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 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hangesbach (US 5,419,664) in view of Weber (5,314,278). Hangesbach discloses an expansion anchor comprising: an anchor bolt (1); an expansion sleeve (5) surrounding the anchor bolt; a wedge body (4) in the same piece with the bolt located at the front of the bolt for expanding the expansion sleeve; a slit (6) formed withing the expansion sleeve; the slit having a mouth at a front face leading to a stem; the stem is delimited by first and second flanks (15) which are non-parallel to from widening and narrowing areas along the stem. In regards to new claims 5-7, Hangesbach discloses one of the expansion slit to include a through slit (at 6’) and in addition to the expansion slit second and third similar expansion slits.
PNG
media_image1.png
229
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hangesbach does not disclose the slit having an enlarged head. Weber discloses an expansion anchor similar to Hangesbach but in Weber a slit (6) in an expansion sleeve (5) includes an enlarged head (11) where the head is wider than a stem (WO > SW). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the slit in Hangesbach with an enlarged head as disclosed in Weber to facilitate the expansion of the expansion sleeve (column 2, lines 8-14).
In regards to claims 8 and 9, modified Hangesbach does not disclose a fourth expansion slit. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been an obvious duplication of part for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the anchor sleeve of modified Hangesbach with an additional fourth expansion slit because it would continue to function in the same predictable manner.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hangesbach as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mahrenholz (US 11,572,912). Modified Hangesbach does not disclose the expansion sleeve and wedge body made of a carbon steel. Mahrenholz discloses an anchor with an expansion sleeve and wedge body made of carbon steel (column 3, paragraph beginning line 56). 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 expansion sleeve and wedge body of modified Hangesbach out of a carbon steel as disclosed in Mahrenholz because Mahrenholz teaches it as a suitable material in the same field of endeavor.
Response to Remarks
After consideration of applicant’s remarks, the rejection of claims 3 and 4 is maintained unchanged.
Applicant argues that the claims define over the combination of Hangesbach (US 5,419,664) in view of Weber (US 5,314,278) because Hangesbach teaches away from the combination. Applicant argues that in Hangesbach an objective of the invention is to provide the expansion sleeve with a higher yield strength so it would not be obvious to combine it with Weber where the objective is to reduce the resistance for the sleeve to expand. Applicant is apparently equating yield strength with flexibility (spring rate/constant) which is not an accurate comparison. Just because something has a higher yield strength does not mean it will be less flexible. Yield strength is amount of force the material, in this case the sleeve, can sustain before permanent deformation whereas the spring rate, in this case the sleeve ability to expand, is the amount force required to expand the sleeve also without permanent deformation. In fact spring steels, which are good at flexing, will also have a high yield strengths. So the high yield strength disclosed in Hangesbach does not teach away from increased flexibility in Weber because both are complementary to one another. “[T]he greater resilience to deformation” discussed in Hangesbach is a resistance to permanent deformation which does not teach away from a reduced resistance to expansion because the expansion is also not permanent deformation.
Applicant also argues that Hangesbach teaches away from the combination because it discloses the width of the slits is reduced. In response the examiner again disagrees because the reduced width is only a result of the manufacturing process. The same manufacturing process could produce the slits with the wider heads.
Applicant argues there is no reason, other than hindsight, for combining Hangesbach and Weber because Hangesbach would not benefit from the widening head nor would is facilitate expansion. In response, the disagrees because both Hangesbach and Weber are from the same field of expansion anchors and even more specifically in the same field of expansion anchors for anchoring in cement so they are clearly from the same field endeavor with the same objectives of anchoring into the cement. Where the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the advantages taught in each of the references. Hangesbach teaching improved manufacturing providing a stronger expansion sleeve and Weber teaching the improved expansion by requiring less force to expand the expandable sleeve. So, providing the wider head taught in Weber to the expansion sleeve would yield the same predictable results to Hangesbach of requiring less force to expand the sleeve which ultimately would make the expansion anchor more economical to install.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hsu (US 6,524,046) is cited to teach an expansion sleeve with additional expansion slits. And Gaudron (US 8,444,355) teaches another example of an expansion anchor made of carbon steel.
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 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 571-272-8322. 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
Prosecution Insights