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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a precast concrete structure including an anchor for lifting the precast concrete, classified in E04B1/41.
II. Claims 16-20, drawn to a method of installing a precast concrete structure, classified in E04G21/185.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed could be used to install a platform or to insert plugs rather than securing a supporting fixture by capturing a portion of the supporting fixture by a head of the insert while the insert is threaded into the opening.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Separate, burdensome searches are required for the particular, critical combination of features unique to each invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with applicant’s representative Matthew Deiulio on 6/10/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kennedy, US 991,517.
Regarding claim 1:
Kennedy discloses an anchor (10) for lifting precast concrete, the anchor comprising:
a shaft (11) defining a first end, a second and a longitudinal axis; and
a circular plate (base) coupled to the second end of the shaft, the circular plate oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis,
wherein the shaft defines an opening extending from the first end of the shaft towards the second end of the shaft in a direction generally parallel with the longitudinal axis, the opening having a sidewall with a helical thread (13).
PNG
media_image1.png
204
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3:
Kennedy clearly discloses a circular plate having a circularity of at least 0.95. The circle in Fig. 2 is approximately a perfect circle (Fig. 2 of Kennedy reproduced above).
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siqueiros, US 2014/0053475 in view of Kennedy, US 991,517.
Regarding claims 1 and 7:
Siqueiros discloses a precast concrete structure comprising:
a concrete body (30);
an anchor (1) comprising:
a shaft (9) defining a first end and a second end and a longitudinal axis; and
a square plate (3) coupled to the second end of the shaft, the plate oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis,
wherein the shaft defines an opening extending from the first end towards the second end in a direction generally parallel with the longitudinal axis, the opening having a sidewall with a helical thread,
wherein the plate is embedded in the concrete body and the shaft extends from the concrete body such that the opening is exposed from the concrete body.
PNG
media_image2.png
286
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Siqueiros discloses wherein the plate is square rather than circular.
Kennedy discloses a concrete anchor having a circular anchor plate.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the circular shape of Kennedy for the square shape of Siqueiros, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from changing the shape of the plate from square to circular.
Regarding claim 2:
Siqueiros modified in view of Kennedy discloses wherein the circular plate is welded to the shaft (para. 0021).
Regarding claims 3 and 11:
Kennedy clearly discloses a circular plate having a circularity of at least 0.95. The circle in Fig. 2 is approximately a perfect circle (Fig. 2 of Kennedy reproduced above).
Regarding claims 4 and 12:
Siqueiros discloses wherein the opening depth is about 1.0 times the height of the shaft.
Regarding claims 5 and 13:
Siqueiros discloses wherein the opening comprises a bottom wall spaced apart from the first end of the shaft, and wherein the helical thread extends from the first end of the shaft to a location adjacent to the bottom wall of the opening (refer to Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 6 and 14:
Siqueiros discloses wherein a diameter of the shaft is constant between the first and second ends of the shaft.
Regarding claim 8:
Siqueiros discloses a threaded insert (24) comprising a threaded shank extending at least partially into the opening of the anchor and coupled to the helical thread; and
a fixture (34) coupled to the concrete body by way of the threaded insert.
Regarding claim 10:
Siqueiros discloses wherein the shaft has a compound construction (5 and 9) and wherein the plate is welded to the second end of the shaft (para. 0021).
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart, 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from substituting a compound shaft with a single piece construction shaft.
Regarding claim 15:
Kennedy discloses wherein the circular plate has an area that is at least 90% of an area of hypothetical circle circumscribing the circular plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
The prior art of record, specifically Hun et al., US 11,661,741, discloses a precast concrete structure comprising a concrete body, an anchor comprising a shaft, a plate coupled to the shaft wherein the plate is embedded in the concrete body; wherein the concrete body comprises a metal mesh and a low density member, wherein the anchor is disposed in the concrete body such that it is disposed between the mesh and the low density member. However, Hun does not disclose wherein the opening of the shaft is exposed from the concrete body, wherein the shaft extends through an opening of the metal mesh and wherein the plate is a circular plate and the entire circular plate is disposed within a perimeter of the one opening when viewed in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis. Modifying Hun to include this structure would compromise the functionality of the device of Hun (Hun specifies that the plate members engage the mesh) and it would require improper hindsight reasoning and piecemeal reconstruction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights