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 .
Response to Restriction
The Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant has elected the species found in figure 8 corresponding to claims 1-7, 9-13. Claim 14 and its dependents will not be examined as the limitation of “the drive head having a transverse bore therethrough, and the upper end of the shaft extending laterally relative to the longitudinal axis and being received in the transverse bore” refers to the embodiment of figures 2-4. Neither will claim 8 for similar reasons.
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) 1-7, 9-10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (US Pub. 10,077,893 B1) in view of Ondrejka (US Pub. 3,332,183).
Regarding claim 1, Abraham discloses a screw-type ground anchor (Abstract, lines 1-3: “A ground anchor (10) comprising an anchor shaft (11) and an anchoring screw (13) moulded onto the anchoring shaft adjacent the lower end thereof”) comprising:
a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 2B, shaft 135), the shaft comprising a screw section configured to drive the shaft along the longitudinal axis into the ground when rotated about the longitudinal axis in a first direction (Fig. 2B, plate 130);
a drive head disposed at an upper end of the shaft and axially aligned with the longitudinal axis, the drive head configured to receive a rotational drive for rotating the shaft in the first direction (Fig. 2B, first end 105).
However, Abraham fails to disclose as taught by Ondrejka, similarly drawn to a ground anchor, the drive head having a transverse bore therethrough that is transverse to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6, bore through which the bolt attaching the shackle 43 to the anchor is received);
a pivot pin received in the transverse bore of the drive head (Fig. 6, bolt attaching shackle 43 to the anchor);
and a lay-flat shackle rotatably coupled to the drive head with the pivot pin, the lay-flat shackle being operable to rotate about the pivot pin so as to enable the lay-flat shackle to rotate between an upright position extending generally along the longitudinal axis to a lay-flat position extending generally transverse to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6, shackle 43).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor of Abraham to comprise the pin and shackle through a transverse bore hole as taught by Ondrejka to allow for attachment of cables to the anchor.
Regarding claim 2, Abraham as modified by Ondrejka discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Abraham, wherein the drive head comprises a nut (Fig. 2B, first end 105 is a nut with a hex-shaped head) having a central bore that is threaded (Fig. 2B, threading 180).
Regarding claim 3, Abraham as modified by Ondrejka discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Abraham, wherein the nut comprises a hex nut (Fig. 2B, first end 105 is a nut with a hex-shaped head).
Regarding claim 4, Abraham as modified by Ondrejka discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Ondrejka, wherein the lay-flat shackle comprises a D-ring shackle (Fig. 6, shackle 43 is substantially in the shape of a d-ring shackle).
Regarding claim 5, Abraham as modified by Ondrejka discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Ondrejka, wherein the pivot pin is coupled to the lay-flat shackle at a first end of the D-ring shackle and at a second end of the D-ring shackle (Fig. 6, a bolt attaches to the shackle 43 at two locations).
Regarding claim 6, Abraham as modified by Ondrejka discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Ondrejka, wherein the D-ring shackle includes a first bore at the first end thereof and a second bore at the second end thereof, and wherein the pivot pin extends through the first bore and the second bore (Fig. 6, bolt penetrates the shackle 43 at two locations).
Regarding claim 7, Abraham as modified by Ondrejka discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Ondrejka, wherein at least one of the first bore and the second bore is a threaded bore, and wherein the pivot pin includes threads that are threadedly received within the threaded bore (Fig. 6, the bolt that penetrates shackle 43 is shown to have threading).
Regarding claim 9, Abraham as modified by Ondrejka discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Ondrejka, wherein the pivot pin is located at an upper portion of the drive head (Fig. 6, bolt that attaches to shackle 43), and as taught by Abraham, the drive head includes a central bore axially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the shaft (Fig. 2B, first end 105 comprises a threaded central bore through the longitudinal axis of the anchor), and the upper end of the shaft is coaxial with the longitudinal axis and received in the central bore (Fig. 2B, shaft 135 is received into the first end 105).
Regarding claim 10, Abraham as modified by Ondrejka discloses the claimed invention in addition to wherein the lay-flat shackle (Ondrejka, Fig. 6, shackle 43 is directly coupled to the top portion of the anchor) and the shaft (Fig. 2B, shaft 135 is directly coupled to the first end 105) are each individually and directly coupled to the drive head without any intervening components therebetween.
Regarding claim 12, Abraham as modified by Ondrejka discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Abraham, wherein the screw section is a helical, spiral, or corkscrew shape revolving about the longitudinal axis of the anchor (Fig. 2B, plate 130 is helical).
Regarding claim 13, Abraham as modified by Ondrejka discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Abraham, wherein the shaft is a straight shaft that defines the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2B, shaft 135 is linear), and the screw section is in the form of an auger attached to and spiraling about the shaft (Fig. 2B, plate 130 is an auger and encircles the shaft).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (US Pub. 10,077,893 B1) in view of Ondrejka (US Pub. 3,332,183), and further in view of Sullivan (US Pub. 3,148,510).
Regarding claim 11, Abraham as modified by Ondrejka discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Sullivan, similarly drawn to a method of installing earth anchors, wherein the anchor has a single weld, and the single weld joins the shaft and the drive head (Col. 2, lines 48-50: “The upper end of the tube 17, by threading 24 and welding 25, is affixed to a latch-supporting body 21”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor of Abraham in view of to Ondrejka to comprise welded joint of Sullivan as a permanent attachment means.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642