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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “A roofing attachment system” should be –A roofing attachment system anchor--, as a system is an interdependent group of items forming a unified whole, the claim only reciting one system item (the anchor), not, for example, the roof membrane, etc.
Claim 8 is objected to because “A roofing membrane attachment system” should be –A roofing membrane attachment system anchor--, as a system is an interdependent group of items forming a unified whole, the claim only reciting one system item (the anchor), not, for example, the roof membrane, etc.
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 8-12 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. Claim 8 recites a “roofing membrane attachment” system comprising an anchor body and a threaded fastener, which is confusing. How can a roofing membrane attachment “system” not include roofing membrane?
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, and 10 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDuff (7,654,781).
1. McDuff, figs. 9-10, teaches an attachment system capable of use as a roofing attachment system at least because under the head of screw S, a roofing membrane plate and membrane could be positioned and attached to roof deck just as item I is positioned under the head of screw S and attached to the wall, comprising:
an anchor body having a proximal end (the end with the driver recess) and a distal end (the end with the drill), wherein:
an outer circumferential surface (the body outer circumferential surface at the proximal end region) of the anchor body comprises external threads 422;
the anchor body defines a central recess (the recess through which screw S passes) that extends from the proximal end partially through a length of the anchor body;
the central recess is bounded by a generally cylindrical sidewall generally cylindrical sidewall, fig. 9, the generally cylindrical sidewall comprises internal threads, col. 6, lines 13-20; and
the distal end comprises a drilling tip 412.
2. McDuff teaches the roofing attachment system claim 1, McDuff further teaching the drilling tip comprises a generally pointed tip, fig. 9.
8. McDuff, figs. 9-10, teaches a roofing membrane attachment system anchor (the anchor is a roofing membrane attachment system anchor at least because under the head of screw S, a roofing membrane plate and membrane could be positioned and attached to roof deck just as item I is positioned under the head of screw S and attached to the wall), comprising:
an anchor body having a proximal end (the end with the driver recess) and a distal end (the end with the drill), wherein:
an outer circumferential surface (the body outer circumferential surface at the proximal end region) of the anchor body comprises external threads 422;
the anchor body defines a central recess (the recess through which screw S passes) that extends from the proximal end partially through a length of the anchor body;
the central recess is bounded by a generally cylindrical sidewall generally cylindrical sidewall, fig. 9, the generally cylindrical sidewall comprises internal threads, col. 6, lines 13-20;
the distal end comprises a drilling tip 412, and
a threaded fastener S that is insertable within the central recess so as to threadingly engage with the internal threads.
10. McDuff teaches the roofing membrane attachment system anchor of claim 8, McDuff further teaching a plate (item I is plate-like, fig. 9) having an aperture sized to receive a shaft portion of the threaded fastener, wherein the plate is positioned between a head portion of the threaded fastener and a head portion 418 of the anchor body.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDuff in view of
West (6,186,716).
3. McDuff does not expressly teach the anchor body comprises a metal. West teaches an anchor body comprises a metal, col. 1, lines 18-20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the anchor body to comprise metal for strength.
Claims 4 and 9 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDuff in view of Faghidi (12,085,108).
McDuff does not expressly teach the drilling tip comprises an expansion groove that extends longitudinally along the anchor body. 4. Faghidi teaches a drilling tip comprises an expansion groove 50 that extends longitudinally along an anchor body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the drilling tip to comprise an expansion groove that extends longitudinally along the anchor body to more easily sever the two drill point halves.
Claims 5-7 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDuff in view of Markowicz (10,550,875).
5. McDuff further comprises a threaded fastener S that is sized to be inserted within the central recess and threadingly engaged with the internal threads, but does not expressly teach the central recess comprises a locking feature configured to limit rotation of the threaded fastener relative to the anchor body until a pre-selected torque value is reached. Markowicz, figs. 12-16, teaches a central recess comprises a locking feature 900 configured to limit rotation of a threaded fastener 100 relative to an anchor body 300 until a pre-selected torque value is reached (capsule 900 limits rotation of the threaded fastener relative to the anchor body until a pre-selected torque value is reached because the adhesive add friction up to a certain torque). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the central recess to comprise a locking feature configured to limit rotation of the threaded fastener relative to the anchor body until a pre-selected torque value is reached for system strength.
6. McDuff in view of Markowicz teaches the roofing attachment system of claim 5, Markowicz further teaching the locking feature comprises an adhesive coating 500.
7. McDuff in view of Markowicz teaches the roofing attachment system of claim 5, Markowicz further teaching the locking feature comprises a deformation collar (the tapered tube effectively forms a collar).
Claim 11 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDuff.
McDuff does not expressly teach an outer diameter of a plate is between about 2 inches and 4 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a plate outer diameter to be between 2 and 4 inches for load bearing capacity.
Claim 12 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDuff in view of Garrigus (8,166,720).
12. McDuff does not teach a roofing membrane positioned between the plate and the head portion of the anchor body. Garrigus teaches a roofing membrane 18 positioned below a plate a fastener head 16. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position a roofing membrane between the plate (the Garrigus membrane plate) and the head portion of the anchor body (by using the McDuff anchor to secure the membrane on a roof instead of the Garrigus screw) so that the membrane is “securely mounted”, col. 1, line 66, to the roof deck.
Claims 13-18 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrigus in view of McDuff.
13. Garrigus teaches a method of installing a roofing attachment system, comprising:
positioning a roofing membrane 18 against a roofing structure 24;
positioning a roofing attachment system (screw and plate) against the roofing membrane, the roofing attachment system comprising a screw and plate, the plate having an aperture sized to receive a shaft portion of screw, wherein the plate is positioned between a head portion of the threaded fastener and the membrane, fig. 4; and rotating the threaded fastener to cause it to rotate and drill into the roofing structure until the pre-selected torque value (the torque high enough to clamp the membrane but low enough to not over-torque the assembly) is reached.
Garrigus does not teach the screw is an anchor body having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein: an outer circumferential surface of the anchor body comprises external threads; the anchor body defines a central recess that extends from the proximal end partially through a length of the anchor body; the central recess is bounded by a generally cylindrical sidewall; the generally cylindrical sidewall comprises internal threads; the distal end comprises a drilling tip; and the central recess comprises a locking feature; a threaded fastener that is insertable within the central recess so as to engage with the internal thread and the locking feature, wherein the locking feature is configured to limit rotation of the threaded fastener relative to the anchor body until a pre-selected torque value is reached, and the plate aperture sized to receive a shaft portion of the threaded fastener, wherein the plate is positioned between a head portion of the threaded fastener and a head portion of the anchor body, and rotating the threaded fastener to cause the anchor body to rotate and drill into the roofing structure until the pre-selected torque value is reached. McDuff teaches an anchor body having a proximal end (the end with the driver recess) and a distal end (the end with the drill), wherein: an outer circumferential surface of the anchor body comprises external threads 422; the anchor body defines a central recess that extends from the proximal end partially through a length of the anchor body; the central recess is bounded by a generally cylindrical sidewall; the generally cylindrical sidewall comprises internal threads, col. 6, lines 13-20; the distal end comprises a drilling tip 412; a threaded fastener S that is insertable within the central recess so as to engage with the internal thread. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the Garrigus screw with the McDuff anchor for enhanced wind uplift strength, the plate between a threaded fastener head portion and an anchor body head portion.
14. Garrigus in view of McDuff teaches the method of claim 13, McDuff further teaching rotating the threaded fastener comprises engaging a head of the threaded fastener with a driver.
15. Garrigus in view of McDuff teaches the method of claim 13, McDuff further teaching the pre-selected torque value is reached when a bottom surface of the head portion of the anchor body is in contact with a top surface of the roofing membrane just as the bottom surface of the head portion is in contact with a top surface of the wall substrate, fig. 10.
16. Garrigus in view of McDuff teaches the method of claim 13, McDuff further teaching rotation of the anchor body is limited relative to the threaded fastener after pre-selected torque value is reached because at that stage the external threads are fully engaged in the substrate.
17. Garrigus in view of McDuff teaches the method of claim 13, McDuff further teaching rotating the threaded fastener, after the pre-selected torque value is reached, to a fully inserted position within the central recess of the anchor body (fig. 10 shows such position).
18. Garrigus in view of McDuff teaches the method of claim 17, Garrigus in view of McDuff further teaching a bottom surface of the plate is in contact with a top surface of the roofing membrane when the threaded fastener is in the fully inserted position because this is the maximum torque stage at which full assembly compression is achieved.
Claims 19-20 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrigus in view of McDuff and in further view of Faghidi.
McDuff does not teach the drilling tip comprises an expansion groove that extends longitudinally along the anchor body, wherein further rotation of the threaded fastener causes the expansion groove to expand laterally. Faghidi teaches a drilling tip comprises an expansion groove 50 that extends longitudinally along the anchor body, wherein further rotation of the threaded fastener causes the expansion groove to expand laterally. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the drilling tip to comprise an expansion groove that extends longitudinally along the anchor body, wherein further rotation of the threaded fastener causes the expansion groove to expand laterally for anchor holding strength and to more easily sever the two drill point halves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
