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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a second Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-20, and 121-123 as amended 25 AUG. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Telephone Practice/Interview
After applicant timely replied to the preceding action (16 JUN. 25), Examiner Sadlon contacted representative Michael G. Smith 45,368 to discuss the claims which led to Applicant filing an updated amendment (25 AUG. 2025) which has been incorporated in this action.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 25 AUG. 25 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c).
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 121, 122 and 123 appear to include an incorrect status identifier of “(Previously presented)” as this claims appears to have been amended in the present amendment to the claims. These claims should have the correct status identifier of --(Currently amended)--.
Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
However, rather than mail a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (37 CFR 1.121), and to facilitate an advancement of prosecution, the Examiner will examine the amended claims as presented 25 AUG. 25. Applicant is cautioned that any future response must present the correct markings and status identifiers or the Examiner will be forced to send a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (37 CFR 1.121).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities:
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, therefore the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Cl. 4 ln. 3-5: “tab leg… connected at one end… to tab base” has not been explicitly pointed out as the “tab base 3204” of FIG. 32 appears to conflict with the “topside of the valleys of a metal deck 3102” as disclosed; this is also confusing as FIG. 3 or FIG. 34 appear to suggest tabs 502 or 1602 extend from a top flange (compare also FIG. 32);
FIG(s) 31: reference character(s) 2806 and 2804 have been used to designate “valleys 2806” and “ribs 2804” but both are accompanied by a lead line extending towards the same element, a “valley”;
FIG(s) 32: the plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line (see 37 CFR 1.84 (h));
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 42 of 44, ln. 17: the phrase “topside” is confusing as appearing to be distinguished from the commonly understood “top side” of the metal deck. