness having an outside surface (surface facing away from threaded opening 52) and an inside surface (surface having threads thereon), each of the openings being defined by the inside surface, the openings 52 are threaded in the first thickness of the base and the inside surface of the wall; and c) a plurality of threaded rods 60 having respective first ends attached to the respective openings (par 0024) and respective second ends.
Kalloo does not disclose that the second thickness at a bottom of the wall where the wall meets the metal base being less than the first thickness, nor that the wall being tapered and second ends being attached to respective anchor bodies which are individually distinct form the respective threaded rods.
Espinosa II in Figs. 34, 36 and 38 discloses an anchor comprising a base (Espinosa 32, 226, 238) having a first thickness, a first wall (Espinosa, 224, 14) extending from the first base and being defined by a second thickness having an outside surface and an inside surface, the inside surface defining an opening and the second thickness at a bottom of the wall where the wall meets the metal base being less than the first thickness to provide stability with a thicker base.
Espinosa in Figs. 49-54discloses a concrete anchor comprising a base (Espinosa 276, 287), a first wall (Espinosa 274, 286) extending from the first base and being defined by a thickness having an outside surface and an inside surface, the wall being tapered providing an increased load bearing surface (Espinosa par 0089).
Frolich discloses a stud rail anchor wherein anchor bodies (Frolich 9, 9A) can not only be integral (Frolich 9), but can alternatively be separate from threaded rods (see Frolich 9A) before attachment to the threaded rods to accommodate specific installations (Frolich col 5, ln 34-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stud rail of Kalloo to have the second thickness at a bottom of the wall where the wall meets the metal base being less than the first thickness as taught in Espinosa II with a reasonable expectation of success because a thicker base would predictably provide more stability and to have the wall being tapered as taught by Espinosa with a reasonable expectation of success because the tapered thickness would predictably provide an increased load bearing surface. Moreover, it also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stud rail of Kalloo to have the anchor bodies that are individually distinct from the respective first threaded rods as taught in Frolich with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the stud rail to accommodate specific installations.
Claim(s) 207 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0260018 to Kalloo (“Kalloo”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0041450 to Espinosa (“Espinosa”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,729,951 to Frohlich (“Frolich”).
Regarding claim 207, Kalloo discloses a stud rail Figs. 5A-6B for being embedded in concrete, comprising: a) a base (akin to base 50, par 0027, 0030-31; not labeled in Figs. 5A-6B) including a plurality of openings (akin to opening 52, par 0030), the base including a top surface (top surface of 50 facing upwardly) and bottom surface (bottom surface of “B” facing channel 13); b) each of the openings including a wall (wall forming threaded opening 52) extending from the metal base, the wall being continuous around each of the openings, the wall being defined by a thickness having an outside surface (surface facing away from threaded opening 52) and an inside surface (surface having threads thereon), the inside surface defining the opening, and c) a plurality of threaded rods 60 having respective first ends attached to the respective openings (par 0024) and respective second ends being attached to respective anchor bodies (wide end portion of 60).
Kalloo does not disclose that the thickness is tapered; nor the anchor bodies being individually distinct from the respective threaded rods.
Espinosa in Figs. 49-54discloses a concrete anchor comprising a base (Espinosa 276, 287), a first wall (Espinosa 274, 286) extending from the first base and being defined by a thickness, the thickness being tapered providing an increased load bearing surface (Espinosa par 0089).
Frolich discloses a stud rail anchor wherein anchor bodies (Frolich 9, 9A) can not only be integral (Frolich 9), but can alternatively be individually distinct from the respective threaded rods (see Frolich 9A) to accommodate specific installations (Frolich col 5, ln 34-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stud rail of Kalloo to have the thickness being tapered as taught in Espinosa with a reasonable expectation of success because the tapered thickness would predictably provide an increased load bearing surface. As a result of the modification, the first base would extend from the radius longer than the thickness of the first wall at the radius. It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stud rail of Kalloo to have the anchor bodies being individually distinct from the respective threaded rods as taught in Frolich with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the stud rail to accommodate specific installations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 205 and 208 are allowed.
Claims 65 and 200 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 205, none of the prior art, alone or in obvious combination absent hindsight, discloses applicant’s invention of a stud rail including inter alia, a metal base, and wall of each of the openings being embedded in concrete and the threaded rods each having a bottom end portion extending past the metal base. The closest prior art to Manos (US10590672) is for leveling and embedding the rail of Manos in concrete would render it unusable for leveling a column. Moreover, the closest prior art to Kalloo (US 2014/0260018) has threaded rods that do not extend past the metal base because doing so would not allow the plate to sit flush with an underlying support surface.
With respect to claims 65, 200 and 208, the claims are allowable for the reasons set forth on page 12 of applicant’s Remarks dated 09/08/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 49, 206, and 207 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for 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 CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights