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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau (US 3,858,478) in view of Buhofer (US 5,730,570). In considering the embodiment shown in Fig. 5C, Boudreau discloses a single-piece self-penetrating wall anchor and method for insertion into a hard wall (W) including concrete and brick (Abstract) comprising: a rigid body (40) shown with an outer wall, a piercing distal end, an internal thread (42) opposite the piercing distal end, and means in the form of a score on the shank capable of preventing rotation of the anchor within the wall (column 2, paragraph beginning line 32). The score formed in the shank would include faces useful to prevent rotation; the internal threaded end is headless; the method includes holding the holding the wall anchor (Fig. 1), hammering it into the wall (Fig. 4) and screwing in screw (column 10, lines 12-13). Boudreau discloses the anchor to be hardened relative to the wall but does not quantify the hardness. Buhofer discloses a wall anchor similar to Boudreau but quantifies the hardness to be greater than 40HRC (Abstract). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the wall anchor of Boudreau with a hardness greater than 40HRC as disclosed in Buhofer to facilitate the insertion into the hard material as discussed in Buhofer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn (US 2,400,878) in view of Boudreau (US 3,858,478) and Buhofer (US 5,730,570). Dunn discloses a single-piece self-penetrating wall anchor (103) and method for insertion into a hard wall (118) including concrete and brick (Title) comprising: a rigid body shown with an outer wall (104), a piercing distal end (108) formed with faces, a thread (109) opposite the piercing distal end, and means in the form of flutes (107) on the shank for preventing rotation of the anchor within the wall. The method includes holding the holding the wall anchor (Fig. 1-2) and hammering it into the wall (Figs. 8-9). Dunn disclose the thread to be an external thread and not threaded a recess. Boudreau discloses a wall anchor similar to Dunn and teaches a threaded recess (Fig. 5C) as an alternative to an external thread (Fig. 5A). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the external thread of Dunn with a threaded recess as disclosed in Boudreau because Boudreau teaches them as alternatives. Modified Dunn discloses the anchor to be hardened relative to the wall (see in Dunn, column 3, second column, lines 23-32) but does not quantify the hardness. Buhofer discloses a wall anchor similar to modified Dunn but quantifies the hardness to be greater than 40HRC (Abstract). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the wall anchor of modified Dunn with a hardness greater than 40HRC as disclosed in Buhofer to facilitate the insertion into the hard material as discussed in Buhofer.
Response to Remarks
After consideration of applicant’s remarks, the rejection(s) over the prior art remain unchanged.
The applicant argues the claims define over the combination Boudreau (US 3,858,478) in view of Buhofer (US 5,730,570) because Boudreau does not disclose a nail-like element with non-circular faces to resist rotation relative to the wall. Applicant argues that in Boudreau any anti-rotation feature is only relative to a washer and not applicable after anchor is embedded into the wall. In response, the examiner agrees with applicant that the washer scores the anchor but by definition a score is “a notch or line cut or scratched into a surface” (Google) wherein the surface which forms the notch would anticipate the “outer wall has faces”. The notch would inherently also provide at least some resistance to the rotation of the anchor relative to the wall by providing additional friction between the anchor and wall.
Additionally, the claim are directed to the anchor so the interaction with the wall is only a recitation of intended use for the anchor. Therefore the prior art, in this case Boudreau, needs only to be capable of preventing rotation (see MPEP 2114 II). In this case Boudreau would be capable of preventing rotation simply with the amount of torque that is applied to the anchor.
Furthermore, applicant argues Boudreau fails to disclose “shaft-parallel planer faces”, “such as a hexagonal cross-section”, “flat elements”, and “non-cylindrical”. However, none of those structures are claimed. While the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The only structure claimed in regards to the rotation prevention is “said outer wall has faces” (claim 2) which is anticipated by the surface of the notches scored into the outer wall of the anchor by the washer as explained above.
Applicant also argues the instant invention is “nail-like” which is also not found in the claims and if it were in the claims it would be indefinite without a definition of what is inclusive of being like a nail.
Applicant argue the claims define over the combination of Dunn (US 2,400,878) in view of Boudreau and Buhofer. Applicant argues that Dunn does not disclose an anchor configured to resist rotation and lacks any teaching of a shape to prevent rotation but, acknowledges the anchor is disclosed can have flutes. In response, it is the flutes disclosed in Dunn which would prevent the rotation of the anchor. The anchor disclosed in Dunn includes the flutes 107 and the tapered surface 106 which are even shown to include flat surfaces. Also, again the rotation prevention is only a recitation of intended use so the response to the arguments in regards to Boudreau are equally applicable to Dunn.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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 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 FLEMMING SAETHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7071. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 7:00 eastern.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 572-272-8322. 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.
/FLEMMING SAETHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675