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
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) 49-55 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”).
Regarding claim 49, Kalloo discloses a stud rail Figs. 5A-6B for being embedded in concrete, comprising: a) a first base (akin to base 50, par 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 attached to the respective first openings (par 0024).
Kalloo does not disclose that the first base is metal nor the thickness being tapered, the outside surface having a radius where the first wall meets the first metal base nor that each of the first openings and the first wall being formed from form drilling.
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 inside surface defining an opening and the thickness being tapered to a conical shape wall, the outside surface having a radius where the first wall meets the first metal base providing an increased load bearing surface (Espinosa par 0089).
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, the outside surface having a radius where the first wall meets the first metal base 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. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use metal for the plate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, the claim is a product by process claim and stud rail does not depend on the process of making it. The product-by-process limitation "each of the first openings and the first wall being formed from form drilling" would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the stud rail. Therefore, the claimed product is not a different and unobvious product from that of Kalloo in view of Espinosa.
Regarding claim 50, Kalloo in view of Espinosa discloses that the first threaded rods 60 include respective first head portions.
Regarding claim 51, Kalloo in view of Espinosa 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 discloses that the first metal base is longitudinal.
Regarding claim 53, Kalloo in view of Espinosa discloses that: a) the first threaded rods 60 include respective distal end portions (end opposite 62); and b) first metal plates (fastener head) are attached to the respective distal end portions.
Regarding claim 54, Kalloo in view of Espinosa discloses that the first threaded rods 60 include respective distal end portions (end 62); b) first metal plates 50 are attached to the respective distal end portions; and c) each of the first metal plates including a surface, each of the first metal plates including a threaded opening 52, each threaded opening of the first metal plates including a wall (vertical wall forming 52) extending from the surface of the first metal plates.
Regarding claim 55, Kalloo in view of Espinosa discloses that the first threaded rods include unthreaded intermediate portions (between the head and threaded portion 62).
Claim(s) 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalloo in view of Espinosa and Matsuo as applied to claim 200, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,206,617 to Wobben (“Wobben”).
Regarding claim 65, Kalloo in view of Espinosa and Matsuo does not disclose a second support disposed below the intersection to elevate the first metal base and the second metal base above a concrete formboard.
Wobben discloses disclose a second support (Wobben 12) disposed below a metal base (Wobben 18). 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 a second support disposed below the intersection as taught in Wobben with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a stronger anchorage and bond with concrete.
Claim(s) 200 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalloo in view of Espinosa as applied to claim 49 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,505,033 to Matsuo et al. (“Matsuo”).
Regarding claim 200, Kalloo in view of Espinosa does not disclose a second metal base including a plurality of second openings, the second metal base including a top surface and a bottom surface; b) each of the second openings including a second wall extending from the second metal base; c) a plurality of second threaded rods attached to the respective second openings; and d) the first metal base is disposed transversely over the second metal base at an intersection.
Matsuo in Fig. 21-22 discloses the first metal base is disposed transversely over a second metal base at an intersection.
It has been held that a mere duplication of parts, such as the duplication of the first metal base to have a second metal base has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. A duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, 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 rail of Kalloo to have the first metal base disposed transversely over the second metal base at an intersection as taught in Matsuo with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for reinforcement at a desired placement or configuration in desired areas in a concrete structure.
Claim(s) 205 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,590,672 to Manos (“Manos”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2011/0041450 to Espinosa (“Espinosa”) and Kalloo.
Regarding claim 205, Manos discloses a stud rail Fig. 1 for being embedded in concrete, comprising: a) a metal base 122 (col 3, ln 8-9) including a plurality of openings (openings where rods 106, 108, 110, and 112 are inserted), the metal base including a thickness; b) each of the openings including a wall 126 extending from the metal base, the wall being defined by a second thickness having an outside surface (surface facing away from threaded opening) and an inside surface (surface having threads thereon), each of the openings being defined by the inside surface, the openings (openings where rods 106, 108, 110, and 112 are inserted) are threaded in the thickness of the base and the inside surface of the wall; and c) a plurality of threaded rods 106, 108, 110, and 112 attached to the respective openings, the threaded rods 106, 108, 110, and 112 each having a bottom end portion extending past the base.
Manos does not disclose that the second thickness being tapered nor the wall being homogenous with the metal base.
Espinosa in Figs. 37 and 40 discloses a concrete anchor comprising a base (Espinosa 236, 246), a first wall (Espinosa 234, 244) 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).
Kalloo discloses a rail plate wherein a wall 52 is homogenous with a metal base.
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 Manos 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. Moreover, 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 Manos to have the wall being homogenous with the metal base as taught in Kalloo with a reasonable expectation of success because it would increase durability and rigidity of the stud rail to act as a unit. Moreover, it has been held that “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
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 base (not labeled, akin to base 50, par 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 first threaded rods 60 attached to the respective openings (par 0024).
Kalloo does not disclose that the first base is metal, 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.
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).
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 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use metal for the plate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
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 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 first 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 first base is metal, that the thickness is tapered; nor the anchor bodies being separate from the threaded rods before attachment to the 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 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. 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 separate from the threaded rods before attachment to the threaded rods as taught in Frolich with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the stud rail to accommodate specific installations. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use metal for the plate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
On page 9 of the Remarks, the applicant argues that Kalloo nor Espinosa discloses that the openings are formed from drilling. As noted in the rejection above, the claim is a product by process claim and stud rail does not depend on the process of making it. The product-by-process limitation "each of the first openings and the first wall being formed from form drilling" would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the stud rail. Therefore, the claimed product is not a different and unobvious product from that of Kalloo in view of Espinosa.
With respect to the amended language in claims 205 and 206, additional references have been added to the rejection to teach the newly included elements in the claims. See rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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