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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,129,880. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Please Note that Claim 1 is also a broad version of Claim 1 of 12,129,880 and could be rejected as being an obvious type double patenting rejection.
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, from Claim 19, the thicknesses of the at least one elongated member and its respective spoon being the same 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.
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 19 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.
Claim 19 recites “wherein thicknesses of at least one of the elongate members and its respective spoon are the same.” However, the figures (Figures 9 and 10) and the specification both show and discuss the thicknesses of the elongated members and the respective spoons and state that those thicknesses are different and not the same. Therefore, it appears that this claim is drafted in error with a typo and should rather state that the thicknesses are “not the same.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 9,255,594 to Cabrit et al. (Cabrit).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt, comprising: a base (See Annotated Fig. A); a plurality of elongate members (See Annotated Fig. A) extending distally from the base, the elongate members distally terminating in respective spoons (See Annotated Fig. A), at least one of the elongate members being integrally formed (See generally Annotated Fig. A) together with its respective spoon as a single piece of material; and a central shaft member (See Annotated Fig. A) extending between the elongate members and terminating in a wedge member (See Annotated Fig. A), the spoons defining a cavity (See Annotated Fig. A) for receiving the wedge member, the elongate members structured to move outwardly in response to the wedge member moving into the cavity. (See Col. 7, lines 27-46)
Regarding Claim 2: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt of claim 1, wherein the wedge member has a frustoconical shape (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claims 3 and 16: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt wherein the central shaft member is rigid. (See Col. 3, line 53)
Regarding Claim 4: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt of claim 1, wherein the central shaft member (See Annotated Fig. A) including the wedge member (See Annotated Fig. A) are integrally formed together. (See generally Annotated Fig. A)
Regarding Claim 5: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt wherein thicknesses of at least one of the elongate members and its respective spoon are the same. (See generally Annotated Fig. A)
Regarding Claim 6: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt of claim 1, further comprising: a biasing member (3) structured to bias the plurality of elongate members relative to the central shaft member. Note that the biasing member (3) of Cabrit biases the elongate members via the wedge portion applying an expanding force to the spoons.
Regarding Claim 7: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt of claim 6, wherein the biasing member is a spring (3).
Regarding Claim 8: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt of claim 6, further comprising: a cap (See Annotated Fig. A) disposed around the central shaft member, wherein the expansion bolt is structured such that applying a first force in a first direction to the central shaft member and applying a second force in a second direction opposite the first direction to the cap causes the biasing member to compress. (See Col. 7, lines 27-46)
Regarding Claim 9: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt of claim 1, wherein an inner surfaces of at least one of the spoons has a radial curvature. (See generally Annotated Fig. A)
Regarding Claim 13: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt of claim 1, wherein the central shaft member includes a first cylindrical portion (See Annotated Fig. A) having a first diameter and a second cylindrical portion (See Annotated Fig. A) having a second diameter less than the first diameter.
Regarding Claim 14: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt, comprising: a base (See Annotated Fig. A); a plurality of elongate members (See Annotated Fig. A) extending distally from the base, the elongate members distally terminating in respective spoons (See Annotated Fig. A), wherein the elongate members and their respective spoons are rigid; a central shaft member (See Annotated Fig. A) extending between the elongate members and terminating in a wedge member (See Annotated Fig. A); and a biasing member (3), wherein the expansion bolt has a first configuration in which the spoons are proximal to a widest point of the wedge member causing the elongate members to move outwardly, and a second configuration in which the widest point of the wedge member extends beyond a distal end of the spoons, and wherein the biasing member is structured to bias the expansion bolt toward the first configuration. (See Col. 7, lines 27-46)
Regarding Claim 15: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt further comprising: a cap (See Annotated Fig. A) disposed around the central shaft member, wherein the expansion bolt is structured such that applying a first force in a first direction to the central shaft member and applying a second force in a second direction opposite the first direction to the cap causes the expansion bolt to move to the second configuration. (See Col. 7, lines 27-46)
Regarding Claim 17: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt wherein the plurality of elongate members includes a first elongate member (See Annotated Fig. A) distally terminating in a respective first spoon (See Annotated Fig. A), wherein the first elongate member and the respective first spoon are integrally formed together. (See generally Annotated Fig. A)
Regarding Claim 19: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt of claim 14, wherein thicknesses of at least one of the elongate members and its respective spoon are the same. (See generally Annotated Fig. A)
Regarding Claim 20: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt, comprising: a base (See Annotated Fig. A); a plurality of elongate members (See Annotated Fig. A) extending distally from the base, the elongate members distally terminating in respective spoons (See Annotated Fig. A); a rigid central shaft member (See Annotated Fig. A) extending between the elongate members and terminating in a wedge member (See Annotated Fig. A); and wherein the elongate members and spoons are structured to move relative to the central shaft member between a first configuration in which the wedge member causes the spoons to move outwardly, and a second configuration in which the wedge member does not cause the spoons to move outwardly, wherein a diameter measured radially from a longitudinal axis of the central shaft member to outer surfaces of the spoons is greater in the first configuration than in the second configuration. (See Col. 7, lines 27-46)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabrit.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11: Cabrit discloses a first and second elongated member equally spaced around the central shaft member but does not disclose a third elongate member. Nonetheless, modifying Cabrit to include a third elongate member would be merely a duplication of parts and would have been obvious, here is why.
Courts have held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”1 Here, Spielmann discloses a device wherein said cable ladder includes one cable (27) with a plurality of rungs (28) at even distances. Duplicating the essential working part of the elongate member such that three elongate members extend from the base would provide additional strength and stability of the expansion bolt without producing any new and unexpected results. As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of invention to duplicate the essential working cable to provide three elongate members equally spaced around the central shaft to provide additional strength and stability of the expansion bolt.
Claim(s) 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabrit in view of US Patent App. No. 2019/0047828 to Connell et al. (Connell).
Regarding Claims 12 and 18: Cabrit discloses an expansion bolt comprising a ring element attached to the central shaft member (See Col. 7, lines 55-58). Cabrit does not disclose that the ring element is swivelly attached. However, Connell teaches an expansion bolt (500) further comprising: a ring element swivelly attached (See generally Figure 8 and para. 0082) to the central shaft member (720), to allow for swivelling the ring element about a longitudinal axis of the central shaft member. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Cabrit by using a swivelly attached ring element similar to that taught by Connell to enable a user to easily attach the anchor to a supporting cable or hook.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 20090056267, 10478645, 3352193, 8894329.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
1 See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).