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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 10/1/25. Accordingly the application has been amended.
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.
Claim 23 and all claims depending therefrom 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.
Claim 23 recites “further comprising matting”, it is unclear if this is the same as or in addition to the matting previously recited in claim 1, from which this claim ultimately depends or incorporates. Therefore the scope of the claimed invention is unclear. The claim will be examined as best understood in light of the specification and drawings where it is considered to be the same as the matting of claim 1. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
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) 1-23,26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (10077893) in view of Koerner (4610568).
Claim 1. Abraham discloses an assembly comprising:
A plurality of pegs (100/275) for securing matting to the ground (where it is capable of securing matting to the ground),
Wherein each peg of the plurality of pegs has a longitudinal axis,
Wherein each peg of the plurality of pegs comprises:
a shaft (135) extending between a first end (105) and a second end (110) along the longitudinal axis, the shaft having a length from the first end to the second end; and
a head portion (170) extending radially outwardly from the first end of the shaft, wherein the head portion comprises a contact surface, from which the shaft extends, for contacting the matting and holding the matting against the ground, the contact surface extending around a periphery of the shaft (as seen in figure 2c),
wherein the shaft comprises first and second threaded portions (130 and 280 as seen in figure 2C and noted throughout the disclosure) and first and second non-threaded portions (as seen in figure 2 C), each threaded portion having a screw-thread and being spaced apart from an adjacent threaded portion by a non-threaded portion (as noted in the figure 2C and throughout the disclosure),
wherein the first non-threaded portion extends from the second end (at 110 as seen in the figure 2C),
wherein the second non-threaded portion extends between the first and second threaded portions (as seen in figure 2 C), and
wherein each peg of the plurality of pegs is screwed into the ground at a respective location so that each peg is spaced apart from an adjacent peg.
Abraham does not disclose that each of the pegs is screwed into matting.
Koerner discloses that it is desirable to secure a matting to a specific location on the ground by having pegs driven into the matting at a respective location so that each peg is spaced apart from an adjacent peg.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options modify the assembly of Abraham to include a matting to be secured to a desired location on the ground wherein each peg of Abraham is screwed into the matting at a respective location so that each peg is spaced apart from an adjacent peg (as taught by Koerner) to achieve the predictable result of ground stabilization system that can easily be secured to the ground with easy while providing a stable anchor able to penetrate various ground conditions.
Claim 3. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the length of the shaft is between 10 cm and 50 cm (as noted at least at col. 11, lines 57-65).
Claim 4. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the first non-threaded portion of the shaft has a length of more than 1/8th of the length of the shaft (as seen in figure 2C and noted at least at col. 14, lines 58 where it can be up to 35% which is more than 1/8 of the length of the shaft).
Claim 9. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the contact surface is a planar surface (as seen in figure 2C).
Claim 10. The assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the threaded portions form the same helix (as seen in figure 2C and noted at col. 14, line 47-col. 16, line 45).
Claim 11. The assembly of claim 1, wherein each threaded portion has a length between 1/10th and 9/10th of the length of the shaft (col. 14, line 57-62).
Claim 12. The assembly of claim 1, further comprising a third non-threaded portion that extends from the first end of the shaft (as seen in at least figure 2c).
Claim 13. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the peg is formed of a plastic (col. 18, lines 15-29).
Claim 14. The assembly of claim 1, wherein each threaded portion has a thread height of at least 2 mm (as noted at col. 16, line 55).
Claim 15. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the first non-threaded portion comprises at least one cutting edge (the point) proximal to the second end.
Claim 16. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the second end is formed as a point (as seen in figure 2c).
Claim 17. The assembly of claim 1, wherein the head portion comprises peg engagement means (120 and/or 125) for engaging with a drive tool.
Claim 18. The assembly of claim 17, wherein the peg engagement means comprises one or more protrusions (where 120 protrudes above 170 and 125 comprises threads that protrude).
Claim 19. Abraham discloses a kit of parts (col. 53) comprising:
the assembly of claim 17 (as noted above); and wherein the drive tool comprises a drive tool engagement means configured to engage with the peg engagement means (as noted in the figures and throughout the disclosure and at least at col. 33, lines 55-57; col. 36-37; col. 42, lines 63-67).
Claim 20. The kit of parts of claim 19, wherein the peg engagement means and the drive tool engagement means are configured so that the peg engagement means and the drive tool engagement means form a clearance fit.
Claim 21. The kit of parts of claim 19, wherein the drive tool comprises a cavity configured to circumferentially engage with the head portion of the peg, where the cavity and the head portion form an interference fit (as noted in the disclosure and figures).
Claim 22. The kit of parts of claim 20, further comprising a drill, wherein the drive tool is configured to attach to the drill so that the drive tool rotates when the drill is operated (Col. 25,lines 30-35).
Claim 23. The kit of parts of claim 20, further comprising matting (as noted at least at col. 22, line 67; col. 26, lines 38-55; col. 31, line 23; col. 34, line 4-8; where a net is considered to be matting or alternatively as noted in the combination with Koerner in claim 1 above).
Claims 2,5,6. Abraham in view of Koerner discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein at least part of the first non-threaded portion (of the shaft) is tapered along the longitudinal axis (col. 12, lines 31-42) at an angle (Col. 12, lines 31-42), that increases from the first end to the second end (claim 6), but does not expressly disclose an angle of between 0.2 and 15 degrees (claim 2),or by between 1 and 20 degrees (claim 6) or wherein the shaft is tapered along more than 1/4 of the length of the shaft (claim 5). Rather Abraham discloses that the angle and length may be selected to facilitation position the anchor into a specific location (col. 12).
Applicant has not disclosed that having taper extend at a specific angle or length solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the taper of Abraham, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with the taper extending at any angle or length. It is noted that applicants disclosure suggests optimizing the specific dimensions of the taper to accommodate specific installations.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Abraham such that the taper on the anchor shaft extended at an angle between 0.2 and 15 degrees or by between 1 and 20 degrees and a length of more than ¼ of the length of the shaft because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Abraham.
Claims 7,8. Abraham in view of Koerner discloses the assembly of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the head portion has a diameter that is more than 3 cm, and wherein the first end of the shaft has a diameter that is less than 2 cm or wherein the contact surface comprises a surface area of more than 3 cm2. Abraham does disclose throughout that the specific dimensions of the elements of the anchor may be selected to accommodate particular ground installation conditions.
Applicant has not disclosed that the head portion has a diameter that is more than 3 cm, and wherein the first end of the shaft has a diameter that is less than 2 cm or wherein the contact surface comprises a surface area of more than 3 cm2 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the anchor of Abraham, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with the various dimensions.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and have modified Abraham such that the head portion has a diameter that is more than 3 cm, and wherein the first end of the shaft has a diameter that is less than 2 cm or wherein the contact surface comprises a surface area of more than 3 cm2 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Abraham.
Claim 26. Abraham in view of Koerner disclose a method of securing a matting to the ground using the assembly of claim 1, wherein the method comprises: rotating the peg so that the screw-thread of the peg is screwed into the ground, wherein the peg is rotated until the contact surface contacts the ground and holds the object against the ground.
Abraham does not expressly disclose the method of placing matting on the ground; engaging the second end of the shaft with the matting; and rotating the peg so that the screw-thread of the peg is screwed through the matting into the ground, wherein the peg is rotated until the contact surface contacts the matting and holds the matting against the ground.
Koerner discloses a method of securing matting to the ground by placing matting on the ground; engaging the second end of the anchor with the matting; and so that the peg is inserted through the matting into the ground until the contact surface contacts the matting and holds the matting against the ground (as noted throughout the disclosure and figures).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the method and assembly of Abraham to including a matting secured to the ground by the anchor of Abraham whereby the resulting method includes: placing the matting on the ground; engaging the second end of the shaft with the matting; and rotating the peg so that the screw-thread of the peg is screwed through the matting into the ground, wherein the peg is rotated until the contact surface contacts the matting and holds the matting against the ground, to achieve the predictable result of ground stabilization system that can easily be secured to the ground with easy while providing a stable anchor able to penetrate various ground conditions.
Claim 27. The method of claim 26, wherein the head portion of the peg further comprises peg engagement means (120 and/or 125), wherein the method further comprises: engaging a drive tool with the peg (as noted throughout Abraham and in the claims above); and rotating the drive tool so that the peg is screwed through the matting into the ground (as noted throughout Abraham).
Claim 28. The method of claim 27, wherein the method further comprises: attaching the drive tool to a drill (col. 25, lines 32); and operating the drill to rotate the drive tool (as noted throughout Abraham).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the anchors of Abraham would be entirely unsuitable for holding the matting of Koerner since the thread of Abraham would require a large hole in the matting and therefrom the flange would readily pass through the hold and could not reliably restrain the matting where the hold is formed and thus could not hold it to the ground. Further applicant asserts that modification to Abraham necessary to achieve the features of claim 1 would change the principal of operation of Abraham and further submits one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would not look to Koerner to modify Abraham because they solve different problems in different ways. This is not persuasive.
It is noted at least at Col. 14-16 of Abraham that the diameter and dimensions of the parts of the peg anchor may be modified to achieve desired functionalities. For example at col. 14-15 it is noted that the diameter of the plate 130 can be made smaller. Further in col 22 Abraham discloses that it is suitable to use a washer with the flange 170, and in cols 17-18 that the flange 170 may be positioned at the top surface of the ground. Abraham does not provide criticality to the dimensions of the flange 170 or the plate 130 beyond optimizing them for an intended use. Further Abraham does not require or suggest a specified ratio or dimension difference between the flange 170 and the plate 130. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed upon reviewing Abraham would understand the dimensions, including diameter, to be modifiable to optimize an intended installation where Abraham very clearly states that the anchor is for securing an object to a location, and does not limit or preclude the objects or the locations. Thus Applicants argument that modifications to Abraham necessary to achieve the features of claim 1 would change the principal of operation of Abraham are not persuasive as Abraham teaches such modifications as possible options to optimize installations.
In response to Applicants remarks that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would not look to Koerner to modify Abraham because they solve different problems in different ways. Abraham addresses anchoring objects to the ground using anchors. Koerner also addresses anchoring objects to the ground using anchors. Thus applicants arguments are not persuasive. The fact that Abraham also teaches additional options of adding connecting structures to the anchors does not mean that Abraham solves a different problem. Both references seek to attach structures (including netting) above ground to the ground surface via an anchor, thus they are reasonably pertinent to each other, and dot applicants particular problem and filed of endeavor.
Conclusion
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 JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 Mattei can be reached at 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 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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635