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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/8/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/8/26 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figs. 1-9: The text of the reference numerals and the corresponding lead lines are faint and should be darkened for legibility purposes.
Figs. 8-9: The lines of the attachment devices (14) are faint making the surfaces of the attachment devices difficult to distinguish. Further regarding figure 8, it appears that the stray lines/markings found on the bottom right of the figure should be removed. Further regarding figure 9, it appears that the stray lines/markings found on the support structure 12 should be removed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The period at the end of the title should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Lines 2-5 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “the core” should be --the hollow, axially oriented core-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 2: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “the core” should be --the hollow, axially oriented core-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 3: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the core” should be --the hollow, axially oriented core-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 4: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “each leg” should be --each axially oriented leg-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 5: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the core” should be --the hollow, axially oriented core-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the end surface” should be --the radially aligned end surface-- for consistency of the language.
With regard to claim 6: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the end surface” should be --the radially aligned end surface-- for consistency of the language. Further, the extra period at the end of the claim should be removed.
With regard to claim 7: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a fastener” should be --the fastener-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 1 of the claim, it appears “configured to received” should be --configured to be received-- for clarity of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the end surface” should be --the radially aligned end surface-- for consistency of the language.
With regard to claim 8: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a fastener” should be --the fastener-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 9: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “each rib” should be –each circumferentially spaced stiffening rib-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the flange” should be --the radially outwardly extending flange-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “each stiffening rib” should be –each circumferentially spaced stiffening rib-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 12: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the core” should be --the hollow, axially oriented core-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 13: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a fastener” should be --the fastener-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 14: Line 2 of the claim, it appears “in anchored” should be --is anchored--clarity of the claim language. Line 2-3 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “the support structure” should be --the concrete support structure-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 15: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the support structure” should be --the concrete support structure-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the core” should be --the hollow, axially oriented core-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 17: Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the core” should be --the hollow, axially oriented core-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 18: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears each instance of the limitation “the core” should be --the hollow, axially oriented core-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 19: Lines 3 and 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the end surface” should be --the radially aligned end surface-- for consistency of the language. Line 3 of the claim, it appears instance of the limitation “each leg” should be --each axially oriented leg-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 20: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “body” should be --the body-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the legs” should be “the axially oriented legs” for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the feet” should be --the radially outwardly-extending feet-- for consistency of the claim language.
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 4 and 12 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.
With regard to claim 4: Line 1 of the claim, the limitation “the plurality of slots” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the plurality of slots of the hollow, axially oriented core--. It’s unclear if the limitation “a radially-outwardly extending foot” is referencing the previously recited radially outwardly extending flange. As shown in figure 6 of the instant application, the radially-outwardly extending foot (28a) appears to be the same as the radially outwardly extending flange (28). For the purpose of examination, they are considered to be directed same element.
With regard to claim 12: Line 1 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “at locations” is referencing the previously recited at least one location recited in claim 1.
Claims 4 and 12 are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaw (US 2017/0096810 A1).
With regard to claim 17: Shaw discloses a system comprising an attachment device (200) (fig. 22) including:
a body (200) having a hollow, axially oriented generally cylindrical core (first tubular element 202) and a radially outwardly extending, generally annular flange (second tubular element 204) coupled to the hollow, axially oriented generally cylindrical core (first tubular element 202), wherein the body (200) has an opening (tubular) capable of receiving a fastener therethrough (fig. 22; par. [0093]).
With regard to claim 19: Shaw discloses a system comprising attachment device (200) (fig. 22) including:
a body (200) having a radially oriented end surface (214) and a plurality of axially oriented legs (splines 208) coupled to the end surface (214), each axially oriented leg (208) having a radially outwardly-extending foot (free surface at 214) located at a distal end thereof, wherein the end surface (214) has an opening (tubular) capable of receiving a fastener therethrough (fig. 22; par. [0093]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Douglas (US 12,098,538 B1).
With regard to claim 19: Douglas discloses a system (100) comprising attachment device (10) (figs. 5-6) including:
a body (10) having a radially oriented end surface (D with respective to a central axis extending perpendicular thereto) and a plurality of axially oriented legs (14a, 14b) coupled to the end surface (D), each leg (14a, 14b) having a radially outwardly-extending foot (A) located at a distal end thereof, wherein the end surface (D) has an opening (C) configured to receive a fastener (30) therethrough (figs. 3-4 and 6; col. 7, lines 13-36; col. 8, lines 20-31).
PNG
media_image1.png
353
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6: Douglas (US 12,098,538 B1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2017/0096810 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Shaw discloses a system comprising attachment device (200) including:
a body (200) having a hollow, axially oriented core (first tubular element 202) and a radially outwardly extending flange (second tubular element 204) coupled to the hollow, axially oriented core (202), wherein the body (200) has an opening (formed in hollow portion of first tubular element 202) capable of receiving a fastener therethrough, wherein the hollow oriented core (first tubular element) has a plurality of slots (between splines 208) formed therein (fig. 22; par. [0093]). Note that figure 20 of Shaw discloses an alternative embodiment of the attachment device comprising splines (106) that are even spaced part by 45 degrees (par. [0090]).
Shaw does not disclose at least about 20% of a perimeter of at least one location along a length of the core is defined by the slots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment device of Shaw to have at least about 20% of a perimeter of locations along a length of the core defined by the slots in order to provide spacing for creating a desired number of the splines for a desired degree of frictional contact with a sheath to mitigate unwanted disengagement. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the anchoring device to have at least about 20% of a perimeter at locations along a length of the core defined by the slots. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 2: Shaw discloses that the hollow, axially oriented core (first tubular element 202) is generally cylindrical (tubular), and wherein the flange (second tubular element 204) is generally annular (tubular) and coupled to a distal end of the hollow, axially oriented core (first tubular element 202) (fig. 22; par. [0093]).
With regard to claim 3: Shaw discloses that the radially outwardly extending flange (204) include a plurality of slots (between splines 212) that are aligned (extending longitudinally) with the slots (between splines 208) of the hollow, axially oriented core (first tubular element 202) (fig. 22; par. [0093]).
With regard to claim 4: Shaw discloses that the plurality of slots (between splines 208) divide the body (200) into a plurality of axially oriented legs (208), each of the axially oriented legs (208) having a radially-outwardly extending foot (free end surface) at an end (214) thereof (fig. 22).
With regard to claim 5: Shaw discloses that the hollow, axially oriented core (202) includes a radially aligned end surface (214), and wherein the opening (tubular) extends axially through the radially aligned end surface (214) (fig. 22).
With regard to claim 6: Shaw does not disclose that the end surface has a thickness of at least about 1/2" and wherein the end surface extends in a radial plane, in all directions, less than about 2 inches.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available thickness in order to provide desired strength, rigidity and weight for ease handling and anchoring for the securement of a sleeve. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the end surface to have a thickness of at least about 1/2" and wherein the end surface extends in a radial plane, in all directions, less than about 2 inches. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 9: Shaw discloses a plurality of circumferentially spaced stiffening ribs (208, 212), each circumferentially spaced stiffening ribs (208, 212) being coupled to the hollow, axially oriented core (first tubular element 202) and to the flange (204), each circumferentially space stiffening rib (208, 212) having an outer edge that is arranged at an angle (0 degrees) relative to an axial center of the body (200) (fig. 22).
With regard to claim 10: Shaw discloses that the attachment device (200) includes only a single opening (tubular) (fig. 22).
With regard to claim 11: Shaw discloses that each slot (between splines 208) extends at least about 60% of a length of the hollow, axially oriented core (first tubular element 202) (fig. 22).
With regard to claim 12: As modified, Shaw discloses the hollow, axially oriented core (first tubular element 202) is configured such that, at locations where the slots (between splines 208) are present, at least about 20% of a perimeter of the core is defined by the slots.
With regard to claim 18: Shaw discloses that the hollow, axially oriented core (first tubular element 202) has a plurality of slots (between splines 208) formed therein (fig. 22; par. [0093]).
Shaw does not disclose at least about 20% of a perimeter at a location along a length of the core is defined by the slots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment device of Shaw to have at least about 20% of a perimeter of locations along a length of the core defined by the slots in order to provide spacing for creating a desired number of the splines for a desired degree of frictional contact with a sheath to mitigate unwanted disengagement. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the anchoring device to have at least about 20% of a perimeter at locations along a length of the core defined by the slots. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 20: Shaw discloses that the body (200) has a plurality of slots (between splines 208) formed therein defining the legs (208) and the feet (free surface at 214).
Shaw does not disclose that the body (200) is configured such that at least about 20% of a perimeter of at least one location along a length of the body is defined by the slots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment device of Shaw to have at least about 20% of a perimeter of locations along a length of the body is defined by the slots in order to provide spacing for creating a desired number of the splines for a desired degree of frictional contact with a sheath to mitigate unwanted disengagement. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the anchoring device to have at least about 20% of a perimeter at locations along a length of the body defined by the slots. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 11-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas (US 12,098,538 B1).
With regard to claim 1: Douglas discloses a system (100) comprising attachment device (10) (fig. 6) including:
a body (10) having a hollow, axially oriented core (12, 14) and a radially outwardly extending flange (extending with respect to a central axis) coupled to the hollow, axially oriented core (12, 14), wherein the body (10) has an opening (C) configured to receive a fastener (30) therethrough (figs. 3-4 and 6; col. 7, lines 13-36; col. 8, lines 20-31), wherein the hollow, axially oriented core (12, 14) has a plurality of slots (B) formed therein and is configured such that at least portion of a perimeter of at least one location along a length of the hollow, axially oriented core (12, 14) is defined by the slots (B).
Examiner submits that it appears at least about 20% of a perimeter of locations along a length of the core (12, 14) is defined by the slots (B). However, the drawing are not disclosed to be to scale.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment device of Douglass to have at least about 20% of a perimeter of locations along a length of the core defined by the slots in order to provide greater surface area of contact for anchoring and securement with concrete. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the anchoring device to have at least about 20% of a perimeter of at locations along a length of the core defined by the slots. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 5: Douglas discloses that the hollow, axially oriented core (12, 14) includes a radially aligned end surface (D), and wherein the opening (C) extends axially through the radially aligned end surface (D) (fig. 6).
With regard to claim 7: Douglas discloses that the fastener (30) configured to be received through the opening (C) (figs. 5-6).
Douglas does not disclose that the radially aligned end surface has a thickness of at least about 1/3 of a thickness of a head of the fastener.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available thicknesses for a desired strength and rigidity for anchoring and securement and securement. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the end surface to have a thickness of at least about 1/3 of a thickness of a head of the fastener. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 8: Douglas discloses that the fastener (30) that is retained in the opening (C) by a press fit (frictional fit) between a shank of the fastener (30) and the opening (C) (figs. 3-4 and 6; col. 7, lines 13-36; col. 8, lines 20-31).
With regard to claim 11: Douglas discloses that each slot (B) extends at least about 60% of a length (longitudinal length) of the core (12, 14) (fig. 6).
With regard to claim 12: As modified, Douglas discloses that the core is configured such that, the locations where the slots are present, at least about 20% of a perimeter of the hollow, axially oriented core is defined by the slots.
With regard to claim 13: Douglas discloses a roof nailer (20) and the fastener (30) having a head and a threaded portion, wherein the fastener (30) extends through the opening (C) such that the head abuts against the attachment device (10) and the threaded portion is threaded into the roof nailer (20) (figs. 1-4 and 6; col. 7, lines 13-36; col. 8, lines 20-31).
With regard to claim 14: Douglas discloses a concrete support structure (concrete panel 50) , and wherein the attachment device (10) in anchored in the concrete support structure (50) to thereby couple the roof nailer (20) to the concrete support structure (50) (figs. 1-4 and 6; col. 7, lines 13-36; col. 8, lines 20-31)
With regard to claim 15: Douglas discloses the roof nailer (20) is made of wood or wood products (col. 8, lines 20-31), wherein the concrete support structure (50) is a vertically oriented wall or wall portion (tilted up wall) (abstract; col. 8, lines 20-31; claim 1), and wherein the core (12, 14) of the attachment device (10) is filled with concrete (figs. 1-4 and 6; col. 8, lines 20-31).
With regard to claim 16: Douglas discloses that the attachment device (1) is made of a single, unitary piece of material having a thickness (fig. 6), but does not disclose that the thickness is less than about 1/4".
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, as the selected option was one of a finite number of available thicknesses to provide desired strength, rigidity and weight for ease handling and anchoring for the securement of the concrete. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the thickness of attachment device to less than 1/4”. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 20: Douglas discloses that the body (10) has a plurality of slots (B) formed therein defining the axially oriented legs (14a, 14b) and the radially outwardly-extending feet (A).
Examiner submits that it appears the body is configured such that at least about 20% of a perimeter of locations along a length of the body is defined by the slots (B). However, the drawing are not disclosed to be to scale.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment device of Douglass to have at least about 20% of a perimeter of locations along a length of the body defined by the slots in order to provide greater surface area of contact for anchoring and securement with concrete. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the anchoring device to have at least about 20% of a perimeter of at least one location along a length of the core defined by the slots. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to anchoring devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633