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 second Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-9 and 12-18, as amended 18 MAY 2026, are pending and have been considered as follows; Claim 4-9 and 13-18 remain withdrawn as previously detailed:
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claim 1, 3, and 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);
wherein the barrel member (coupler 23, FIG. 1) has an outer peripheral surface having a cylindrical shape (“Coupler 23 includes a substantially cylindrical housing means 24” 3:34).
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.
the reinforcement member comprises a spiral restraint body wound on the outer peripheral surface of the barrel member,
the barrel member is composed of fiber reinforced resin
the spiral restraint body
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.
the barrel member is composed of fiber reinforced resin (“fiber-reinforced resin rod 11” FIG. 3)
the spiral restraint body is composed of fiber reinforced resin ()
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 a spiral pattern in order to evenly distribute load and thereby improve the tensile strength and adhesion capabilities of the coupler. Regarding the limitation that “the spiral restraint body is composed of fiber reinforced resin having a higher Young's modulus than the fiber reinforced resin composing the barrel member” 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 in order to provide greater stiffness and thus improve the assembly.
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 12 Howlett in view of Sato teaches the limitations according to claim 1, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 MAY 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the argument:
First, Sato discloses the tensile strength of the fiber-reinforced resin rod (element 11), but does not teach or suggest that the winding member (element 13) should have high stiffness or high resistance to deformation.
Second, as described at paragraph [0002] of Sato, the fiber-reinforced resin rod is used as an alternative to a steel reinforcing bar for concrete reinforcement. Thus, the fiber-reinforced resin rod corresponds to the claimed "wire," and Sato does not disclose or suggest "a barrel member" as recited in claim 1.
First, regarding the winding member, the Examiner submits the claim language requires the restraint body —a supplemental reinforcing member— to have a higher Young’s modulus than the subjacent —reinforcing— member. This is achieved with the winding member —a supplemental reinforcing member— placed around the peripheral surface of the core —reinforcing— member as taught by Sato.
Second, regarding Applicant’s supposition that “the fiber-reinforced resin rod corresponds to the claimed "wire," and Sato does not disclose or suggest "a barrel member" as recited in claim” the Examiner submits that the helical winding provides reinforcement to the subjacent rod but also to the concrete in which the combination is embedded by creating more surface area thereby allowing transfer of force in more directions. This improvement to the subjacent member in Sato would be equally beneficial to the subjacent member of Howlett when used for the same purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 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/
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights