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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-18, as originally filed 22 DEC. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of “Species E, corresponding to claims 1-3 and 10-12. Claims 4-9 and 13-18 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected group. With respect to species election, claims 1-3 are generic. The present election is made without traverse” in the reply filed on 22 DEC. 25 is acknowledged.
Claim 4-9 and 13-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 DEC. 25.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2023 and 12/30/2024 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 3, and 10-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howlett US 4146951 A in view of SATO YUTAKA et al. JP 2017078267 A (Sato).
As per claim 1 the primary reference of Howlett teaches an anchoring device (FIG. 1) for an end of a wire, comprising:
a barrel member(coupler 23, FIG. 1)
the barrel member having a through hole (see “hole” bound by bore 26, FIG. 1) having a tapered shape (tapered camming areas 32, FIG. 1) ;
multiple wedge members (wedge assemblies 27 and 28, FIG. 1) which each have an outer peripheral surface (see “exterior camming surfaces or areas” 32, FIG. 1; also 3:65) having a tapered shape (see “shape” of “tapered camming areas 32”, FIG. 1) and slidably contacting an inner peripheral surface (see area 32 contacting area 34, FIG. 1) of the through hole (see “hole” bound by bore 26, FIG. 1) and which cooperate with each other to grip the wire (see “radially grip tendons 21 and 22” 3:52).
Howlett but fails to explicitly disclose:
which is composed of resin or mortar; and
a reinforcement member including a part that extends in a circumferential direction of the barrel member.
Sato teaches such obvious load bearing material having an external member, specifically:
which is composed of resin or mortar (“fiber-reinforced resin rod 11” FIG. 3)
a reinforcement member (“winding member 13” FIG. 3) including a part that extends in a circumferential direction of the barrel member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Howlett by forming the coupler of fiber-reinforced resin with a winding member as taught by Sato in order to improve the tensile strength and adhesion capabilities of the coupler.
As per claim 3 Howlett in view of Sato teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Sato further discloses wherein the reinforcement member comprises fibers (see “Similarly, the non-removable winding member 13 is composed of filament yarns made of long fiber” p. 3) embedded in the barrel member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the reinforcement member of Howlett in view of Sato by making the member out of filament yarn as taught by Sato in order to provide high strength and durability, making them ideal for applications requiring stability under tension.
As per claim 10 Howlett in view of Sato teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Howlett further discloses wherein the barrel member(coupler 23, FIG. 1) has an outer peripheral surface (surface 42, FIG. 1) having a cylindrical shape (“Coupler 23 includes a substantially cylindrical housing means 24” 3:34).
Sato further discloses the reinforcement member comprises a spiral restraint body wound on the outer peripheral surface of the barrel member (see “winding member 13 wound around the core portion 12 is formed of a long member such as a thread or a string, and is wound spirally at a constant pitch” p. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Howlett in view of Sato by including the spiral pattern as taught by Sato in order to evenly distribute loads.
As per claim 11 Howlett in view of Sato teaches the limitations according to claim 10, and Sato further discloses wherein the barrel member is composed of fiber reinforced resin (“fiber-reinforced resin rod 11” FIG. 3) and comprises the spiral restraint body (“winding member 13 wound around the core portion” p. 2; see FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Howlett in view of Sato by forming the coupler of fiber-reinforced resin with a winding member as taught by Sato in order to improve the tensile strength of the coupler.
The combination fails to explicitly disclose:
the spiral restraint body
It has been held that: “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82, USPQ2d at 1396.
Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would teach an external reinforcing member —such as the wound member of Sato— made of a member with a higher resistance to deformation, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the wound member choosing a wound member with a higher Youngs modulus than the coupler in order to provide greater stiffness and thus improve the assembly.
As per claim 12 Howlett in view of Sato teaches the limitations according to claim 10, and Sato further discloses wherein the barrel member has a spiral groove (“the first groove 16 and the second groove 17 having a spiral groove” p. 4) on the outer peripheral surface, and the spiral restraint body is fitted in the spiral groove (see FIG. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Howlett in view of Sato by including the spiral pattern for the groove in order to secure the winding member along the length of the assembly as taught by Sato in order to provide strength evenly.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howlett in view of Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Omizono et al. US 4837995 A (Omizono).
As per claim 2 Howlett in view of Sato teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Howlett further discloses wherein each wedge member is composed of a material a material which has a surface hardness substantially in excess of the surface hardness of the tendons (“the wedge assemblies be formed of a material which has a surface hardness substantially in excess of the surface hardness of the tendons” 8:14) but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
each wedge member is composed of a resin or fiber reinforced resin.
Omizono teaches an obvious material for making wedges, specifically:
each wedge member is composed of a resin or fiber reinforced resin ("each wedge of the inner member being formed by separately impregnating a cloth of glass fibers and a cloth of carbon fibers with a thermosetting synthetic resin" 4:23 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Howlett in view of Sato by substituting fiber reinforced resin for the wedges as taught by Omizono in order to provide a lightweight wedge having high strength.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-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 D 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635