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 .
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, the anchor connector and the nose-piece connector engaging with each other as a threaded connection or rotational connection (claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because the lead lines and corresponding reference numbers of figs. 1-5B are faint and should be darkened for the purpose of legibility.
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 Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Line 3 of the claim, it appears “which elongate load bearing member” should be --which the elongate load bearing member-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 17 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the at least two elongate tubular nose-pieces” should be --the at least two elongate, tubular nose-pieces-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 3: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the at least two elongate tubular nose-pieces” should be --the at least two elongate, tubular nose-pieces-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 11: Line 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “nose projections” should be --the nose projections-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 13: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the anchor assembly” should be --the cast-in-place anchor assembly-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “concrete” should be --the concrete-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 14: Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the system” should be --the cast-in-place anchor system-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 8 of the claim, it appears the limitation “that colour or structure” should be –the first particular colour or structure—for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 16: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the at least two elongate tubular nose-pieces” should be --the at least two elongate, tubular nose-pieces-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 17: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the at least two elongate tubular nose-pieces” should be --the at least two elongate, tubular nose-pieces-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 3 of the claim, it appears the limitation “anchor body opening” should be --the opening of the anchor body-- for consistency of the claim language.
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 3-13 and 15 are 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.
With regard to claim 3: Line 5 of the claim, the limitation “the first end” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the first end of the second elongate, tubular nose-piece--.
With regard to claim 4: Line 3 of the claim, the limitation “the anchor connector at the first end of another elongate tubular nose-piece” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claims 5-7: Lines 1-2 of each claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “multiple, elongate tubular nose-pieces” is referencing the previously recited at least two elongate, tubular nose pieces. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --multiple, elongate tubular nose-pieces of the at least two elongate, tubular nose-pieces--.
With regard to claims 8-10: Line 1 of each claim, the limitation “the anchor connector” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 11: Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the nose-piece connector” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 3 of the claim, the limitation “the anchor connector” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 5-6 of the claim, each instance of the limitation “the nose-piece” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 5-6 of the claim, it’s unclear as to how a nose piece connects and is selectively removable from the anchor body. As shown in figure 1b, a nose piece (320) connects to the anchor housing (100). Clarification is requested.
With regard to claim 12: Line 2 of the claim, it’s unclear as what is intended to be covered by the recitation “similar” connector. It’s unclear as to what characteristics the nose pieces must possess to be considered similar. Further, it’s unclear if the limitation “noticeably different colourful or structural visual appearances” is referencing the previously recited visibly different color pattern or visibly different structure.
With regard to claim 13: Lines 4-5 of the claim, the limitation “the cast-in-place anchor system” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 5 of the claim, it’s unclear as how the limitation “the cast-in-place anchor system” comprises steps. It appears the limitation should be directed to the method. Line 7 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a nose-piece” is referencing the previously recited at least two elongate, tubular nose pieces. Lines 7-8 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “nose-pieces” is referencing the previously recited at least two elongate, tubular nose pieces.
With regard to claim 15: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “an additional nose-piece” is referencing the previously recited at least two elongate, tubular nose pieces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 14 and 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections.
Claims 3-13 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of all the elements of the claimed cast-in-place anchor system, in particular at least two elongate, tubular nose-pieces alternately and selectively connectable to the anchor assembly; wherein the at least two elongate, tubular nose-pieces have visibly different color pattern or have a visibly different structure from each other is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to anchor systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights