DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 06/10/2024. Claim(s) 1–22 are pending.
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 9 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. Specifically, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 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.
Claims 1–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0205720 to Garot et al.
With regard to claim 1, Garot disclose a refractory anchor for lining an object (abstract) comprising: (a) a mounting element (3, 32, 82) positioned in the center of the refractory anchor that is adapted for mounting the refractory anchor to the object (10) (Figs. 2 & 6; ¶¶ 0033–0034); (b) at least [two] three-anchor fin arrangements (11, 13, 16, 18) that are each directly connected to the mounting element (32, 82) by a first anchor fin (62, 64) positioned in each three-anchor fin arrangement (11, 13, 16, 18) (Fig. 2; ¶ 0034).
Garot fails to disclose at least three three-anchor fin arrangements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use three three-anchor fin arrangements, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
With regard to claim 2, Garot further discloses each three-anchor fin arrangement includes a center portion connected to the first anchor fin (62, 64), a second anchor fin (21, 23), and a third anchor fin (20, 22), wherein the first anchor fin (62, 64), the second anchor fin (21, 23), and the third anchor fin (20, 22) of each three-anchor fin arrangement radially extend away from the center portion in its respective three-anchor fin arrangement (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 3, Garot further discloses the first anchor fin (62, 64) in each three-anchor fin arrangement is positioned between and directly connected to the mounting element ( 32, 82) and the center portion of the respective three-anchor fin arrangement (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 4, Garot further discloses outermost peripheral edges of the mounting element and outermost peripheral edges of the at least three three-anchor fin arrangements define an upper surface and lower surface of the refractory anchor as well as outermost side surfaces of the second anchor fin and the third anchor fin in each three-anchor fin arrangement (Fig. 3), wherein the outermost peripheral edges of the mounting element and/or the outermost peripheral edges of the three-anchor fin arrangements define external grooves and/or external voids (30) in one of: the upper surface of the refractory anchor, the lower surface of the refractory anchor, and/or the outermost side surfaces of the second anchor fin and/or the third anchor fin in each three-anchor fin arrangement (Figs. 2–3 & 6–7).
With regard to claim 5, Garot further discloses external grooves and/or external voids (30) are present in the upper surface of the refractory anchor such that portions of the upper surface of the refractory anchor are present in different planes and are configured to facilitate flow and dispersion of liner material during application of the liner material (Figs. 2–3 & 6–7; ¶ 0036).
With regard to claim 6, Garot fails to disclose external grooves and/or external voids are present in the lower surface of the refractory anchor such that portions of the lower surface of the refractory anchor are present in different planes and are configured to facilitate flow and dispersion of liner material during application of the liner material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the grooves/voids present in the lower surface of the refractory anchor, since to shift the location of parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
With regard to claim 7, Garot fails to disclose the external grooves and/or external voids are present in the outermost side surfaces of the second anchor fin and/or the third anchor fin in each three-anchor fin arrangement such that portions of outermost side surfaces of the second anchor fin and/or the third anchor fin in each three-anchor fin arrangement of the refractory anchor are present in different planes and are configured to facilitate flow and dispersion of liner material during application of the liner material. Garot does, however, disclose the use of external grooves and/or external voids (30) present in outermost surfaces and configured to facilitate flow and dispersion of liner material during application of the liner material (Figs. 2–3 & 6–7; ¶ 0036). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have external grooves and/or external voids present in the outermost side surfaces of the second anchor fin and/or the third anchor fin in each three-anchor fin arrangement such that portions of outermost side surfaces of the second anchor fin and/or the third anchor fin in each three-anchor fin arrangement of the refractory anchor are present in different planes, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
With regard to claim 8, Garot further discloses one to nine reinforcement segments (20a, 21a, 22a, 23a) are positioned in the refractory anchor in between the upper and lower surfaces of the refractory anchor (Figs. 4 & 5; ¶ 0038).
With regard to claim 9, Garot fails to disclose at least the first anchor fin is provided with a reinforcement segment. Garot does, however, disclose the use of reinforcement segments (20a, 21a, 22a, 23a) (Figs. 4 & 5; ¶ 0038). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have at least the first anchor fin provided with a reinforcement segment, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
With regard to claim 10, Garot (as modified above) further discloses the at least three three-anchor fin arrangements are positioned such that the first anchor fins (62, 64) of the three-anchor fin arrangements (11, 13, 16, 18) are connected to the mounting element (32, 82) at an equal angle relative to one another (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 11, Garot (as modified above) further discloses the maximum dimensions of the first anchor fin (62, 64), the second anchor fin (21, 23), and the third anchor fin (20, 22) of each three-anchor fin arrangement are substantially identical (Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 12, Garot further discloses an elongated mounting pin (3) connected to the mounting element (32, 82) (Figs. 3 & 4; ¶ 0034), wherein the elongated mounting pin (3) has a first end (5) and a second end (7) opposite to the first end (5) seen in the longitudinal direction of the elongated mounting pin (3) (Fig. 3; ¶ 0034), wherein the first end (5) of the elongated mounting pin (3) is adapted to be weldable to the object (10) (¶ 0033), and at least the second end (5) of the elongated mounting pin (3) is connected to the mounting element (32, 82) (Figs. 3 & 4; ¶ 0034).
With regard to claim 13, Garot further discloses the mounting pin (3) is made from a different material than the mounting element (32, 82) and the three-anchor fin arrangements (11, 13, 16, 18) (¶ 0043).
With regard to claim 14, Garot further discloses the refractory anchor is monobloc (¶ 0043).
With regard to claim 15, Garot further discloses a plurality of refractory anchors (100) of claim 1 arranged in a tessellated pattern (Fig. 4; ¶ 0044).
With regard to claim 16, Garot further discloses an anchoring system comprising a plurality of refractory anchors of claim 1 arranged in a tessellated pattern (Fig. 4; ¶ 0044).
With regard to claim 17, Garot further discloses the refractory anchors (100) are arranged in an ordered array of substantially hexagonal cells in the tessellated pattern: (i) each hexagonal cell is part of a row and a column of the tessellated pattern (Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0016, 0044), (ii) each row comprises a set of co-linear, adjacent hexagonal cells (Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0016, 0044); and (iii) each column comprises a set of co-linear, spaced-apart hexagonal cells (Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0016, 0044), or vice versa (Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0016, 0044).
With regard to claim 18, Garot further discloses adjacent rows of the tessellated pattern at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0020, 0044), and/or adjacent columns of the tessellated pattern at least partially overlap one another (Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0020, 0044).
With regard to claim 19, Garot further discloses the hexagonal cells (604) are two-opening cells formed by an arrangement of two refractory anchors (100) proximate one another (Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0020, 0045).
With regard to claim 20, Garot further discloses (i) a first of the two refractory anchors (100) forms two sides of a hexagonal cell (604) (Fig. 4; ¶ 0045), (ii) a second of the two refractory anchors (100) forms four sides of the hexagonal cell (604) (Fig. 4; ¶ 0045), and (iii) two openings (632) are defined between the first refractory anchor (100) and second refractory anchor (100) (Fig. 4; ¶ 0045).
With regard to claim 21, Garot further discloses a method of installing the anchoring system of claim 16 on an object, such as a thermal vessel, comprising: (a) arranging a plurality of refractory anchors according to claim 1 in a tessellated pattern on the object (claim 21); and (b) mounting the mounting elements of the refractory anchors to the object (claim 21).
With regard to claim 22, Garot further discloses pouring refractory liner material into the tessellated pattern on the object (claim 22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights