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. The Terminal Disclaimer filed overcomes the double patenting rejection of the previous office action.
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) 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte (FR 3095215 A1) in view of Oliver et al. (2019/0186097) OR Lane (1224387).
In regard to claim 6, Laporte discloses a stabilizer plate for a building stabilization system, the stabilizer plate comprising:
a lower plate portion 28, 30 configured to be installed below a ground, the lower plate portion defining a first surface facing in a first direction and a second surface opposite the
first surface and facing in a second direction;
an upper plate portion 34 configured to be installed above the ground, the upper plate
portion extending from the lower plate portion in the first direction and defining a
plate rod opening 40 formed therethrough; and
an integral rod sleeve 32 coupled to the lower plate portion and extending
through the plate rod opening in the upper plate portion, the integral rod sleeve
configured to receive an anchor rod therethrough, wherein a lower sleeve end of
the rod sleeve extends to a lower edge of the lower plate portion (figure 4). Laporte does not specifically disclose that the rod sleeve is coupled to the first surface of the lower plate portion. Laporte teaches that the lower plate portion is in two halves and each half connects to the rod sleeve. However, both Oliver and Lane teach that it is known to attach a rod sleeve to the surface of a single an anchor plate member. Therefore, 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 make Laporte’s lower plate portion one plate and attach the rod sleeve to a surface of the one plate as taught by Oliver and Lane because by doing so it would be easier to manufacture the device. This would save time and money in manufacture, but it would not sacrifice function. The device would perform in the same manner, but it could be made in an easier, more efficient manner.
In regard to claim 7, Laporte in view of Oliver or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the lower plate portion is substantially planar as shown in at least figure 4 of Laporte.
In regard to claim 8, Laporte in view of Oliver or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the upper plate portion is “bent” relative to the lower plate portion at a bend line. Although Laporte discloses that his upper and lower plate portions are two pieces, they are at an angle with respect to each other. Thus, the final product is the same as applicant’s device. However, both Oliver and Lane also teach that it is known to bend a unitary plate to produce the same result as Laporte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Laporte’s plate unitary and bend it again to make it easier and more cost effective to manufacture. It costs less to bend a plate than it does to weld two or three plates together.
In regard to claim 9, Laporte in view of Oliver or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the upper plate portion is bent at about 90° relative to the lower plate portion.
In regard to claims 10 and 11, Laporte in view of Oliver or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing that the lower sleeve end of the rod sleeve lower edge of the lower plate portion is substantially V-shaped to facilitate cutting into the ground, or that the lower sleeve end of the rod sleeve is angled to facilitate cutting into the ground.
However, Laporte does disclose that the lower end 22 of the rod has a bevel in the same manner as applicant’s bevel at the end of their rod sleeve and Oliver and Lane both teach V-shaped edges at the bottom of their lower plate portions. Further, Laporte also teaches to make chamfers at the corners of his lower portion to facilitate cutting into the ground (see translation). Therefore, in light of all the teachings of sloping surfaces to facilitate entry into the ground, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make Laporte’s bottom edge V-shaped and the lower sleeve end angled to allow the lower potion and sleeve end to more easily penetrate into the ground.
In regard to claim 12, Laporte in view of Oliver or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Laporte teaches that it is known to weld metal pieces together. Laporte welds the rod sleeve to the members 28 and 30. Therefore, the examiner contends that when the lower portion is one integral plate, it would still be obvious to weld the rod sleeve to the plate.
In regard to claim 13, Laporte in view of Oliver or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the upper plate portion defines a plate rod opening configured to receive the anchor rod therethrough, and wherein the rod sleeve is aligned with the plate rod opening (figures 3 and 4 of Laporte).
In regard to claim 14, Laporte in view of Oliver or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein an upper sleeve end of the rod sleeve extends through the plate rod opening (figures 3 and 4 of Laporte).
Claim(s) 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (2020/0392689) in view of Laporte (FR 3095215 A1) and Oliver et al. (2019/0186097) OR Lane (1224387).
In regard to claim 15, Oliver discloses a stabilization assembly for a building stabilization system, the stabilization assembly comprising:
a ground anchor assembly comprising:
a stabilizer plate 82; and an anchor rod 30 extending alongside the stabilizer plate 82;
a lateral transfer strut 73 or 104 pivotably coupled to the ground anchor assembly at a first transfer strut end and configured to be pivotably coupled to a manufactured building at an
opposite second transfer strut end (figure 3 or 4B); and
a vertical brace 94 pivotably coupled to the ground anchor assembly at a first vertical brace end and configured to be pivotably coupled to the manufactured building at an
opposite second vertical brace end;
wherein the stabilizer plate comprises:
a lower plate portion configured to be installed below a ground, the lower plate portion defining a first surface facing in a first direction and a second surface opposite the first surface and facing in a second direction; an upper plate portion configured to be installed above the ground, the upper plate portion extending from the lower plate portion in the first direction (figure 3 shows the lower plate portion in the ground and the upper plate portion above the ground).
Oliver does not specifically disclose an integral rod sleeve, the anchor rod extending through the rod sleeve, a plate rod opening formed through the upper plate portion, or the integral rod sleeve coupled to and integrally formed with the first surface of the lower plate portion and extending through the plate rod opening in the upper plate portion, wherein a lower sleeve end of the rod sleeve extends to a lower edge of the lower plate portion. However, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 6, Laporte in view of Oliver or Lane teach a lower plate portion with a rod sleeve attached thereto that receives an anchor rod therein with all the features claimed in claim 15. Therefore, these features are rejected in the same manner as set forth above in claim 6 and will not be repeated here. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the rod sleeve features into Oliver’s invention because by having a rod sleeve integrally attached to the stabilizer plate, the sleeve will provide a guide for the anchor rod to pass through so that the anchor rod gets driven into the soil at the correct angle. The sleeve will also provide a more secure connection between the stabilizer plate and the anchor rod to more securely hold the structure in place.
In regard to claim 17, Oliver ‘689 in view of Laporte and Oliver ‘097 or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Laporte teaches that it is known to weld metal pieces together. Laporte welds the rod sleeve to the members 28 and 30. Therefore, 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 weld the rod sleeve to the plate in order to provide a very secure connection between the two elements. This will also prevent the anchor rod from changing direction while it is being driven into the ground.
In regard to claim 18, Oliver ‘689 in view of Laporte and Oliver ‘097 or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the upper plate portion is bent relative to the lower plate portion at a bend line (figure 3 Oliver ‘689).
In regard to claim 19, Oliver ‘689 in view of Laporte and Oliver ‘097 or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Oliver ‘689 discloses that the ground anchor assembly further comprises an anchor bracket 40 mounted to the stabilizer plate (figure 4A Oliver ‘689); and each of the lateral transfer strut 104 and the vertical brace 94 are pivotably coupled to the anchor bracket (Oliver ‘689 4B).
In regard to claim 20, Oliver ‘689 in view of Laporte and Oliver ‘097 or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention. Oliver ‘689 does not specifically disclose a threaded end portion of the anchor rod extends through the anchor bracket; and a threaded nut is threaded onto the threaded end portion of the anchor rod to affix the anchor rod to the anchor bracket and the stabilizer plate. Laporte and Oliver ‘097 both teach that it is known to have a threaded end of an anchor rod extend through and anchor sleeve and attach to an anchor bracket through the use of a threaded nut engaging the threaded rod. 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 connection with a nut at the top of Oliver ‘689’s anchor assembly because by using a nut and threads, the anchor bracket can be securely attached to the anchor rod after it has been driven into the soil. This will prevent the anchor bracket from becoming damaged when the anchor rod is driven into the ground if it was integrally attached to the anchor rod. Further, both types of connections are notoriously well-known in the ground anchor art and either would perform the same function equally well.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte (FR 3095215 A1) in view of Oliver et al. (2019/0186097) OR Lane (1224387) and further in view of MacKarvich (5797226).
In regard to claim 21, Laporte in view of Oliver or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing that the upper plate portion defines one or more upper tool openings formed through the upper plate portion and configured to receive a drive tool therein for driving the lower plate portion into the ground. However, Laporte does disclose that the upper plate portion has a rod opening to receive the anchor rod. MacKarvich teaches that it is known to provide more than one hole in an upper plate of anchor bracket to insert more than one anchor rod. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one or more additional holes in the upper plate portion of Laporte’s device to receive additional anchor rods if desired to increase the hold down strength of the anchor assembly. Further, the duplication of parts is an obvious modification to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver et al. (2020/0392689) in view of Laporte (FR 3095215 A1) and Oliver et al. (2019/0186097) OR Lane (1224387) and further in view of MacKarvich (5797226).
In regard to claim 22, Oliver ‘689 in view of Laporte and Oliver or Lane disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing that the upper plate portion defines one or more upper tool openings formed through the upper plate portion and configured to receive a drive tool therein for driving the lower plate portion into the ground. However, Laporte does disclose that the upper plate portion has a rod opening to receive the anchor rod. MacKarvich teaches that it is known to provide more than one hole in an upper plate of anchor bracket to insert more than one anchor rod. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one or more additional holes in the upper plate portion of Oliver ‘689’s in view of Laporte and Oliver ‘097 or Lane’s device to receive additional anchor rods if desired to increase the hold down strength of the anchor assembly. Further, the duplication of parts is an obvious modification to those of ordinary skill in the art.
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 set forth 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