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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 14, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-10 and 13 have been amended. Claim 12 has been cancelled. Claim 14 has been added. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 13-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments, in view of Applicant’s Remarks filed May 14, 2025, to the Specification and Claims have overcome a majority of objections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed March 5, 2025. Unaddressed objections are maintained and are as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, “of the external surfaces” should read “external surfaces”
In claim 9, line 2, “the second body portions” should read “the second body portion”
In claim 9, line 4, “a gap” should read “the gap”
In claim 9, line 5, “a side” should read “the side”
In claim 13, line 1, Examiner notes the status identifier indicates “(Previously Presented)”, however, claim 13 appears to be amended; see MPEP 714
In claim 13, line 1, Examiner suggests amending “In combination” to “In combination,”
In claim 13, line 8, “extend” should read “extending”
In claim 13, line 8, “said separable body portions” should read “said first and second separable body portions”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, lines 1-2, claim limitation of “wherein the injection washer is formed as a single piece” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, claim 1, line 8, in which claim 2 depends from recites “a second body portion separable from the first body portion”, however, claim 2, lines 1-2, recites “wherein the injection washer is formed as a single piece”; it is unclear how the injection washer has a second body portion separable from the first body portion and is formed as a single piece. For the purpose of examination, claim 2 will be examined as best understood.
Claims 3-5 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, in claim 1, lines 8-10, in which claim 6 depends from, recites "the first and second body portions being stacked together in use and having substantially similar outer profiles around at least some of the external surfaces thereof", however, claim 6, lines 3-5, also recites "the first and second body portions being stacked together in use and having substantially similar outer profiles around at least some of external surfaces thereof", thus, claim 6 appears as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Duplicate Claims, Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixa (DE102015105959A1), hereinafter "Dixa", in view of Song (CN204403088U), hereinafter "Song".
Regarding claim 1, Dixa teaches in combination (see Figs 1-3, Paragraph 0024), an injection washer (see Fig 3, Examiner notes disc 1 and washer 17 as an injection washer) and a rod portion (Fig 3, anchor 11) of an anchor system (see Fig 3) having the rod portion (11) fixed (see Fig 3) to a surface (Fig 3, base 14), the injection washer (see Fig 3) comprising first (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0024, Examiner notes a central opening of washer 17 as a first opening portion) and second opening portions (Fig 1, through hole 2) arranged (see Fig 3) relative to each other (see Fig 3) along an axis (see Fig 3) parallel (see Fig 3) with the rod portion (11) in use (see Fig 3) and which together (see Fig 3) define an opening (see Fig 3, Examiner notes the central opening of washer 17 and through hole 2 as define an opening) through which the rod portion (11) extends in use (see Fig 3), the first opening portion (see Fig 3) having a smaller width (see Fig 3) than the second opening portion (2) in a direction (see Fig 3) perpendicular (see Fig 3) to the rod portion (11), wherein the first opening portion (see Fig 3) is defined by a first body portion (see Fig 3, Examiner notes washer 17 as defined by a first body portion) and the second opening portion (2) is defined by a second body portion (see Fig 3, Examiner notes disc 1 as defined by a second body portion) separable (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0024, Examiner notes a conventional perforated disc as a washer 17, which are placed on the anchor 11 in the order mentioned as separable) from the first body portion (see Fig 3), the first (see Fig 3) and second body portions (see Fig 3) being stacked together (see Fig 3) in use (see Fig 3) and having substantially similar outer profiles (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0012, Examiner notes outer profiles of disc 1 and washer 17 as having substantially similar outer profiles) around (see Fig 3) at least some of the external surfaces (see Fig 3) thereof, and wherein a gap (Fig 1, gap 3) extends (see Figs 1-3) through a side (see Figs 1-3, Paragraph 0021) of the second body portion (see Fig 3) to each (see Fig 3) of the first (see Fig 3) and second opening portions (2).
Dixa fails to teach wherein a gap extends through a side of first body portion.
However, Song teaches wherein a gap (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0035, Examiner notes a gap extending through spring washer 42 as a gap) extends (see Fig 1) through a side (see Fig 1) of first body portion (Fig 1, spring washer 42).
Therefore, as evidenced by Song, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein an adequately sized and shaped gap extends through a side of first body portion as taught by Song to Dixa. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to enhance the reliability of the connection between the nut and the bolt body (Song, Paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, modified Dixa teaches the combination (see Figs 1-3) of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the injection washer is formed as a single piece.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the injection washer as a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate improving manufacturing and assembly, e.g. reducing part tracking, reducing part count, mitigating assembly errors, etc.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, modified Dixa teaches the combination (see Figs 1-3) of claim 2 and further teaches wherein the first opening portion (see Fig 3) is defined by a first inner surface portion (see Fig 3, Examiner notes a surface of the central opening of washer 17 as a first inner surface portion) of the injection washer (see Fig 3) and the second opening portion (2) is defined by a second inner surface portion (see Figs 1-3) of the injection washer (see Fig 3).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, modified Dixa teaches the combination (see Figs 1-3) of claim 3 and further teaches wherein the first (see Fig 3) and second opening portions (2) are substantially circular (see Figs 1-3, Paragraphs 0024 and 0008, Examiner notes conventional perforated disk and circular saw blade-shaped, respectively, as are substantially circular) and the first opening portion (see Fig 3) has a smaller diameter (see Fig 3) than the second opening portion (2).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, modified Dixa teaches the combination (see Figs 1-3) of claim 2 and further teaches wherein the injection washer (see Fig 3) is substantially C-shaped (see Figs 1-3, Examiners notes a thickness of C-shaped disc 1 being at least half a thickness of the injection washer, i.e. combined disc 1 and washer 17, as is substantially C-shaped).
Regarding claim 6, modified Dixa teaches the combination (see Figs 1-3) of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first (see Fig 3) and second body portions (see Fig 3) being stacked together (see Fig 3) in use (see Fig 3) and having substantially similar outer profiles (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0012) around (see Fig 3) at least some of external surfaces (see Fig 3) thereof.
Regarding claim 7, modified Dixa teaches the combination (see Figs 1-3) of claim 6 and further teaches wherein the first (see Fig 3) and second opening portions (2) are substantially circular (see Figs 1-3, Paragraphs 0024 and 0008, Examiner notes conventional perforated disk and circular saw blade-shaped, respectively, as are substantially circular) and the first opening portion (see Fig 3) has a smaller diameter (see Fig 3) than the second opening portion (2).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dixa teaches the combination (see Figs 1-3) of claim 7 and further teaches wherein the first body portion (see Fig 3) and the second body portion (see Fig 3) are each substantially C-shaped (see Figs 1-3; Song, see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Dixa teaches the combination (see Figs 1-3) of claim 6 and further teaches wherein the first body portion (see Fig 3) and the second body portions (see Fig 3) each have externally arranged alignment features (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0012, Examiner notes same size as each have externally arranged alignment features) for enabling a user to determine (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0012, Examiner notes same size as for enabling a user to determine, e.g. a user can feel, see, etc. by hand, tool, etc.) if the first (see Fig 3) and second body portions (see Fig 3) have been rotationally (see Fig 3) aligned in use (see Fig 3), whereby upon successful rotational alignment (see Fig 3) a gap (Song, see Fig 1) extending through a side (see Figs 1-3) of the first body portion (see Fig 3) into the first opening portion (see Fig 3) aligns (see Fig 3; Song, see Fig 1; Examiner notes the gap extending through spring washer 42 of Song in Fig 1 overlaid onto the gap 3 of disc 1 of Dixa in Fig 1 as aligns) with the gap (3) extending through the side (see Figs 1-3) of the second body portion (see Fig 3) into the second opening portion (2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Dixa teaches the combination (see Figs 1-3) of claim 9 and further teaches wherein one (see Fig 1, Examiner notes disc 1 as one) of the first body portion and the second body portion (see Fig 3) has at least two externally extending second fingers (Fig 1, projections 5).
Modified Dixa fails to teach wherein the first body portion has at least one externally extending first finger and wherein the first finger aligns with a gap between the second fingers when the first and second body portions have been properly aligned in use.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first body portion to include at least one externally extending first finger, i.e. duplicating projections 5 of disc 1 to washer 17, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B). The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to facilitate improving assembly ergonomics by providing an additional position for filling of hardenable mass.
