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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, a single opening is recited rather than openings. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-18 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 1 recites the limitation "the upper edge margin" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, a height of the first portion has previously been established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what comprises the intermediate section which divides the first portion. The examiner will examine as best understood in light of the specification with the intermediate portion comprising the middle third of the first portion flange. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-18 rejected under 35 USC 112 as depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greth, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0163581.
Regarding claim 1, Greth discloses a concrete anchor comprising: a first portion (3) having a height extending between a top and a bottom of the first portion (from edge adjacent 1 to the opposite edge), the first portion being configured to extend between two adjacent cellulosic members of the plurality of cellulosic members of the cellulosic layer (such as 5, 6), the first portion including a plurality of openings (4) having uniform dimensions and configured for receiving fasteners to attach the first portion to one of the two adjacent cellulosic members of the cellulosic layer to attach the anchor to the cellulosic layer (such as 7); and a second portion (1) extending from the upper edge margin (edge adjacent to 3) in a first direction that is transverse to the first portion (see Fig. 1), the second portion configured to be spaced apart from the cellulosic layer and embedded within the concrete layer of the floor to attach the anchor to the concrete layer (should it be placed in such a manner), the second portion including a plurality of openings (2) having uniform dimensions and configured for receiving concrete ties in order to secure rebar to the second portion (see Fig. 1; they are apertures which will allow for the insertion of a tie member), but does not disclose the first portion plurality of openings extending along at least 60% of the height of the first portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the anchor with the first portion plurality of openings extending along at least 60% of the height of the first portion for greater versatility with a wider range at which a fastener may be installed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 The phrases “configured to extend between two adjacent cellulosic members of the plurality of cellulosic members of the cellulosic layer,” “configured for receiving fasteners to attach the first portion to one of the two adjacent cellulosic members of the cellulosic layer to attach the anchor to the cellulosic layer,” “configured to be spaced apart from the cellulosic layer and embedded within the concrete layer of the floor to attach the anchor to the concrete layer”,” and “configured for receiving concrete ties in order to secure rebar to the second portion” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Greth discloses a concrete anchor but does not specifically disclose wherein the openings in the first portion are circular. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the openings with a circular shape depending on the method of production and because the intended function will remain the same, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 3, Greth discloses a concrete anchor but does not specifically disclose wherein the openings in the second portion are circular. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the openings with a circular shape depending on the method of production and because the intended function will remain the same, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 4, Greth, as modified, discloses a concrete anchor wherein the openings in the second portion have a larger diameter than the openings in the first portion (see opening size variation in Fig. 1, generally).
Regarding claim 9, Greth discloses a concrete anchor wherein the second portion has a width that is at least 70% of a height of the first portion (see Fig. 1, generally).
Regarding claim 10, Greth discloses a concrete anchor in combination with the concrete layer (9), wherein the second portion is embedded in the concrete layer (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Greth discloses a concrete anchor, but does not specifically disclose wherein the openings in the first portion extend along at least 65% of the height of the first portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the anchor with the first portion plurality of openings extending along at least 60% of the height of the first portion for greater versatility with a wider range at which a fastener may be installed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 12, Greth discloses a concrete anchor in combination with the cellulosic layer (5), wherein the first portion is attached to the cellulosic layer (see Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 5-6, 13-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greth, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0163581 in view of Schrentewein, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0338510.
Regarding claim 5, Greth discloses a concrete anchor but does not disclose wherein the opening in the first portion have a staggered arrangement. Schrentewein teaches a structural connector having a mounting flange (5) with staggered openings (8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the first portion with a plurality of staggered holes such as those taught by Schrentewein for a wider range of flexibility for the anchor to be installed, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 6, Greth discloses a concrete anchor wherein the openings in the second portion are centered on a common axis (see Fig. 1, generally).
Regarding claim 13, Greth discloses a concrete anchor comprising: a first portion (3) having opposite upper and lower edge margins (third of the flange distance as measured from edge adjacent 1 and third of the flange distance as measured from the opposite edge) and an intermediate section (center flange third between the upper and lower flange thirds, see Fig. 1) disposed between the upper and lower edge margins dividing a height of the first portion into thirds, the first portion configured to extend between two adjacent cellulosic members of the plurality of cellulosic members of the cellulosic layer into the concrete layer of the floor (such as 5, 6), the first portion including a plurality of uniform openings (4) configured to receive fasteners to attach the first portion to one of the two adjacent cellulosic members of the cellulosic layer to attach the anchor to the cellulosic layer (fasteners such as 7); and a second portion (1) extending from the upper edge margin in a first direction that is transverse to the first portion (see Fig. 1), the second portion configured to be spaced apart from the cellulosic layer and embedded within the concrete layer of the floor to attach the anchor to the concrete layer (should it be placed in such a manner), but does not disclose the openings being disposed in the upper and lower edge margins. The phrases “configured to extend between two adjacent cellulosic members of the plurality of cellulosic members of the cellulosic layer into the concrete layer of the floor,” “configured to receive fasteners to attach the first portion to one of the two adjacent cellulosic members of the cellulosic layer to attach the anchor to the cellulosic layer,” and “configured to be spaced apart from the cellulosic layer and embedded within the concrete layer of the floor to attach the anchor to the concrete layer n” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Schrentewein teaches a structural connector having a mounting flange (5) openings (8) in a top and bottom, as well as a middle third of the flange distance (see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the first portion with holes across the entire flange for flexibility during installation, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14, Greth discloses a concrete anchor wherein the second portion includes a plurality of openings (2) configured to receive concrete ties to secure rebar to the second portion. The phrase “configured to receive concrete ties to secure rebar to the second portion” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Greth discloses a concrete anchor, but does not specifically disclose wherein the openings in the second portion are circular. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the openings with a circular shape depending on the method of production and because the intended function will remain the same, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 16, Greth discloses a concrete anchor wherein the openings in the second portion are centered on a common axis (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Greth discloses a concrete anchor in combination with the concrete layer (9).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greth, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0163581 in view of Lucey et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0325672.
Regarding claim 7, Greth discloses a concrete anchor further comprises a transition between the first and second portions (the corner, see figures), but does not specifically disclose wherein the transition comprises a rounded bend. Lucey teaches a concrete anchor having a rounded corner portion (see Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the anchor with a rounded transition between the portions depending on the method by which it is produced, as the function would remain the same, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art, as modified, discloses a concrete anchor wherein the anchor consists of only the first portion, the second portion, and the transition between the first and second portions (see Greth Fig. 1, Lucey Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greth, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0163581 in view of LePoire et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0199891.
Regarding claim 17, Greth discloses a concrete anchor, but does not disclose the anchor in combination with the cellulosic layer. LePoire teaches a similar anchor in combination with a cellulosic layer (14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the anchor of Greth in a similar placement depending on the requirements of the structure being assembled, as the structural features of the anchor are similar as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights