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(s) 2, 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regards to claim 2: Line 1 the phrase “wherein non-metallic material” should be directed towards “wherein the non-metallic material”, for consistency and clarity of the claim language
With regards to claim 15: Lines 1-2 the phrase “and system further includes” should be directed towards “and the system further includes”, for consistency and clarity of the claim language.
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, 4, 8 and 20 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 regards to claim 3: Line 2, the term “carbon steel and a steel alloy” is considered to be indefinite as carbon steel is a type of steel alloy. The claim will be examined as reading “carbon steel or a steel alloy”.
With regards to claim 4 and claim 20: Lines 3 and 2 respectively, the term “plate-like” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “plate-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
With regards to claim 8: Line 1 recites the limitation "alignment indicators" in reference to claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 will be read as being dependent on claim 7 instead of claim 9 for the purposes of examination.
All claims are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al. (JP 2016/186375).
With regard to claim 1, Sakai et al. discloses, an anchor system (1), comprising: an anchor head (2) made of a non-metallic material: and including a main body (2); a plurality of legs (211) extending radially outward from the main body (2); and a stem (22) extending from the main body; and a stud base (3) made of a metallic material and defining a hole (33) sized to receive the stem (22) (Para. 0003, 0010, 0011, 0012, 0023; Fig 3).
With regard to claim 2, Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention, in addition to the non-metallic material selected from the group consisting of a ceramic, neoprene, a silicone material, a polymer material, an epoxy, a concrete material, and any combination thereof (Para. 0020; Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 5, Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention, in addition to a stem (22) that extends from the main body (2) orthogonal to a direction that the plurality of legs (211) extend from the main body (2) (Para. 0018; Fig.1, 3).
With regard to claim 6, Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention, in addition to the stem (22) being threaded into the hole (33) (Para. 0012; Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 13, Sakai et al. discloses the method of mounting an anchor system (1) to a vessel wall (4), the method comprising: locating a distal end of a stud base (3) against the vessel wall (4), the stud base (3) being made of a metallic material and defining a hole (33); welding the stud base (3) to the vessel wall (4); and attaching an anchor head (2) made of a non-metallic material to the stud base (3), the anchor head (2) including a main body, and a plurality of legs (211) extending radially outward from the main body (Para. 0012, 0013, 0022, 0023; Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 14, Sakai et al. discloses the claimed invention, in addition to the anchor head (2) further including a stem (22) extending from the main body and wherein attaching the anchor head (2) to the stud base (3) comprises threading the stem (22) into the hole (33) (Para. 0022, 0023; Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 3. Sakai et al. (JP 2016/186375)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozaki et al. (JP 11-183041 A).
With regard to claim 17, Ozaki et al. discloses an anchor system, comprising: an anchor head (4 and 5) made of a non-metallic material (Para. 0008) and including a main body (5) that defines a central aperture (9), and a plurality of legs (4) extending radially outward from the main body (5); a fastener (3) comprising an enlarged head (7) and a stem (3); and a stud base (2) made of a metallic material and defining a hole (at 6) sized to receive the stem (3) of the fastener, wherein the anchor head (4 and 5) is secured to the stud base (2) by extending the stem (3) through the central aperture (9) and receiving the stem (3) in the hole (at 6) (Para. 0001, 0007, 0008, 0016; Fig 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
210
254
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 Ozaki et al. (JP 11-183041 A)
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) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP 2016/186375) in view of D’Oracio et al. (US 2023/0041165 A1).
With regard to claim 3, Sakai et al. does not disclose, the metallic material is selected from the group consisting of carbon steel and a steel alloy.
D’Oracio et al. does disclose a stud base made of metallic material, wherein the metallic material is selected from the group consisting of carbon steel and a steel alloy (Para. 0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the metallic material in Sakai et al. with the carbon steel in D’Oracio et al. as carbon steel would allow for the stud base to be durable and easy to weld. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the metallic base in Sakai et al. to be the carbon steel base in D’Oracio et al.
With regard to claim 12, Sakai et al. does not disclose, the plurality of legs comprises: two legs extending from the main body on angularly opposite sides of the main body wherein each leg includes: a first extension extending from the main body and a second extension extending from the first extension at an angle offset from the first extension.
D’Oracio et al. does disclose two legs extending from the main body on angularly opposite sides from the main body, wherein each leg includes: a first leg extension extending from the main body and a second extension extending from the first extension at an angle offset from the first extension (Para. 0009, 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the anchor head disclosed in Sakai et al. with the leg structure disclosed in D’Oracio et al. as the leg structure would allow for the anchor head to more completely hold the refractory material in place. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the anchor head in Sakai et al. with the leg structure in D’Oracio et al.
Claim(s) 4, 7-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP 2016/186375) in view of Garot et al. (US 2025/0044032 A1).
With regard to claim 4, Sakai et al. does not disclose at least one of the plurality of legs comprises a plate-like structure, and wherein an aperture is defined in at least one of the plurality of legs to enable flow of a refractory material through the plate-like structure.
Garot discloses at least one of the plurality of legs comprises a plate-like structure, and wherein an aperture is defined in the at least one of the plurality of legs to enable flow of a refractory material through the plate-like structure (Para. 0042; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace one of the legs in Sakai et al. with one or more of the legs in Garot et al., because by doing so one would allow the easier flow of refractory material around and through the anchor and allow the anchor to hold the refractory material more securely. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the anchor head and stud base in Sakai et al. with the leg structure in Garot et al.
With regard to claim 7, Sakai et al. does not disclose the use of alignment indicators provided on either the anchor head stud base or both, and providing visual indication that the stem is properly received within the hole.
Garot et al. discloses the use of the corners of raised features as alignment indicators, that provide visual indication of the alignment of the anchor head and stud. (Para. 0044, 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of an anchor head and stud base in Sakai et al. with the disclose of alignment indicators on a ceramic refractory anchor in Garot et al. to assure proper assembly and/or orientation of refractory anchors. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the anchor head and stud base in Sakai et al. with the alignment indicators in Garot et al. The examiner notes that the alignment indicators in Garot et al. are primarily used to determine alignment in relation to each other but also require that the stem is properly threaded or received into the hole of the stud base.
With regard to claim 8, Sakai et al. in view of Garot et al. discloses all of the limitations in claim 7, in addition Garot et al. further discloses the use of alignment indicators consisting of several raised features (Para. 0044, 0045).
With regards to claim 11, Sakai et al. does not disclose a plurality of legs comprise three legs equidistantly spaced from each other.
Garot et al. teaches three legs equidistantly spaced from each other (Para. 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anchor head in Sakai et al. with the equidistant leg structure in Garot et al. as the three equidistant legs would give the anchor more surface area and better secure refractory lining. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the anchor head in Sakai et al. with the equidistant leg structure in Garot et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP 2016/186375) in view of Su et al. (CN 204902591 U).
With regard to claim 9, Sakai et al. does not disclose one or more body gaskets interposing opposing portions of the anchor head and the stud base.
Su et al. does disclose one or more body gaskets (5) interposing opposing portions of the anchor head (3 and 4) and the stud base (2) (Emb. 1, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the anchor head and stud base of Sakai et al. with the interposing gasket of Su et al to provide ingress protection for the stud base hole and threads therein. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the anchor head assembly in Sakai et al. with the gasket in Su et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
330
365
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1, Su et al. (CN 204902591 U)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP 2016/186375) in view of Zivanovic et al. (US 2024/0337445 A1).
With regard to claim 10, Sakai et al. does not disclose a stud gasket arranged at a bottom of the hole and interposing a distal end of the stem and the bottom of the hole.
Zivanovic et al. does disclose a first fixing means (205) arranged at a bottom of the stud base (203) hole and interposing a distal end of the stem (300) (Para. 0095, 0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the anchor head and stud base of Sakai et al. with the stud gasket of Zivanovic et al. to allow for increased frictional fixing of the stem and/or filler of spaces left by thermal expansion of the stem and/or stud base. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained by modifying the anchor head assembly in Sakai et al. with the stud gasket of Zivanovic et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
755
615
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3, Zivanovic et al. (US 2024/0337445 A1)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP 2016/186375) in view of Ozaki et al. (JP 11-183041 A).
With regard to claim 15, Sakai et al does not disclose the method of attaching the anchor assembly to the wall wherein a central aperture is defined in the main body, and system further includes a fastener providing an enlarged head and a stem extending from the enlarged head, and wherein attaching the anchor head to the stud base comprises: extending the stem through the central aperture; and receiving the stem in the hole.
