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 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 1-2, 4-6, 8, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata US 2016/0265565 A1 (hereinafter ‘Murata’).
In regard to claims 1 and 20, it is noted that the recitation of “anchor system” happens in the preamble, a preamble is not given patentable weight unless it recites essential structure or is necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to the claim. In the instant case, the body of the claim defines a structurally complete invention and the preamble merely states a purpose, intended use or field of use.
Murata teaches a first vertical portion having a first threaded hole and a second vertical portion having a second threaded hole, wherein the second vertical portion is disposed opposite the first vertical portion (see figs. 5A-5C showing two vertical portions, each having a hole (168) with threads (see 0069]); and
a screw jack (see [0069] Note that the screw of Murata allows for the vertical portions to come into contact as noted in [0074] therefore, per MPEP 2114, and because the screw jack lacks any specific structure in the claim, the limitation is met) configured to adjust a distance between the first vertical portion and the second vertical portion (“for adjusting the gap” in [0069]), wherein:
the screw jack comprises a first end and a second end,
the first end is configured to engage with the first threaded hole, and the second end is configured to engage with the second threaded hole (as shown in exemplary figure 4 and noted in [0069]).
With respect to claim 20, It is noted that “to engage” is interpreted as in contact, or supporting, and since the pipes of a pool handrail are not part of the claimed subject matter nor they have any structure or location given in the claim, the functional limitation is met if a pipe of a rail is placed on top of the device, then the vertical components are engaging said component.
In regard to claim 2, Murata teaches the claimed invention wherein the screw jack is located between the first and second vertical portions (see fig. 4).
In regard to claims 4, 5, Murata teaches the claimed invention wherein the first vertical portion comprises a first top end and a first bottom end, and the second vertical portion comprises a second top end and a second bottom end, and wherein the first vertical portion comprises a first block located towards the first top end and the second vertical portion comprises a second block located towards the second top end, and each of the blocks comprise each of the threaded holes (as seen in figs. 5A-5C).
In regard to claim 6, Murata teaches the claimed invention wherein the first block comprising a first proximal end (bottom end) and a first distal end (top end), wherein the first distal end is configured to engage with a first cylindrical component. It is noted that “to engage” is interpreted as in contact, or supporting, and since the cylindrical component is not part of the claimed subject matter, the functional limitation is met if a cylindrical component is placed on top of the device, then the distal end is engaging said component.
In regard to claim 8, Murata teaches the claimed invention wherein the second block comprising a second proximal end (bottom end) and a second distal end (top end), wherein the second distal end is configured to engage with a second cylindrical component. It is noted that “to engage” is interpreted as in contact, or supporting, and since the cylindrical component is not part of the claimed subject matter, the functional limitation is met if a cylindrical component is placed on top of the device, then the distal end is engaging said component.
In regard to claims 17 and 18, Murata teaches the claimed invention wherein each of the first and second vertical portions are L-shaped and have a cuboidal shape (see figs. 5A-5C).
Alternatively,
Claims 1, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lesley W. Blair US 3,694,100 (hereinafter ‘Blair’).
In regard to claims 1 and 19, it is noted that the recitation of “anchor system” happens in the preamble, a preamble is not given patentable weight unless it recites essential structure or is necessary to give life, meaning and vitality to the claim. In the instant case, the body of the claim defines a structurally complete invention and the preamble merely states a purpose, intended use or field of use.
Blair teaches a first vertical portion (4) having a first threaded hole (18) and a second vertical portion (6) having a second threaded hole (18), wherein the second vertical portion is disposed opposite the first vertical portion (see fig. 3); and
a screw jack (24) configured to adjust a distance between the first vertical portion and the second vertical portion (col. 1, ln. 40), wherein:
the screw jack comprises a first end and a second end,
the first end is configured to engage with the first threaded hole, and the second end is configured to engage with the second threaded hole (as shown in fig. 3); and
a rod (16) configured to interlock the first vertical portion and the second vertical portion (see col. 1, ln. 35 “maintaining the jaws parallel at all times”).
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 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata.
In regard to claim 3, although not explicitly disclosed by Murata, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide left-hand threads in the first end, and right-hand threads in the second end of the screw so that when the screw is tighten the gap between the portions can be adjusted as noted in [0069].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-11-16 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 7, the prior art of record does not teach or suggests the system recited in claim 6 such that the first distal end of the first block is concave-shape and fits around an exterior surface of a first cylindrical component.
In regard to claim 12, the prior art of record does not teach or suggests the system of claim 4 further comprising a rod configured to interlock the first and second vertical portions by preventing rotational movement of the first portion relative the second portion, as recited within the context of the claim.
In this regard, it is the Examiner’s view, based on a totality of the record, that it would not have been obvious to modify the relevant prior art to arrive at the claimed invention, as any modification of the prior art of record that would arrive at the claimed invention would require improper hindsight.
The Examiner would like to point out that is has been held that the phrase "configured to" has a narrower meaning than merely "capable of". See In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375,1381 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (the phrase "adapted to" construed narrowly to mean "configured to," as opposed to "capable of' or "having the capacity to," citing Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335,1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376,1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (construing "memory ... configured to" as "memory that must perform the recited function"); Boston Sci. Corp. v. Cordis Corp., 2006 WF 3782840 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("A widely accepted dictionary definition of the word 'configure' means '[t]o design, arrange, set up, or shape with a view to specific applications or uses.' American Heritage Dictionary 386 (4th ed. 2000).").
Thus, Applicant's specification supports a narrower meaning for "configured to" than "capable of" and makes clear that, at least in the independent claims, under broadest reasonable interpretation "configured to" means more than merely "capable of".
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 5PM.
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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights