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 Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment and request for reconsideration filed on February 26, 2026.
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) 1-4, 6-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (10774495) in view of Oliver et al. (2020/0392689) and Laporte (FR 3095215 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Oliver ‘495 discloses a stabilization system comprising:
a base assembly 100 (figure 2) configured to be mounted to a ground, the base assembly comprising a rod sleeve 42, a stabilizer plate 38, and a bracket 102 mounted to the stabilizer plate (all the components are connected so they are considered to be mounted to each other), the stabilizer plate 38 comprising a first plate portion (vertical portion) and a second plate portion (horizontal portion) disposed at an angle relative to the first plate portion (figure 2), the first plate portion and the rod sleeve configured to be disposed below ground (as shown in figure 2), the rod sleeve extending along the first plate portion almost to a lower plate edge of the first plate portion distal to the second plate portion;
an anchor rod 22 defining an upper rod portion and a lower rod end distal to the upper rod portion, the upper rod portion extending through the rod sleeve, the anchor rod
extending downward from the base assembly into the ground;
a lateral transfer strut 110 configured to be pivotably coupled to a manufactured building at a first transfer strut end and pivotably coupled to the bracket at an opposite second
transfer strut end (as shown in figure 2).
Oliver ‘495 does not specifically disclose that the rod sleeve extends at least to a lower plate edge of the first plate portion, or the use of a vertical brace configured to be pivotably coupled to the manufactured building at a first vertical brace end and pivotably coupled to the bracket at an opposite second vertical brace end.
Oliver ‘689 teaches that it is known to use a vertical brace 54 or 94 in conjunction with a lateral transfer strut 73 or 104 (figures 3 or 4B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a vertical brace to Oliver ‘495’s invention because by having a vertical brace in conjunction with a lateral transfer brace, the structure being anchored would be anchored in a more secure manner.
In regard to the rod sleeve extending to the lower edge of the plate, Laporte teaches that it is known to provide a rod sleeve 32 on a lower or first plate portion 28, 30 of anchor plate. The examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the length of the tube a mere matter of inches in Oliver’s device so that it extended to the lower edge of the plate like Laporte’s sleeve, because by doing so the anchor rod could be more securely attached to the stabilizer plate. Further, merely changing the dimension of an element is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 2, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘495 teaches that the lateral transfer strut is configured to be arranged at about 45° relative to the ground and is configured to pivot within a range of angles above and below 45°, i.e. it is pivotally attached by one bolt 118 at a lower end to the strut. Thus, it can pivot around the one bolt.
In regard to claim 3, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘689 teaches that the vertical brace is configured to be arranged at about 90° relative to the ground (figure 3 or 4B).
In regard to claim 4, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein a first portion of the base assembly is configured to be arranged above ground and a second portion of the base assembly is configured to be arranged below ground. Figure 2 clearly shows the vertical portion of the stabilizer plate, the sleeve, and the anchor rod are all in the ground.
In regard to claim 6, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein at least a portion 106 (Oliver ‘495) of the bracket is configured to be arranged above ground.
In regard to claim 7, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘495 further comprises a first anchor helix 24 coupled to the anchor rod proximate to the lower rod end.
In regard to claim 8, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘495 further comprises a second anchor helix 24 coupled to the anchor rod proximate to the lower rod end and the first anchor helix.
In regard to claim 9, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the embodiment of figure 2 of Oliver ‘495 does not specifically disclose that the upper rod portion of the anchor rod defines a threaded end portion; and a threaded nut is tightened on to the threaded end portion of the anchor rod to couple the anchor rod to the base assembly. However, the embodiments in Oliver ‘495’s figures 1, 4, and 6 clearly teach the use of an anchor rod with an upper threaded structure and a nut. Laporte also teaches the use of a threaded anchor rod with a nut (figure 4 Laporte). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threaded end and nut to connect the anchor rod of figure 2 to the bracket 106 of the base assembly because by doing so, the anchor would be securely attached to the bracket of the base assembly. This is a common type of connection between anchor rods and base assemblies as shown by Oliver ‘495.
In regard to claim 10, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘495’s bracket 102 defines a first bracket mount hole 108 and a second bracket mount hole 108; a first fastener 118 extends through the first bracket mount hole to pivotably couple the lateral transfer strut to the bracket; and a second fastener 118 extends through the second bracket mount hole to pivotably couple the vertical brace to the bracket. When modified, the vertical brace of Oliver ‘689 will be attached at the left side hole 108 (figure 2 and column 6, lines 43-48).
In regard to claim 11, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein each of the first fastener and the second fastener is a nut and bolt assembly (column 6, lines 50-54).
In regard to claim 12, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘495 discloses that the bracket 102 defines a tab portion 106 configured to extend upward from the ground; and the first bracket mount hole and the second bracket mount hole are formed through the tab portion of the bracket (figure 2).
In regard to claim 13, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘495 discloses that at least one of the lateral transfer strut and the vertical brace comprises a first tube 112 or 114.
In regard to claim 14, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘689 teaches that it is known to use metal tubes for the braces. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal for Oliver ‘495’s braces because metal is known to be very strong and capable of withstanding large forces. As for the term “extruded”, this is a product-by-process limitation and is given little patentable weight. See MPEP 2113.
In regard to claim 15, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘495 teaches that the at least one of the lateral transfer strut and the vertical brace comprises a tube assembly; the tube assembly comprises the first tube 114 and a second tube 112, and the first tube 114 is nested within the second tube and attached to the second tube by a fastener 116 (figure 2 Oliver ‘495).
In regard to claim 16, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein a length of each of the lateral transfer strut and the vertical brace is adjustable. Oliver ‘689 shows that the length of his vertical brace can be adjusted at least by the threaded connector 14 shown in figures 1, 2A, and 2B, and Oliver states that the tubes 112 and 114 are telescopic. Thus, they are adjustable.
In regard to claim 17, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘495 further comprises a beam brace 120 coupled to the lateral transfer strut proximate to the first transfer strut end, and wherein the beam brace comprises a clamping mechanism 122, 124, 128, 130, 132, 134 configured to clamp the beam brace to an I-beam of the manufactured building (figure 2).
In regard to claim 19, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘689 further teaches an upper bracket 56 or 95, 102 coupled to the vertical brace proximate to the first vertical brace end, and the upper bracket configured to couple the vertical brace to a joist of the manufactured building. This bracket would obviously be incorporated into Oliver ‘495 along with the vertical brace.
In regard to claim 20, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the base assembly, the anchor rod, the lateral transfer strut, and the vertical brace together form a first stabilization assembly; the first stabilization assembly is configured to be attached to the manufactured building at a first lateral side of the manufactured building; and the stabilization system further comprises a second stabilization assembly configured to be attached to the manufactured building at a second lateral side of the manufactured building, opposite the first lateral side. Although only one assembly is shown in the figures, Oliver ‘495 talks about “assemblies” being used to hold homes down in the background of the invention. Thus, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that multiple assemblies would be used together on each side of the building to hold the building securely in place. One assembly alone would not be sufficient to hold an entire mobile home in place. The examiner takes official notice that it is well known to use multiple anchor assemblies together to hold down mobile homes.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (10774495) in view of Oliver et al. (2020/0392689) and Laporte (FR 3095215 A1) and further in view of MacKarvich (2002/0170253).
In regard to claim 18, Oliver ‘495 in view of Oliver ‘689 and Laporte disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing that the clamping mechanism comprises a J-hook threaded secured to the beam brace by a J-hook fastener. MacKarvich teaches that the use of a J-hook clamping mechanism is known to be used to hold a load transfer member to an I-beam in an anchoring device for a mobile structure, (figures 13 and 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used the J-hook device of MacKarvich in place of Oliver ‘495s clamping device, because the J-hook device has less parts and would be faster and more efficient in connecting the brace member to the I-beam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a different combination of references than what was used in the previous office action. The applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
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 Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633