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
This correspondence is in response to Applicant’s Reply filed on 4/9/2026. Claims 5, 12, 18 and 19 are canceled and Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17 and 20 are pending. THIS ACTION HAS BEEN MADE FINAL.
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) 1-4, 9-11, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,171,322 to Kaplan (Kaplan) in view of US Patent No. 10,450,174 to Kucinic et al. (Kucinic).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Kaplan discloses an expansion bolt (See Annotated Fig. A), 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 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; a housing (See Annotated Fig. A) disposed around the central shaft member (See Annotated Fig. A) and including a continuously cylindrical outer surface (See Annotated Fig. A)--.
Kaplan does not disclose a ring element; however, Kucinic teaches a ring element (10) supported by the housing (See Annotated Fig. A) and configured to swivel about a longitudinal axis of the central shaft member (See Annotated Fig. A). 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 Kaplan by using a swivelling ring element similar to that taught by Kucinic to enable the ring element to swivel and adjust the orientation of the force vector from the load so the load is appropriately applied to the central shaft. Doing so would enable the device to carry heavier loads.
Regarding Claim 2: Kaplan discloses an expansion bolt of claim 1, wherein the wedge member (See Annotated Fig. A) has a frustoconical shape.
Regarding Claim 3: Kaplan discloses an expansion bolt of claim 1, wherein the central shaft member (See Annotated Fig. A) is rigid.
Regarding Claim 4: Kaplan 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 Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 9: Kaplan discloses an expansion bolt of claim 1, wherein an inner surfaces (See Annotated Fig. A) of at least one of the spoons has a radial curvature (See Annotated Fig. A).
Regarding Claim 10: Kaplan discloses an expansion bolt of claim 1, wherein the plurality of elongate members (See Annotated Fig. A) includes: a first elongate member; a second elongate member; and a third elongate member. (See generally Annotated Fig. A – see the cross-sectional view that shows three “spoons” and thus three elongated members)
Regarding Claim 11: Kaplan discloses an expansion bolt of claim 10, wherein the first elongate member, the second elongate member, and the third elongate member are equally spaced (See generally Annotated Fig. A) around the central shaft member.
Regarding Claim 13: Kaplan discloses an expansion bolt of claim 1, wherein the central shaft member includes a first cylindrical portion having a first diameter (See Annotated Fig. A) and a second cylindrical portion having a second diameter (See Annotated Fig. A) less than the first diameter.
PNG
media_image2.png
419
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20: Kaplan 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 along a longitudinal axis between the elongate members (See Annotated Fig. A) and terminating in a wedge member (See Annotated Fig. A) . . . wherein the elongate members (See Annotated Fig. A) and spoons (See Annotated Fig. A) are structured to move relative to the central shaft member between a first configuration in which the wedge member (See Annotated Fig. A) causes the spoons to move outwardly, and a second configuration in which the wedge member (See Annotated Fig. A) does not cause the spoons (See Annotated Fig. A) 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.
Kaplan does not disclose a swivel housing or a ring element; however, Kucinic teaches a swivel housing (See Annotated Fig. B) concentrically positioned with the central shaft member; a ring element (See Annotated Fig. B) supported by the swivel housing and configured to swivel about the longitudinal axis. 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 Kaplan by using a swivelling ring element similar to that taught by Kucinic to enable the ring element to swivel and adjust the orientation of the force vector from the load so the load is appropriately applied to the central shaft. Doing so would enable the device to carry heavier loads.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are allowed.
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The closest prior art is US Patent No. 6,068,226 to Anders. Anders discloses an anchor with elongated members, spoons, a central shaft member, a biasing member and a rotatable ring member. However, the ring member is not swiveling but rather rotates to turn the central shaft. As such, neither Anders nor the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches a biasing member that is structured to bias the expansion bolt toward a first configuration, as claimed, in addition to the claimed swivel housing and the ring element.
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 8287217, 8596701, 5263803.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights