DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 17 and 18 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-18 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
Specification
The amendment filed 11/13/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: new figures 11-14 disclose structure that was not previously disclosed. While the original specification discloses “a generally pyramid shape or other polyhedron shape”, the new figures introduce a level a specificity which exceeds what was originally supported. The original disclosure did not describe or depict the specific geometries such as 3-sided or 4-sided polyhedrons or pyramids, that have identical or elongated side dimensions, nor did it reasonably convey such particular shapes or sizes as part of the originally disclosed invention.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hubbell Power Systems (NPL Catalog CA12002E; May 2021; pages 25-26), hereinafter Hubbell.
Regarding claim 1, Hubbell teaches an anchor system (anchor; title) capable of supporting a utility structure with a connecting guy wire, the anchor system comprising: a ground anchor (disk anchor; figure 1) formed to be generally planar in shape (figure page 25) having a top surface (top; figure 1), a bottom surface (bottom; figure 1), and an inner surface (bottom inner surface; figure 1) disposed around a center axis of the ground anchor to define an inner space (inner conical space; figure 1), the inner surface extending between a top opening on the top surface and a bottom opening on the bottom surface (figure 1), wherein the bottom opening is larger than the top opening (as illustrated by the dotted cross section lines, the bottom opening is larger than the top opening; figure 1); an anchor rod elongated longitudinally (elongated rod; figure 1) and including a first end portion (top end of rod), a second end portion (bottom end of rod, when connected to the nut and curved washer), and a rod body therebetween (figure 1), the second end portion being formed to have a shape of a wedge tapered longitudinally toward the rod body (as illustrated, the curved washer has a shape of a wedge tapered longitudinally toward the rod body; figure 1), wherein the shape and dimensions of the wedge are configured to conform to the inner space defined by the inner surface of the ground anchor (as illustrated, the shape and dimensions of the wedge are configured to conform to the inner space defined by the inner surface of the ground anchor; figure 1); a coupler (forged portion; figure 1) on the first end portion of the anchor rod (figure 1); and an eyenut (eye; abstract) for coupling the guy wire to the coupler (figure 1).
With regards to the limitation that the product is formed by crimp coupling, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Hubbell teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, Hubbell teaches wherein in an assembled configuration, the second end portion is placed to fit in the inner space defined by the inner surface of the ground anchor while the anchor rod is positioned longitudinally along the center axis of the ground anchor (figure 1), and secured in the inner space for resisting tension force longitudinally transmitted through the anchor rod (it is understood that the curved anchor is secured in the inner space and therefore capable of resisting tension force longitudinally transmitted through the anchor rod).
Regarding claim 3, Hubbell teaches the inner surface is cylindrically disposed around the center axis of the ground anchor (figure 1), and extends between the top opening and the bottom opening that are disposed circularly around the center axis (figure 1), wherein a diameter of the bottom opening is larger than a diameter of the top opening (as illustrated by the dotted cross section lines, a diameter of the bottom opening is larger than a diameter of the top opening; figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hubbell teaches the ground anchor has a shape of a generally round plate (figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbell Power Systems (NPL Catalog CA12002E; May 2021; pages 25-26).
Regarding claim 4, Hubbell does not specifically disclose the wedge is a generally tapered solid cylinder having top and bottom wedge surfaces that are circular and disposed laterally to the anchor rod, wherein a diameter of the bottom wedge surface is larger than a diameter of the top wedge surface.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of the wedge to be a generally tapered solid cylinder having top and bottom wedge surfaces that are circular and disposed laterally to the anchor rod, wherein a diameter of the bottom wedge surface is larger than a diameter of the top wedge surface, since such a modification would have only involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent any persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It is also common knowledge to choose a shape that has a desired aesthetic or durability and flexibility etc. for the application and intended use of that element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the wedge to be a generally tapered solid cylinder having top and bottom wedge surfaces that are circular and disposed laterally to the anchor rod, wherein a diameter of the bottom wedge surface is larger than a diameter of the top wedge surface, in order to provide a more solid anchoring element that can withstand a greater amount of tension depending on the anticipated design forces of the secured structure.
Regarding claim 5, Hubbell does not specifically disclose the inner space defined by the inner surface of the ground anchor and the wedge are formed to have a generally polyhedron shape.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of the inner space defined by the inner surface of the ground anchor and the wedge are formed to have a generally polyhedron shape, since such a modification would have only involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent any persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It is also common knowledge to choose a shape that has a desired aesthetic or durability and flexibility etc. for the application and intended use of that element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the inner space defined by the inner surface of the ground anchor and the wedge are formed to have a generally polyhedron shape, in order to provide a more solid anchoring element that can withstand a greater amount of tension depending on the anticipated design forces of the secured structure.
Regarding claim 6, Hubbell does not specifically disclose the inner space defined by the inner surface of the ground anchor and the wedge are formed to have a generally pyramid shape.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of the inner space defined by the inner surface of the ground anchor and the wedge are formed to have a generally pyramid shape, since such a modification would have only involved a mere change in the shape of a component. Absent any persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It is also common knowledge to choose a shape that has a desired aesthetic or durability and flexibility etc. for the application and intended use of that element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the inner space defined by the inner surface of the ground anchor and the wedge are formed to have a generally pyramid shape, in order to provide a more solid anchoring element that can withstand a greater amount of tension depending on the anticipated design forces of the secured structure.
Claim(s) 8 and 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbell Power Systems (NPL Catalog CA12002E; May 2021; pages 25-26) in view of Blackburn (U.S. Patent No. 1,967,391).
Regarding claim 8, Hubbell does not specifically disclose the top surface of the ground anchor has radially formed ridges.
Blackburn discloses a ground anchor (title) whereby the top surface of the ground anchor has radially formed ridges (4; figure 2).
Therefore, from the teaching of Blackburn, 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 ground anchor of Hubbell such that the top surface of the ground anchor has radially formed ridges, as taught by Blackburn, in order to provide a more solid anchoring element that can withstand a greater amount of tension depending on the anticipated design forces of the secured structure.
Regarding claim 9, Hubbell does not specifically disclose patterns, including ridges and basins, are formed on the top surface of the ground anchor to increase a top surface area, to increase anchoring resistance by increasing the amount of underground soil in contact with the top surface of the ground anchor in use in the ground.
Blackburn discloses a ground anchor (title) including patterns, including ridges (4) and basins (3), are formed on the top surface of the ground anchor (figure 2) to increase a top surface area, to increase anchoring resistance by increasing the amount of underground soil in contact with the top surface of the ground anchor in use in the ground (it is understood that the ridges and basins would increase a top surface area, to increase anchoring resistance by increasing the amount of underground soil in contact with the top surface of the ground anchor in use in the ground).
Therefore, from the teaching of Blackburn, 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 ground anchor of Hubbell to include patterns, including ridges and basins, formed on the top surface of the ground anchor to increase a top surface area, to increase anchoring resistance by increasing the amount of underground soil in contact with the top surface of the ground anchor in use in the ground, as taught by Blackburn, in order to provide a more solid anchoring element that can withstand a greater amount of tension depending on the anticipated design forces of the secured structure.
Claim(s) 10 and 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbell Power Systems (NPL Catalog CA12002E; May 2021; pages 25-26) in view of Campbell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,808,799).
Regarding claim 10, Hubbell does not specifically disclose the crimp coupler has a shape of a generally hollow cylinder for crimping on the first end portion, and includes a threaded protrusion longitudinally formed at one end for fastening to the eyenut.
Campbell et al. discloses an anchor attachment (abstract) wherein the coupler (18) has a shape of a generally hollow cylinder (figure 5) for attachment on the first end portion (at 36), and includes a threaded protrusion (at 29) longitudinally formed at one end for fastening to the eyenut (figure 5).
Therefore, from the teaching of Campbell et al., 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 ground anchor of Hubbell such that the coupler has a shape of a generally hollow cylinder for attachment on the first end portion, and includes a threaded protrusion longitudinally formed at one end for fastening to the eyenut, as taught by Campbell et al., in order to facilitate attachment of the rod to the coupler, in case the coupler is defective or needs to be replaced.
With regards to the limitation that the product is formed by crimping, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Hubbell teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 11, Campbell et al. in the combination discloses the eyenut comprises an eye section (at 27) for connecting to the guy wire and a nut section (at 29) having a threaded inner surface (figure 5) for fastening to the threaded protrusion of the coupler (figure 5).
Claim(s) 12 and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbell Power Systems (NPL Catalog CA12002E; May 2021; pages 25-26) in view of Campbell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,808,799).
Regarding claim 12, Hubbell does not specifically disclose the coupler is made of galvanized steel or stainless steel.
Lagarde discloses an anchoring (abstract) comprised of stainless steel (col. 5, lines 5-10).
Therefore, from the teaching of Lagarde, 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 ground anchor of Hubbell such that the coupler is made of galvanized steel or stainless steel, as taught by Lagarde, in order to provide a non-corrosive material for the outdoor installation to prolong the life thereof to withstand outdoor weather conditions.
Regarding claim 13, Hubbell does not specifically disclose the eyenut is made of galvanized steel or stainless steel.
Lagarde discloses an anchoring (abstract) comprised of stainless steel (col. 5, lines 5-10).
Therefore, from the teaching of Lagarde, 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 ground anchor of Hubbell such that the eyenut is made of galvanized steel or stainless steel, as taught by Lagarde, in order to provide a non-corrosive material for the outdoor installation to prolong the life thereof to withstand outdoor weather conditions.
Claim(s) 14-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbell Power Systems (NPL Catalog CA12002E; May 2021; pages 25-26) in view of Hindle (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0136788).
Regarding claim 14, Hubbell does not specifically disclose the ground anchor and the anchor rod are made of non-metallic composite material.
Hindle a ground anchor (abstract) made of non-metallic composite material (the members may be made from other materials such as carbon fibre, glass fibre, plastics materials; paragraph 67).
Therefore, from the teaching of Hindle, 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 ground anchor of Hubbell such that the ground anchor and the anchor rod are made of non-metallic composite material, as taught by Hindle, in order to provide a non-corrosive material for the outdoor installation to prolong the life thereof to withstand outdoor weather conditions.
Regarding claim 15, Hindle in the combination discloses the non-metallic composite material is fiberglass (paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 16, Hindle in the combination discloses the non-metallic composite material is carbon-fiber (paragraph 67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the ground anchor of Hubbell is not generally planar. Applicant further states that the anchor plate of the present application has little change in plane across the diameter of the plate—however, this language is not in the claim. The claim recites “generally planar” (emphasis). Looking at the figure 6 cross-section, for what applicant assumes to be generally planar, one of ordinary skill would see the cross section of Hubbell’s plate to be just as “generally planar”.
In addition, the argument that Hubbell does not specifically disclose comprise an opening wherein the bottom opening is larger than the top opening, has been carefully considered. However, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner attests that the bottom opening in Hubbell is the bottom open portion of the lower end of the curved inner surface of the disk anchor, which surface is shown in cross section in the page 25 figure. This constitutes an opening, and one that is larger than a top opening.
With regards to the argument that Hubbell does not specifically disclose recite “the second end portion being formed to have a shape of a wedge tapered longitudinally toward the rod body”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under comprising language, the Hubbell’s curved washer falls within the scope of “portion being formed to have a shape”. Furthermore, the shape of the washer is such that it tapers in a longitudinal direction toward the center of the rod.
In addition, applicant argues that no crimp coupler is shown or recited by Hubbell, however, the limitation that the product is formed by crimp coupling, etc., the examiner pointed out that this limitation is drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Hubbell teaches a coupler (part that couples / forges the bar to the anchor eye), the limitation is met.
The examiner has further considered the argument that Hubbell does not specifically disclose, recite or suggest that other designs may be possible to comprise a different shape where the wedge is a generally tapered solid cylinder having top and bottom wedge surfaces that are circular and disposed laterally to the anchor rod, wherein a diameter of the bottom wedge surface is larger than a diameter of the top wedge surface. However, although Hubbell does not specifically disclose suggest this specific shape, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of an existing component for greater durability. In the instant case, changing the shape of the flat curved washer of Hubbell to have a solid tapered cylinder shape, would at least result in a stronger washer, that would have been an obvious design choice for the level of ordinary skill in the art. The similar argument with regards to shape can also be made for polyhedron and pyramidal shapes.
With regards to the argument that Blackburn teaches away from the present disclosure, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Both primary and secondary reference are complementary in shape and function, and adding the ridges of claims 8 and 9, would have been an obvious modification, regardless of whether or not the end of the bar is threaded, and would not have destroyed the combination.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633