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.
Claims 1-7 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 1 recites “bodies” and “body” and “base” and “bases” using inconsistent singular and plural terms causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention. It is unclear if there are one or more than one and how the one or more than one are structurally related.
Claim 5 recites “a second component, which comprises at least one wooden part”, it is unclear if this is the same as or in addition to “the second component has at least one layer of wood” previously recited in lines 2-3 of claim 5 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 appears to recite redundant structure with claim 1, it is unclear if the second recitations in claim 6 are the same as on in addition to the same structure recited in claim 1 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “a hardening filling material for filling the hollow bodies” it is unclear if this is the same as or in addition to the “reinforced concrete, mortar, or concrete is placed in the hollow body” previously recited in claim 1 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuska (3599379) in view of Chiodo (5307603).
Claim 1. Tuska discloses a connection system for connecting at least two components with a connecting device, at least two tubular or rectangular hollow bodies (10 or 10’ or 60 where there are at least two as seen in figure 4) made of metal or plastic, suitable to be inserted into a form, in which concrete (71), mortar, or cement is poured, the hollow bodies form a seat for inserting a respective base (such as 17 or 67 or 46 as seen in the various embodiments of the figures) of the connecting device, the hollow body has a horizontal cross section that is at least larger than the horizontal cross section of the bases (as seen in the figures), which are inserted into the hollow body and reinforced concrete, mortar (73), or concrete is placed in the hollow body connecting the base to a plate (15 or 69 or 89 of 51 or 31) and/or an angle and the plate and/or the angle having holes (37 or 16) or connecting elements (as seen in the figures) for connecting the plate and/or the angle to a second component (as seen in the figures).
Tuska does not expressly disclose that the horizontal cross section is at least 10mm larger than the horizontal cross section of the bases; or
the plate and/or the angle connecting to a second component having at least one wooden part.
Chiodo discloses at connection system having at least two bases (48) in concrete figures 3-5) where the base connects to a plate and/or an angle (10 and/or 30 and/or 46 and/or 44), the plate and/or the angle having holes (as seen in figures 1-2, such as at 62,54,66,52) or connecting elements (in an alternative 44/56) for connecting the plate and/or the angle to a second component having at least one wooden part (12, as seen in figures 3-5).
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 system of Tuska to the connection device and plate and/or angle connect to a second component having at least one wooden part to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching a wood structure, commonly used in construction, to a concrete structure, also commonly used in construction, without requiring drilling into the concrete, thus avoiding potential damage or obstruction from existing reinforcement in the concrete.
Tuska does not expressly disclose that the horizontal cross section is at least 10mm larger than the horizontal cross section of the bases, but does disclose that it is larger.
Tuska is silent regarding (the dimensions of the hollow bodies relative to the bases. However, the horizontal cross section is larger as seen in the figures. Applicant has not disclosed that having the hollow body horizontal cross section at least 10mm larger than the horizontal cross section of the bases solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the hollow bodies of Tuska, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with a variety of larger 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 have modified Tuska such that the hollow body horizontal cross section at least 10mm larger than the horizontal cross section of the bases because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Tuska.
Further it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the hollow bodies of Tuska to have the hollow body horizontal cross section at least 10mm larger than the horizontal cross section of the bases, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious for at least the reason of providing space for the grout or mortar to create a secure embedment of the bases in the hollow bodies.
Claim 2. The connection system according to claim 1, wherein the hollow bodies have a corrugated and/or wrinkled outer surface and/or anchoring elements (where there are anchoring element at the lower flared end as seen in the annotated figure and or at 64/65 of Tuska).
Claim 3. The connection system according to claim 1 wherein the hollow bodies have a corrugated and/or wrinkled inner surface and/or with anchoring elements (where there are anchoring element at the lower flared end as seen in the annotated figure and or at 64/65 of Tuska).
Claim 4. The connection system according to claim 1, wherein the connection device has two bases (as seen in the figures of Chiodo and noted in claim 1 above) and an angle (such as 44/56 and 50) with at least two different mounting positions between the bases and the angle in order to adjust their position according to-the components (where 50 can be mounted at various heights, including at least two, relative to the bases).
Claim 5. Tuska discloses a method for connecting at least two components, of which a first component (71) consists of concrete, and the second component (15 or 69 or 89 of 51 or 31), comprising the following steps:
a) arranging a form and inserting at least two hollow bodies (10 or 10’ or 60);
b) placing the first component made of concrete adjacent the hollow bodies (as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure);
c) inserting a base (17 or 67) of connecting devices into the interior of the hollow bodies;
d) fixing the connecting devices in the correct final position using temporary aids and/or partial casting with hardening filling material (73, where at some point during the process the hollow bodies are partially filled);
e) connecting the connecting devices to a second component which comprises at least one part (as seen in the figures) positioning the connecting devices with the second component in its final position,
f) filling the hollow bodies with a hardening filling material (73), and or
f1) positioning wooden block levelling elements.
Tuska does not expressly disclose the second component has at least one layer of wood or a second component which comprises at least one wooden part.
Chiodo discloses at connection system having at least two bases (48) in concrete figures 3-5) where the base connects to a plate and/or an angle (10 and/or 30 and/or 46 and/or 44), the plate and/or the angle having holes (as seen in figures 1-2, such as at 62,54,66,52) or connecting elements (in an alternative 44/56) for connecting the plate and/or the angle to a second component having at least one wooden part (12, as seen in figures 3-5).
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 system of Tuska to the connection device and plate and/or angle connect to a second component having at least one wooden part to achieve the predictable result of securely attaching a wood structure, commonly used in construction, to a concrete structure, also commonly used in construction, without requiring drilling into the concrete, thus avoiding potential damage or obstruction from existing reinforcement in the concrete.
Claim 6. A kit for producing a connection system according claim 1, wherein it comprises at least two hollow bodies (as noted in claim 1 above), a connecting device (as noted in claim 1 above) with at least two bases (as noted in claim 1 above) and a plate and/or an angle (as noted in claim 1 above).
Claim 7. The kit according to claim 6, wherein it also comprises a hardening filling material (73) for filling the hollow bodies.
Conclusion
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