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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Park, on page 6 of the paper filed, teaches “that pin 140 is advanced by being struck with a striking tool,” and fails to teach the expansion pin (140) is configured to be manually inserted into and locked within the channel without the use of a tool, thereby maintaining the plurality of split segments in the outwardly expanded state within the groove of the closet flange. The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s narrow interpretation of the Park reference. Park discloses the “unstriking pin 140, the end portion of the pin 140 may be located in the body portion 120 due to the narrowing of the hollow portion of the expansion sleeve 130” in lines 6-8 of page 5 of the English translation which equates to the claimed language of “the expansion pin is configured to be manually inserted into and locked within the channel without the use of a tool.” Thereby capable of maintaining the plurality of split segments in the outwardly expanded state within the groove of the closet flange upon being used with the closet flange. The “striking the pin 140…” as discloses in line 18+ of page 5 of the English translation is the alternative option where A user chooses to strike pin 140 with a striking tool when use in a concrete slab. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained as indicated below.
Applicant further asserts, on page 8 of the paper filed, that replacing the “Worley's bolt with Park's anchor would therefore require structural and procedural redesign, including provision for a surrounding bore and tool-driven pin advancement; it would not be a substitution in which each component predictably performs its established function in the disclosed closet-flange groove.” The examiner respectfully disagrees because the opening H of the closet flange of Worley is similar to hole 200 of Park; therefore, “structural and procedural redesign” of Worley is not required. Substituting the Worley anchor bolt with that of Park merely provides alternative of mounting options such as from the bottom versus the top.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an expandable anchor” in line 3 of claims 10 and 11 should be --the expandable anchor--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113803093 A (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses an expandable anchor bolt system that is capable of being used for securing a toilet to a closet flange, the expandable anchor bolt system comprising:
an anchor bolt (120)comprising an upper end (about 110), a lower end (about 130), a channel (channel for pin 140), and a plurality of split segments (see Fig. 3: 130) disposed at the lower end, the lower end is capable of being configured to partially reside within a groove of the closet flange during installation; and
an expansion pin (140) adapted to be inserted into the channel of the anchor bolt;
wherein insertion of the expansion pin into the channel causes the plurality of split segments disposed at the lower end of the anchor bolt to expand outward within the groove of the closet flange, thereby capable of securing the anchor bolt within the groove of the closet flange; and
wherein the expansion pin is configured to be manually inserted into and locked within the channel without the use of a tool, thereby capable of maintaining the plurality of split segments in the outwardly expanded state within the groove of the closet flange.
Regarding claim 2, the expandable anchor bolt system of claim 1, further comprising: a threaded portion (110) disposed at the upper end for receiving a fastening means (111); and an expansion portion (130) disposed at the lower end, the expansion portion comprising split segments (via slit 131) configured to expand outward upon insertion of the expansion pin.
Regarding claim 3, the expandable anchor bolt system of claim 2, wherein the fastening means is a nut configured to engage with the threaded portion of the anchor bolt.
Regarding claim 4, the expandable anchor bolt system of claims 1, further comprising a bolt cap (see Fig. 3: cap of pin 140 cover the top of the upper end) capable of being configured to cover the upper end of the anchor bolt after securing the toilet.
Regarding claim 6, the expandable anchor bolt system of claims 1, adapted to be compatible with a repair flange disposed on a damaged closet flange.
Regarding claim 7, the expandable anchor bolt system of claims 1, wherein the expansion pin (140) includes a locking mechanism (the cap at the top of pin 140 is considered as locking mechanism to lock the pin from further downward movement).
Regarding claim 8, the expandable anchor bolt system of claim 7, wherein the locking mechanism (see Fig. 3) comprises a locking head (cap head), the locking head having a radial width greater than a radial width of the channel of the anchor bolt (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, the expandable anchor bolt system of claim 1, further comprising a threaded portion (110) disposed at the upper end for receiving a nut (111); and an expansion portion (130) disposed at the lower end, the expansion portion comprising split segments (via slit 131) configured to expand outward upon insertion of the expansion pin.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,419,298 (hereinafter Worley) in view of Park.
Regarding claim 10, Worley teaches a method of securing a toilet (C) to a closet flange (G) using an anchor bolt system (see Fig. 1), the method comprising: providing an anchor bolt system (see Fig. 2); inserting the anchor bolt into a groove (where 20 is fitted in Fig. 2) of the closet flange; locking a fastening means(16) to the upper end of the anchor bolt to secure the anchor bolt to the closet flange; aligning a mounting hole (H’) of the toilet with the upper end of the anchor bolt; placing the toilet onto the anchor bolt (see Fig. 1); and securing the toilet to the anchor bolt using the fastening means (see Fig. 1).
Although the anchor bolt system of Worley is not an expandable bolt system as claimed, attention is directed to the Park reference which teaches an analogous anchor bolt system that is expandable via an expansion pin as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the anchor bolt system of Worley with the expandable anchor bolt system as taught by Park, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06. In so doing, the method as claimed would have been obviously met by the above combination.
Regarding claim 11, Worley teaches a method of securing a toilet (C) to a closet flange (G) using an anchor bolt system (see Fig. 1), the method comprising: providing an anchor bolt system (see Fig. 2); inserting the anchor bolt into a groove (where 20 is fitted in Fig. 2) of the closet flange; locking a nut (16) to the upper end of the anchor bolt to secure the anchor bolt to the closet flange; aligning a mounting hole (H’) of the toilet with the upper end of the anchor bolt; placing the toilet onto the anchor bolt (see Fig. 1); and securing the toilet to the anchor bolt using the nut (see Fig. 1).
Although the anchor bolt system of Worley is not an expandable bolt system as claimed, attention is directed to the Park reference which teaches an analogous anchor bolt system that is expandable via an expansion pin as discussed above with respect to claim 9.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the anchor bolt system of Worley with the expandable anchor bolt system as taught by Park, wherein doing so would merely be substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06. In so doing, the method as claimed would have been obviously met by the above combination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TUAN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/TUAN N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights