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 § 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 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 plurality of 3 axially elongated splines (28) configured to contact the hole wall allowing the passage of fluid (B).
Claims 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 helically elongated 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.
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).
Response to Remarks
After consideration of applicant’s remarks, the rejections over the prior art remain mostly unchanged.
Applicant argues the claims define over Abbas (US 10,982,443) because Abbas does not disclose a plurality of elongated splines for defining channels to permit the flow of adhesive. Applicant argues that the fins 28 is are not elongated splines as claimed but instead are insolated projections which disclosed as mechanical anchoring members exerting pressure against the walls of the hole. In response, the examiner agrees with applicant’s understanding of the fins in Abbas but, that does not preclude the fins from anticipating the claimed splines limitation. Although 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 definition of “splines” requires a mating groove for the splines which is not present in the instant application nor is there any alternative definition so applying broadest reasonable interpretation of “elongated splines” any protrusion with an elongation would anticipate the limitation including the fins disclosed in Abbas. Furthermore, in regards to Abbas teaching a mechanical anchoring this is similar to the instant invention where the elongated splines also engage the wall of the hole (instant invention p.[0027]) for providing a mechanical anchor. And similar to the instant invention, between the splines are formed channels for the flow of an adhesive (Abbas column 5 paragraph beginning line 43). So not only are the fins of Abbas structurally “elongated splines” they also function in the same manner.
Applicant also argues that Abbas fails to disclose the claimed collar but instead disclose anchor rings. In response the examiner fails to see the difference between a collar and a ring.
Similar to applicant’s arguments directed at Abbas, applicant argues the BBT (DE 30 14 078) does not disclose the specific spline geometry and flow structure claimed but instead discloses a substantially different structure that is a cap with localized external projections. In response, the examiner does not dispute the structure of BBT is different than the instant invention. However, as noted above the claims are only interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (emphasis added). See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that BBT does not disclose continuous flow channel structures but instead only discloses protrusion to assist in centering and does not disclose the claimed spline geometry. In response, the examiner disagrees because there is nothing claimed which precludes the area between the protrusion from anticipating the claimed flow channels and similarly there is nothing which precludes the protrusions from anticipating the claimed splines for at least the reasons as explained above in regards to Abbas.
Applicant also argue that BBT is a cap structure which is different from applicant’s collar. In response the examiner again agrees that the structure of BBT is different then instant invention but, the claims do not define any of the differences.
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 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