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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The method” should be changed to “A method”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the peripheral flange" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-7, 11, 13, 14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daly (EP 1026412).
Regarding claim 1, Daly discloses a drywall anchor 10 Fig. 1 to be introduced into a gypsum plaster board 42 in a self-drilling manner, the drywall anchor comprising a base body 12 and a drilling element 26, an external thread 22 being disposed on the base body, the base body extending from a rear end to a front end along a longitudinal axis of the drywall anchor, the base body comprising a tool holder 20 for a turning tool at the rear end thereof, and the base body including a screw channel 14, which extends from the tool holder toward the front end of the base body, and the drilling element being disposed at the front end of the base body, wherein the base body comprises at least one non-circular region (at 18) having a cross-section that includes at least three corners at the outer contour thereof, and each of the at least three corners (adjacent 16) is formed by corresponding adjacent surfaces of the base body.
Regarding claim 2, Daly discloses wherein the at least three corners form milling elements 18 for widening the drill hole.
Regarding claim 3, Daly discloses wherein that at least one milling element 18 for widening the drill hole includes a milling rib 24 that is disposed on at least one of the corners and/or between at least two neighboring corners.
Regarding claim 4, Daly discloses wherein at least two neighboring corners (adjacent 16) of the non-circular region are connected by a curve Fig. 1 forming the outer contour, which is located within an imaginary circumcircle that circumscribes all corners.
Regarding claim 5, Daly discloses wherein the curve Fig. 1 is a stretch between two neighboring corners (adjacent 16).
Regarding claim 6, Daly discloses wherein the cross-section of the non-circular region of the base body 12 is a polygonal area which is enclosed by a polygon, the polygon forming the outer contour including the at least three corners Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 7, Daly discloses wherein the outer contour of the cross-section of the non-circular region of the base body 12 is a regular polygon Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 11, Daly discloses wherein the base body 12 includes a conical outer surface proximal to a peripheral flange 20.
Regarding claim 13, Daly discloses wherein the base body 12 has at least one slit 16 extending radially through the base body and forming at least two spreading bodies 18.
Regarding claim 14, Daly discloses wherein the external thread 22 is interrupted in the region of the slit 16.
Regarding claim 16, Daly discloses wherein the drilling element 26 has an outside diameter that is smaller than the outside diameter of the non-circular region of the base body and/or in that the drilling element has a conical or truncated cone-shaped design Fig. 1, is tapered to the front toward a tip, and comprises a hollow, crucible-shaped, core bit 28 that is open to the front.
Regarding claim 17, Daly discloses a method for installing a drywall anchor 10 for creating a fastening system which comprises the drywall anchor and a gypsum plaster board 42, a drill hole being drilled into the gypsum plaster board during introduction by way of the drilling element 26, wherein material of the gypsum plaster board which is removed in the drill hole is received in a clearance between the drill hole wall and between the circumferential wall between two neighboring corners of the non-circular region of the base body 12.
Regarding claim 18, Daly discloses wherein the drilling element 26 has an outside diameter that is smaller than the outside diameter of the non-circular region of the base body 12, so that the non-circular region of the base body widens the drill hole during screwing-in by way of the corners, serving as milling elements 18, and/or at least one milling body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly.
Regarding claim 7, Daly discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the outer contour of the cross-section of the non-circular region of the base body is a regular polygon. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 8, Daly discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the outer contour of the cross-section of the non-circular region of the base body is a hexagon. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Regarding claim 9, Daly discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the non-circular region of the base body includes a prism. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed element was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In view of a review of the prior art by the Examiner; the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all of the claimed subject matter of claim 12 including where the curve is curved at least in sections concavely to the inside toward the longitudinal axis. There is no motivation to modify the prior art references, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE G BYRD whose telephone number is (571)270-1824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 5712727376. 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.
/EUGENE G BYRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights