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 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 6,022,177) in view of the article “Low cycle ductile performance of screws used in timber structures” by Metteo Izzi and Andrea Polastri. Hofer discloses a masonry cavity wall tie (1) comprising a shank with a tip and a head (5) at an opposite distal ends; the shank including a first shank portion (2) extending from a first end at the tip to a second end at a first end, a second shank portion (3) extending from a first end at the second end of the first shank portion to a second end, and a third shank portion (4) extending from a first end at the second end of the second shank portion; the first shank portion having a helical thread with a first core diameter, the second shank portion being unthreaded with a second core diameter and the third shank portion having a third core diameter equal; the first and third core diameters are the same while the second core diameter is greater as clearly shown in the figures; and the second portion has a length which is about 28% the length of the wall tie; the second thread portion is provided the notches (9); the first thread portion is provide notches (“sawtooth-like thread turn” top of column 4); wherein while the wall tie of Hofer is intended to be used with wood, the masonry wythes are only are only claimed as an intended use for the wall tie of which Hofer would be capable of. (MPEP 2114.II).
Hofer is silent on the material to reach a bending angle under complete three repeated cycles without rupture of between about 12.5° and 26°. The article by Izzi discloses a 10B21 steel would have a bending angle under complete three repeated cycles without rupture of up to 45° (sections 3 and 4; particularly section 4.1, Figs. 8-10) which is inclusive of the claimed range. 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 masonry fastener of Hofer out of a 10B21 steel in order for it to have a ductility to satisfy the new seismic provisions as discussed in Izzi.
Hofer does not disclose the diameter of the wall tie to be 6mm nor the length of the second shank portion to be between 60-90mm. Hofer does however disclose the wall tie can be made in different sizes (column 3, lines 61-65). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious matter of design choice to make the fastener of Hofer to within the claimed range depending on the design requirements where the fastener is being used. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. Indeed, it is also well known to make fasteners in different sizes for different uses.
The masonry being a clay brick or stone with a compression strength of less than 35MPa is recitation of intended use since the claims are directed to the fastener and the screw of modified Hofer would be capable of the intended use. See MPEP 2114.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer in view of Izzi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu (US 2013/0058735). Yu discloses a wall tie having a spacing between the threads of 5-20 mm (p.[0023]) which is inclusive of the claimed range. 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 thread portions of modified Hofer with a thread spacing of about 6 mm as included in the range disclosed in Yu because both are from the same field of endeavor where the modification would yield predictable results.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection. Basically the reference to Willis has been replaced with the reference to Hofer since Hofer shows the second core diameter to be larger than the first and third and is for use as a wall tie where the bending angle over repeated cycles without failure would be more relevant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited are of general interest to the disclosure but not with valid dates to be prior art.
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 3677