Regarding claim 11, modified Dixa teaches an anchor system (see Fig 3) comprising: a rod portion (Fig 3, anchor 11) fixed (see Fig 3) to a surface (Fig 3, base 14) and an injection washer (see Fig 3, Examiner notes disc 1 and washer 17) according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Dixa teaches in combination (see Figs 1-3, Paragraph 0024) an injection washer (see Fig 3, Examiner notes disc 1 and washer 17 as an injection washer) and a rod portion (Fig 3, anchor 11) of an anchor system (see Fig 3) having the rod portion (11) fixed (see Fig 3) to a surface (Fig 3, base 14), the injection washer (see Fig 3) including first (see Fig 3, Examiner notes washer 17 as including first separable portion) and second separable body portions (see Fig 3, Examiner notes disc 1 as second separable body portion) respectively defining first (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0024, Examiner notes a central opening of washer 17 as a first opening portion) and second opening portions (Fig 1, through hole 2) arranged (see Fig 3) relative to each other (see Fig 3) along an axis (see Fig 3) parallel (see Fig 3) with the rod portion (11) in use (see Fig 3) and which together (see Fig 3) define an opening (see Fig 3, Examiner notes the central opening of washer 17 and through hole 2 as define an opening) through which the rod portion (11) extends in use (see Fig 3), the first opening portion (see Fig 3) having a smaller width (see Fig 3) than the second opening portion (2) in a direction (see Fig 3) perpendicular (see Fig 3) to the rod portion (11) and wherein the second separable body portion (see Fig 3) defines a second gap (Fig 1, gap 3) extend (see Figs 1-3) through a second side (see Figs 1-3) of said separable body portion (see Fig 3) into the first (see Fig 3) and second opening portions (2), and wherein the first separable body portion (see Fig 3) and the second separable body portion (see Fig 3) each have externally arranged alignment features (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0012, Examiner notes same size as each have externally arranged alignment features) for enabling a user to determine (see Fig 3, Paragraph 0012, Examiner notes same size as for enabling a user to determine, e.g. a user can feel, see, etc. by hand, tool, etc.) if the first (see Fig 3) and second body portions (see Fig 3) have been rotationally (see Fig 3) aligned in use (see Fig 3).
Dixa fails to teach wherein the first separable body portion defines a first gap extend through a first side of said separable body portion into the first and second opening portions.
However, Song teaches wherein the first separable body portion (Fig 1, spring washer 42) defines a first gap (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0035, Examiner notes a gap extending through spring washer 42 as defines a first gap) extend (see Fig 1) through a first side (see Fig 1) of said separable body portion (42) into the first and second opening portions (see Fig 1, Paragraph 0035, Examiner notes opening portions of spring washer 42 and washer 41 as into the first and second opening portions).
Therefore, as evidenced by Song, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the first separable body portion defines an adequately sized and shaped first gap extend through a first side of said separable body portion into the first and second opening portions as taught by Song to Dixa. The rationale for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is to enhance the reliability of the connection between the nut and the bolt body (Song, Paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 14, modified Dixa teaches the combination (see Figs 1-3) of claim 13 and further teaches wherein upon successful rotational (see Fig 3) of the alignment features (see Fig 3) the first (Song, see Fig 1) and second gaps (3) are also aligned (see Fig 3; Song, see Fig 1; Examiner notes the gap extending through spring washer 42 of Song in Fig 1 overlaid onto the gap 3 of disc 1 of Dixa in Fig 1 as are also aligned).
Response to Arguments
With respect to Drawing Objections on Pgs 6-7 of Applicant’s Remarks filed May 14, 2025, Applicant requests that the Examiner withdraw the objection to the drawings on the theory that the drawing figures do not violate the spirit of the cited rule (i.e., 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4)) which seeks to promote clarity by avoiding duplicate references describing different features which is not the case here. In response, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and thus, the Drawing objections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed March 5, 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on 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 JOCK WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 5:00pm (ET).
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675