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 § 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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDuff et al., US20090003962 (hereinafter, McDuff) in view of Panasik US6884012 (hereinafter, Panasik).
Regarding claim 1, McDuff teaches an anchor assembly (see Fig. 17) similar to a single component hollow structure anchor comprising:
a cylindrical shaped main body 400;
an aperture 222 for receiving a screw 218 within the cylindrical main body;
a part 231 perpendicular to the aperture at one end of the cylindrical shaped main body (see Fig. 17);
at least one protruding element 414 to resist movement in both lateral and rotational direction when inserted within a bore hole of similar diameter to that of the main cylindrical body; and
McDuff fails to expressly teach wherein the cylindrical shaped main body designed to not protrude beyond the front face of a board structure when installed.
Panasik teaches a similar toggle bolt assembly where the cylindrical shaped main body is designed to not protrude beyond the front face of a board structure when installed (see claims 11 and 21).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the main body of the fastener flushed with the board structure when installed as taught by Panasik for practical reasons, like outward expansion is minimal during insertion of the screw, maximizes the anchor’s grip and prevents the anchor being easily pull or pushed during installation.
Regarding claim 2, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1 defining a feature (see 412 in McDuff Fig. 17) to increase strength between the cylindrical shaped main body and the perpendicular part (see para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 3, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1 defining a protruding feature (see 328 in McDuff Fig. 17) on the upper surface of the part perpendicular to the aperture.
Regarding claim 4, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1 defining a protruding element 414 on a cylindrical surface of the main body 400.
Regarding claim 5, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1 wherein;
the cylindrically shaped main body 400 is cylindrically shaped only in an upper section (see cylindrical shaped body adjacent to protruding elements 412) thereof due to part of the cylindrical shape being removed in lower section thereof (see bottom portion 224, 226).
Regarding claim 6, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1 wherein:
the part 231 perpendicular to the aperture is reduced in size at the end furthest from the main body (see Fig. 17 where the part 231 is thinner furthest from the main body 400).
Regarding claim 7, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein; the part perpendicular to the aperture is less in width to that of a diameter of the main body.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the diameter of the main body as disclosed by in order to accommodate the size of the drywall or the screw, 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 8, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1 wherein McDuff further teaches the main body defining an extended feature (see extended features 414 in either side of the main body 400) around the cylindrical shaped part of the main body.
Regarding claim 9, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1 wherein the aperture defines threading (see claim 21).
Regarding claim 10, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1 wherein the aperture 222 defines a bore shape other than that of a cylindrical bore shape (see Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 11, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein an upper part of the aperture defines an annual chamfer.
However, changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of the criticality of the specific shape in Figs. 15-17. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the upper part of the aperture to be an annular chamfer as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Regarding claim 13, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1 wherein:
a first single component anchor 400 is pivotally connected to a second single component anchor 231;
the first and second component anchors defining interconnecting shapes to enable the apertures of each component anchor to align when rotated (see Figs. 16-17 showing aperture interconnected and aligned when rotated);
the first and second component anchors defining shapes to allow the first component
anchor to rotate a minimum of 90 degrees relative to the second component anchor (see Figs. 15-17).
Regarding claim 14, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1 wherein: the part 231 perpendicular to the aperture is between that of 90 and 1 degrees relative to the aperture (see Figs. 15-17 showing the part is 90 degrees relative to the aperture).
Regarding claim 15, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1 wherein: the part 231 perpendicular to the aperture is between that of 90 and 179 degrees in relation to the aperture (see Figs. 15-17 showing the part is 90 degrees relative to the aperture).
Regarding claim 16, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein: the part perpendicular to the aperture has a longer dimension to that of the length of the cylindrical shaped main body.
However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the part to have longer dimension to that of the length of the main body in order to effectively retain the anchor in the drywall, 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 17, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the cylindrical shaped main body has an external measurement of anywhere between 0-1000mm.
However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the main body measurement anywhere between 0-1000mm, 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. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDuff in view of Panasik, in further view of Wallace US6371706 (hereinafter, Wallace).
Regarding claim 12, McDuff in view of Panasik teaches and/or make obvious of the anchor according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the cylindrical shaped main body defines a means to alter its external shape when a screw is inserted within the aperture.
Wallace teaches a hammer-in expansion fastener having a cylindrical main body 10 defines a means 4 to alter its external shape when a screw is inserted within the aperture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the main body of McDuff to have a means to alter its shape as taught by Wallace for the screw is retained in the bore of the main body fixing the anchor to the plaster board as intended.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO0025030 (P. MCDUFF) discloses a hook anchor assembly for use with hollow panels having head portion, elbow portion and a pointed distal end (see Figs. 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights