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 § 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 17 and 18 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. In each of claims 17 and 18, the “splines” is a double inclusion since splines were introduced in claim 13.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abbas (US 10,982,442). Abbas discloses a glued-in-rod structure (10) comprising: a collar (14); a glued-in-rod (10); a hole (H) formed in a structure (C). The collar comprising: an annular base (16) having an inner diameter (24) configured to fit snugly around the rod at both the end and along a length (Fig, 1); and an outer diameter having a 3 axially oriented splines (28) configured to contact the hole wall allowing the passage of fluid (B).
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 13-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BBT HOLDING AG (DE 30 14 078). BBT discloses a glued-in-rod structure (10) comprising: a collar (14); a glued-in-rod (32); a hole (44) formed in a structure. The collar comprising: an annular base having an inner diameter (20, 22) configured to fit snugly around the rod at the end; and an outer diameter having a plurality of axially oriented splines (Fig. 1) or a plurality of helical oriented splines (Figs. 4 or 5). The splines are capable of contacting the hole wall allowing the passage of fluid and the embodiments of Figs. 4 and 5 show 4 splines on one side for a total of 6 or 8 spread around the collar.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbas of BBT as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fann (US 5,474,346). Neither Abbas or BBT discloses dimples configured to contact the hole wall. Fann discloses a collar (1) having an outer surface with dimples (14’ or 44) configured to contact a wall of a hole (Fig. 6). 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 splines of Abbas or BBT with dimples as disclosed in Fann because Fann teaches the dimples as an alternative to splines (Fig. 1) for yielding the same results.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbas (US 10,982,442) in view of Buchholz (US 4,110,053). Abbas discloses a glued-in-rod structure as described above but does not disclose the structure being a wood structure. Buchholz discloses a glued-in-rod structure comprising a hole (5, 6) in a wood structure (column 2, line 51). 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 concrete structure of Abbas with a wood structure as disclosed in Buchholz because Buchholz teaches that glued-in-rods are equally applicable to concrete and wood structures (column 1, paragraph beginning line 6).
Claims 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BBT HOLDING AG (DE 30 14 078) in view of Buchholz (US 4,110,053). BBT discloses a glued-in-rod structure as described above but does not disclose the structure being a wood structure. Buchholz discloses a glued-in-rod structure comprising a hole (5, 6) in a wood structure (column 2, line 51). 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 concrete structure of BBT with a wood structure as disclosed in Buchholz because Buchholz teaches that glued-in-rods are equally applicable to concrete and wood structures (column 1, paragraph beginning line 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rinklake (US 5,060,447), Dubon (US 8,517,641) and Bianchi (US 2010/0021259) teach other examples of centering collars to glued-in-rods. Natsume (US 4,941,769) us cited to teach another example of dimples.
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