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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 presented via Preliminary Amendment are pending. Claims 1-9 are subject to examination in this Office action. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn (non-elected).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 6 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 19 September 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a head having a surface with a circular sector cross-section” and “the circular sector cross-section surface having an opening and the circular sector cross-section surface having a series of openings” of claim 1 and the “a head that has a circular sector surface with an opening of the circular sector portion that has a series of openings” of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1 (line 3), the term “the connection device” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1 (lines 3 and 4), the phrase “a head having a surface with a circular sector cross-section” is recited. It is unclear as to what surface this phrase is referring. Moreover, what is a circular sector cross-section? Clarification is therefore requested.
Regarding claim 1 (lines 4-6), the phrase “the circular sector cross-section surface having an opening and the circular sector cross-section surface having a series of openings” is recited. It is unclear as to what specific structure this phrase is referring. Moreover, what is the structural distinction between the recited “an opening” and “a series of openings”? Clarification is therefore requested.
Regarding claim 1 (line 6), the phrase “can be” is recited. Is this phrase intended to define a required or optional condition?
Regarding claim 1 (line 8), the phrase “can be” is recited. Is this phrase intended to define a required or optional condition?
Regarding claim 1 (line 8 and line 11), the terms “a second structural element” and “a second wooden structural element” are recited. Are these structural elements intended to be the same or different structural elements?
Regarding claim 2, to which previously recited opening is the term “the opening” referring”?
Regarding claim 2, the term “the circular sector portion” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, to what previously recited surface is the term “the surface” referring?
Regarding claim 3, to which previously recited structural element is the term “the structural element” referring”?
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “can be” is recited. Is this phrase intended to define a required or optional condition?
Regarding claim 3, what is a circular sector surface?
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “a head that has a circular sector surface with an opening of the circular sector portion that has a series of openings as receptacles for fastening means” is recited. It is unclear as to what specific structure this phrase is referring. Moreover, what is the structural distinction between the recited “an opening” and “a series of openings”? Also, is there any structural difference between these recited openings of claim 3 compared to the ones recited in claim 1? Clarification is therefore requested.
Regarding claim 3, the term “the circular sector portion” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, to which previously recited structural element is the term “the structural element” referring”?
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “can be” is recited. Is this phrase intended to define a required or optional condition?
Accordingly, the examined claims will be interpreted as best understood.
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 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by JP 2019 157430 A (cited by Applicant).
Regarding independent claim 1, as best understood, JP '430 describes a connecting device ("rope seismic unit 1") for connecting at least two structural elements, of which at least one is a wooden structural element, wherein the device (1) comprises
a head ("support 10/10A") which has a surface having a circle sector cross-section ("support plate 21"), wherein the surface having an opening (23) and a series of openings (15, 17) as seats for fastening means (19) which can be fastened in the wooden structural element (101a or 101b), and
the device comprises an element (10B) which can be fastened to a second structural element (101c or 101d) and a length-adjustable connecting element ("rope support member 41", "rope R") which is adjustable in length and comprises a bolt ("rotation support member 33"), and wherein the head (10) is laterally displaceably and rotatably connected, to an attachable element (10B) on the second wooden structural element (101c, 101d), and the head (10) comprises a seat ("shaft holes 23") for the bolt on which the connecting element (41, R) is arranged so as to be laterally displaceable, and the head (10) is connected to the second wooden structural element via the length-adjustable connecting element (41, R) with a fastenable element (paragraphs [0010]-[0029]; figures 1-3, 6 and 9).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the opening of the circular sector portion of the surface is smaller than 180° (see e.g., Figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the structural element that can be fastened to the second wooden structural element is a head that has a circular sector surface with an opening of the circular sector portion that has a series of openings as receptacles for fastening means (see e.g., Figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the structural element that can be fastened to the second wooden structural element is an anchoring element (see e.g., Figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the circular sector surface head is formed by two holes formed opposite each other in two side walls connected to the circular sector surface head (see e.g., Figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the circular sector surface head is formed at least by a hole in a side wall connected to the circular sector surface head (see e.g., Figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the connecting element is a dissipative element (see e.g., Figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the connecting element is replaceable (see e.g., Figs. 1-9).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the connecting device has an element for acoustic decoupling (see e.g., Figs. 1-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 EDT.
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 on 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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights