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 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 1-10 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 1 recites, in line 6, “wherein anchor plate” lacking antecedent basis and should be “wherein said anchor plate”. Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,421,433 in view of U.S. Patent No. 1,761,800 to Preis et al.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12 and 13 are substantially similar to claim 17 of ‘433 as it claims a wall with anchor plate with central connection, an anchor tether (tensioning element) connected to the plate at the central location, and at the other end, connected to a joist. However, the connection between plate and tensioning element does not enable the plate to incline. Preis discloses a construction anchor having a ball and a rounded socket joint (fig. 1: 13 & 20) for walls (line 5) which allows for inclined, or angled, anchoring. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘433 by using such a joint in order to compensate for old buildings with walls not at 90 degrees.
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 16, the ball of Preis is a rounded nut (20) that is threaded to a tensioning element (23) of Preis.
Regarding claims 8, 17 and 18, the tensioning element (23) passes through the rounded element (20) nut of Preis.
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claims 8 and 17, using multiple joists.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation of a two course brick wall, this is not claimed. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art of construction to use brick for walls, one or two course, as brick is well known as being a sturdy material for walls.
Claims 11 is substantially similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, a relief is in the anchor plate (18) of Preis.
Regarding claim 15, the ball and socket of Preis has a rounded joint element (20) to engage the socket relief.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 1 of ‘433.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 0,377,940 to Hevner.
Regarding claim 1, Hevner discloses a building (fig. 2) with joists and walls (lines 44-50 and fig. 2: see walls and joists), an anchor plate (large washer, lines 44-50, fig. 8: M), a tensioning element (rod (fig. 8, lines 44-50) through the wall and is anchored to joists, fig. 8, lines 44-50), the plate and tensioning element are interconnected by a joint (fig. 8: see fastener on outside of M), allowing the plate to incline independently of the tensioning element (see inclined plate in fig. 8, and squared plate M in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the tensioning element is anchored to a beam (fig. 1: N) which extends between joists (upper and lower).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1 as the claimed components are disclosed. By Hevner.
Regarding claim 19, the tensioning element is anchored to a beam (fig. 1: N) in the building.
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) 2-8 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 0,377,940 to Hevner in view of U.S. Patent No. 1,761,800 to Preis et al.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, a ball and joint is not disclosed by Hevner. Preis discloses a construction anchor having a ball and a rounded socket joint (fig. 1: 13 & 20) for walls (line 5) which allows for inclined, or angled, anchoring. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hevner by using such a joint in order to compensate for old buildings with walls not at 90 degrees.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, a geometric center is not disclosed by Hevner. However, Hevner discloses the use of a large washer (lines 44-50). The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known, and very common, that washers are of uniform construction with an anchoring hole in the center, such as a circular washer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hevner, by using such a washer/plate since a typical washer is uniform with a central hole and would be a standard item
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Hevner in view of Preis discloses a relief (opening 18) formed into the plate (Preis fig. 1: 16).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the ball and socket joint of Preis is rounded (20)and engages the relief (opening 18).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18, the rounded element is a nut with threads in the center to engage the tensioning element therethrough.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 0,377,940 to Hevner.
Regarding claim 10, a brick wall is disclosed by Hevner, but not a two course brick wall. The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known to use two course walls of brick in order to add a central layer of insulation or matting to protect from moisture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hevner by adding an extra course of brick to better insulate the interior of the building.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 Glessner can be reached on (571)272-6754. 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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633