Ozaki et al. does disclose the method of attaching the anchor assembly to the wall wherein a central aperture is defined in the main body, and system further includes a fastener providing an enlarged head and a stem extending from the enlarged head, and wherein attaching the anchor head to the stud base comprises: extending the stem through the central aperture; and receiving the stem in the hole (Para. 0001, 0007, 0008, 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of welding a separate stud base to a wall and fastening an anchor head to the stud base in Sakai et al. with the fastening method in Ozaki et al. as the fastening method would allow for more control over the orientation of the anchor head and/or the torque applied to the fastener. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained by modifying the method of attaching the anchor head assembly to a refractory wall in Sakai et al. and the fastening method in Ozaki et al.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (JP 2016/186375) in view of Yoder et al. (US 2018/0320973 A1).
With regard to claim 16, Sakai et al. does not disclose, the method of claim 13 wherein welding the stud base to the vessel wall further comprises: positioning a ceramic ferrule around the stud base; and shrouding a contact point between the stud base and the vessel wall with the ceramic ferrule.
Yoder et al. does disclose the method of claim 13 wherein welding the stud base to the vessel wall further comprises: positioning a ceramic ferrule around the stud base; and shrouding a contact point between the stud base and the vessel wall with the ceramic ferrule (Para. 0009, 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of welding a separate stud base to a wall and fastening an anchor head to the stud base in Sakai et al with the use of a ferrule in Yoder et al. for the purpose of creating a controlled environment for the weld to form and/or to ensure high quality, consistent welds. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained by combining the attaching method of Sakai et al. and the ferrule of Yoder et al.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki et al. (JP 11-183041 A) in view of Zhao et al. (CN 219160973).
With regard to claim 18, Ozaki et al. does not disclose the stud base further defines a shoulder extending radially outward from an upper section of the stud base.
Zhao et al. does disclose a nut (7) and gasket (6) combination acting as a stud base (6 and 7), that defines a shoulder (7) extending radially outward from an upper section of the stud base(6 and 7). (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stud base of Ozaki et al. and the expanded shoulder of Zhao et al. so that the stem can be further secured to the stud base. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained by combining the stud base of Ozaki et al. and the expanded shoulder of Zhao et al. The examiner notes that the nut and gasket combination is considered to be the stud base.
PNG
media_image5.png
446
406
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1, Zhao et al. (CN 219160973).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki et al. (JP 11-183041 A) in view of Su et al. (CN 204902591 U).
With regard to claim 19, Ozaki does disclose the stem being threaded into the hole. Ozaki et al. does not disclose the stem where threading the fastener to the stud base forms an interference fit with the anchor head.
Su et al. does disclose the stem being threaded into the hole, where threading the fastener to the stud base (2 and 5) forms an interference fit (at 5) with the anchor head (3 and 4) (Emb. 1, Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fastening structure in Ozaki et al. with the threading and interference fit of Su et al. to allow for greater adherence of the anchor head to the stud base. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained by combining the fastening structure of Ozaki et al. with the interference and screw fit of Su et al. The examiner notes that the gasket could be considered part of the stud base for the purposes of examination, thus forming an interference fit with the anchor head.
PNG
media_image3.png
330
365
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1, Su et al. (CN 204902591 U)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozaki et al. (JP 11-183041 A) in view of Garot et al. (US 2025/0044032 A1).
With regard to claim 20, Ozaki et al. does not disclose the anchor head wherein at least one of the plurality of legs comprises a plate-like structure, and wherein an aperture is defined in at least one of the plurality of legs to enable flow of a refractory material through the plate-like structure.
Garot et al. does disclose the anchor head wherein at least one of the plurality of legs comprises a plate-like structure, and wherein an aperture is defined in at least one of the plurality of legs to enable flow of a refractory material through the plate-like structure (Para. 0042; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stud base of Ozaki et al. and the leg structure of Garot et al. because by doing so one would allow the easier flow of refractory material around and through the anchor and allow the anchor to hold the refractory material more securely. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the anchor head and stud base in Ozaki et al. with the leg structure in Garot et al.
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 refractory anchors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT RANDOLPH JEFFERSON ABELES whose telephone number is (571)272-0599. The examiner can normally be reached 571-272-0599.
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.
/EVERETT RANDOLPH JEFFERSON ABELES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights