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 § 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 1-9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend (6494639) in view of (DiGirolamo et al (6612087) or Rensaa (2724261)) and Kelly(10883265).
Friend (figures 2-3) shows a corbel system, comprising a mount comprising a plate (24) having a front(42), a back(44), a top edge (the edge close to where 56 is in figure 3), a bottom edge (the edge close to where 36 is in figure 3), a first side edge, a second side edge, a first anchor (46, top left, figures 1-2) having an end attached to the back of the plate at a first point of attachment and extending outward from the back of the plate, a second anchor (46, top right figures 1-2) having an end attached to the back of the plate at a second point of attachment and extending outward from the back of the plate, a third anchor (46, bottom left of figures 1-2) having an end attached to the back of the plate at a third point of attachment and extending outward from the back of the plate, a fourth anchor (46, bottom right of figures 1-2) having an end attached to the back of the plate at a fourth point of attachment and extending outward from the back of the plate, wherein a central axis of each of the first, second, third and fourth points of attachment define vertices of a convex quadrilateral fully inset from the top edge, the bottom edge, the first side edge, and the second side edge wherein the convex quadrilateral defines a vertex centroid intersected by two orthogonal bimedian (rectangular convex quadrilateral in figure 2 meets the claimed limitations), the plate defines a first row of keyhole slots (top 48 figure 2), and a second row of keyhole slots (bottom 48), a ledge (22) comprising a vertical plate (36) with studs (40, 38) extending horizontally from the vertical plate, a base (28) extending from a top of the vertical plate (36) and oriented perpendicular to the vertical plate, wherein the base is configured to support a beam along a top surface of the base (the base is able to function to support the beam as claimed; and the part 52/56 is pushing on the surface of part 28), the ledge is engageable with the mount by linearly translating the ledge towards the plate without rotational movement of the ledge, wherein the studs are aligned with the keyhole slots during linear translation, wherein, after the studs pass into the keyholes, the ledge is translated linearly in a downward direction, causing the studs to engage with the narrow ends (at 48, figure 2) of the keyhole slots such that the mount supports a weight of the ledge and the beam (inherently so as the counteracting forces of connecting structures are equal and opposite in direction).
Friend does not show a fifth anchor having an end attached to the back of the plate at a fifth point of attachment and extending outward from the back of the plate, wherein the fifth point of attachment is positioned within a perimeter of the convex quadrilateral, and spaced apart from and above the vertex centroid, the first and second rows of keyhole slots are fully disposed within the convex quadrilateral, wherein the first row of keyhole slots abuts an upper side of the convex quadrilateral and the second row of keyhole slots is disposed below the first row of keyhole slots and spaced apart from a lower side of the convex quadrilateral, and wherein the fifth point of attachment is disposed between the first and second rows of keyhole slots.
DiGirolamo et al figure 6 shows a plate having five fasteners (118) attaching the plate to its supporting structures, four fasteners forming a perimeter of a quadrilateral, the fifth fastener at the center of the quadrilateral.
Rensaa discloses the use of a fifth central fastener (13, at center) to provide extra support as needed pending the load being carried (col 3 lines 26-36).
Kelly discloses first row of keyhole slots (20, figures 1-3) and second rows of keyhole slots (22, figure 18) fully disposed within the convex quadrilateral (figure 1 parts 18 forming the quadrilateral), wherein the first row of keyhole slots abuts an upper side of the convex quadrilateral(figure 2 appears to show the top of first row slots at the same level as the center of the top fasteners 18) and the second row of keyhole slots is disposed below the first row of keyhole slots and spaced apart from a lower side of the convex quadrilateral(figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify Friend’s structure to show a fifth anchor having an end attached to the back of the plate at a fifth point of attachment and extending outward from the back of the plate, wherein the fifth point of attachment is positioned within a perimeter of the convex quadrilateral as taught by either DiGirolamo et al or Rensaa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide strong attachment and support for the plate against bending and forces (horizontal/vertical and bending stress), and one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further show the fifth anchor being spaced apart from and above the vertex centroid since such a selection amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, that is, above, at, or below the vertex centroid (see Board decision 2/26/2025 pages 21-22; ….Nonetheless, selecting the location…..any number of anchors 18); furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Friend’s plate to show the first and second rows of slots fully disposed within the convex quadrilateral (figure 1 parts 18 forming the quadrilateral), wherein the first row of keyhole slots abuts an upper side of the convex quadrilateral(figure 2 appears to show the top of first row slots at the same level as the center of the top fasteners 18) and the second row of keyhole slots is disposed below the first row of keyhole slots and spaced apart from a lower side of the convex quadrilateral(figure 2) as taught by Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides strong stability and support for the plate as having anchors closed to the outer sides of a plate increases the plate’s resistant to bending/shear forces.
Per claim 2, Friend as modified further shows the first and second rows of keyhole slots are spaced apart from both of the two orthogonal bimedians(Friend figure 2 shows slots as claimed).
Per claim 3, Friend as modified further shows the first row of keyhole slots comprises a first keyhole slot and a second keyhole slot, and wherein the fifth point of attachment is disposed between the first keyhole slot, the second keyhole slot, and the vertex centroid.
Per claim 4, Friend as modified further shows the second row of keyhole slots comprising a third keyhole slot and a fourth keyhole slot positioned within the perimeter of the convex quadrilateral, and wherein the fifth anchor is disposed closer to each of the first and second keyhole slots as compared to the third and fourth keyhole slots (see modification above with respect to location).
Per claim 5, Friend as modified shows the first and second keyhole slots each comprises a wide end and a narrow end(see Friend figure 2).
Friend as modified does not show the fifth point of attachment is partially disposed directly between the narrow ends of the first and second keyhole slots.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Friend’s modified structure with a reasonable expectation of success to show the fifth point of attachment is partially disposed directly between the narrow ends of the first and second keyhole slots because such a selection amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, (see Board decision 2/26/2025 pages 21-22; ….Nonetheless, selecting the location…..any number of anchors 18).
Per claim 6, Friend as modified further shows the keyhole slots of the first and second rows of keyhole slots are spaced apart from lateral sides of the convex quadrilateral, the lateral sides extending between the upper side and the lower side.
Per claim 7, Friend(figure 8) as modified further shows the plate further comprising a sixth anchor having an end attached to the back of the plate at a sixth point of attachment and extending outward from the back of the plate.
Friend as modified does not show the sixth point of attachment is positioned within the perimeter of the convex quadrilateral spaced apart from the vertex centroid by a same distance as the fifth point of attachment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Friend’s modified structure with a reasonable expectation of success to show the sixth point of attachment is positioned within the perimeter of the convex quadrilateral spaced apart from the vertex centroid by a same distance as the fifth point of attachment because such a selection amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, (see Board decision 2/26/2025 pages 21-22; ….Nonetheless, selecting the location…..any number of anchors 18).
Per claim 8, Friend as modified further shows the first row of keyhole slots comprising a first keyhole slot, a second keyhole slot, and a third keyhole slot, wherein the fifth point of attachment is disposed between the first and second keyhole slots, and wherein the sixth point of attachment is disposed between the second and third keyhole slots.
Per claim 9, Friend as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the fifth point of attachment is equidistant between the first and second keyhole slots, and wherein the sixth point of attachment is equidistant between the second and third keyhole slots.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Friend’s modified structure with a reasonable expectation of success to show the fifth point of attachment is equidistant between the first and second keyhole slots, and wherein the sixth point of attachment is equidistant between the second and third keyhole slots because such a selection amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, (see Board decision 2/26/2025 pages 21-22; ….Nonetheless, selecting the location…..any number of anchors 18).
Claims 25-27, 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend (6494639) in view of (DiGirolamo et al (6612087) or Rensaa (2724261)) and Foley(2011/0107716).
Friend (figures 2-3) shows a method of providing a concrete component(50) with a mount(44), the mount comprising a plate defining a plurality of keyholes(48) defining a keyhole region, each keyhole characterized by a wide end and a narrow end, wherein the narrow end is disposed at a vertical elevation above the wide end, wherein the mount further comprising a plurality of anchors (46) extending from the plate into the concrete component to secure the plate to the concrete component, the plurality of anchors comprising a first anchor, a second anchor, a third anchor, a fourth anchor (one of the four anchors 46), wherein the first, second, third and fourth anchors define vertices of a convex quadrilateral fully inset from the top edge, the bottom edge, the first side edge, and the second side edge of the mount, wherein the convex quadrilateral defines a vertex centroid intersected by two orthogonal bimedian (rectangular convex quadrilateral in figure 2 meets the claimed limitations), linearly translating a ledge (22) toward the plate, the ledge comprising a vertical plate with studs (40) extending horizontally from the vertical plate, the ledge further comprising a base (28) extending from a bottom of the vertical plate and oriented perpendicular to the vertical plate, and wherein the studs are aligned with the wide ends of the keyholes while the ledge is linearly translated toward the plate, after the studs pass into the keyholes, linearly translating the ledge in an upward direction, causing the studs to engage with the narrow ends of the keyholes, and seating a load (56, 52) on the bottom surface of the base after the studs engage the narrow ends of the keyholes.
Friend does not show the narrow end is disposed at a vertical elevation below the wide end, a fifth anchor having an end attached to the back of the plate and extending outward from the back of the plate, wherein the fifth anchor is disposed inside the convex quadrilateral along at least one of the two orthogonal bimedians such that the fifth anchor is disposed in the keyhole region, the base extending from a top of the vertical plate, translating the ledge in a downward direction, and seating a beam on a top surface of the base.
DiGirolamo et al figure 6 shows a plate having five fasteners (118) attaching the plate to its supporting structures, four fasteners forming a perimeter of a quadrilateral, the fifth fastener at the center of the quadrilateral.
Rensaa discloses the use of a fifth central fastener (13, at center) to provide extra support as needed pending the load being carried (col 3 lines 26-36).
Foley figures 1-4, shows the method of connecting a slotted mount with a connector (44) supporting a beam (16) on top by having the connector (44) translating linearly from a wider opening of the mount to the narrower opening on the mount to support a beam/load from the top.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify Friend’s structure with a reasonable expectation of success to show a fifth anchor having an end attached to the back of the plate and extending outward from the back of the plate, wherein the fifth anchor is disposed inside the convex quadrilateral along at least one of the two orthogonal bimedians such that the fifth anchor is disposed in the keyhole region as taught by either DiGirolamo et al or Rensaa in order to provide strong attachment and support for the plate against bending and forces (horizontal/vertical and bending stress), and one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further show the method of connecting a slotted mount with a connector (44) supporting a beam (16) on top by having the connector (44) translating linearly from a wider opening of the mount to the narrower opening on the mount to support a beam/load from the top as taught by Foley in order to enable the mount to firmly and quickly able to support a beam/load from above with the wall and the mount.
Per claims 25-27, 30-33, Friend as modified shows all the claimed structural limitations. The claimed method steps would have been the obvious method steps of supporting a beam at a vertical face of a precast concrete structure with Friend’ modified structures.
Claims 28-29 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend (8607515) in view of DiGirolamo et al (6612087)/Rensaa (2724261) and (Foley (2011/0107716) or Balk(9090025)).
Friend as modified a gusset extending between the front surface of the plate and the bottom surface of the base.
Foley discloses the use of a gusset attached to the back plate and the base.
Balk figure 1a shows the use of a gusset attached to the back plate and the base.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify Friend’s modified structure to show a gusset extending between the front surface of the plate and the bottom surface of the base as taught by either Foley or Balk with a reasonable expectation of success because it would enhance the ledge against bending at the joint between the back and base plate when acted upon by a large shear/bending force.
Friend as modified shows all the claimed structural limitations. The claimed method steps would have been the obvious method steps of supporting a beam on a wall with Friend’s modified structures.
Claims 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friend (6494639) in view of (DiGirolamo et al (6612087) or Rensaa (2724261)) and Foley(2011/0107716) as applied to claim 33 above and further in view of Kelly et al (10883265).
Friend as modified does not show the first row of keyholes abuts an upper side of the convex quadrilateral.
Kelly et al shows first row of keyhole slots (20, figures 1-3) and second rows of keyhole slots (22, figure 18) fully disposed within the convex quadrilateral (figure 1 parts 18 forming the quadrilateral), wherein the first row of keyhole slots abuts an upper side of the convex quadrilateral(figure 2 appears to show the top of first row slots at the same level as the center of the top fasteners 18) and the second row of keyhole slots is disposed below the first row of keyhole slots and spaced apart from a lower side of the convex quadrilateral(figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Friend’s modified structure with a reasonable expectation of success to show the first row of keyholes abuts an upper side of the convex quadrilateral because it provides strong stability and support for the plate as having anchors closed to the outer sides of a plate increases the plate’s resistant to bending/shear forces, and furthermore, such a selection amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, (see Board decision 2/26/2025 pages 21-22; ….Nonetheless, selecting the location…..any number of anchors 18).
Friend as modified shows all the claimed structural limitations. The claimed method steps would have been the obvious method steps of supporting a beam on a wall with Friend’s modified structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims with the changes in limitations are still rejectable by the references as set forth above.
With respect to Friend, and the newly added limitations to the beams and the orientation of the openings thereof, examiner respectfully points out Friend as modified by Foley as set forth above shows the claimed limitations. The combination enables Friend to use the mounting plate with a ledger to support a beam on a vertical wall. The combination also shows the claimed orientations of the keyhole slots.
With respect to the fifth anchor, Friend as modified shows the fifth anchor. The combination results in Friend able to provide strong attachment and support for the plate against bending and forces (horizontal/vertical and bending stress), (see Board decision 2/26/2025 pages 21-22; ….Nonetheless, selecting the location…..any number of anchors 18) also. The combination is thus motivated.
In response to applicant's argument that DiGirolamo is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the reference teaches the use of a mounting plate and a ledger to support a top load on a wall. It is thus reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventio was as applicant is also trying to stably support a top load on a mounting plate and ledger.
With respect to Foley, the reference teaches the supporting of a top load/beam on a wall with connecting members. The reference shows the movement of the mounting connector into the slot of the wall plate from the wider opening into the narrower opening to stably and strongly situate the connector in the slot. Friend as modified by Foley shows the top load and orientation of the keyhole slots as claimed.
The combinations thus show the claimed limitations as 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 PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/PHI D A/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633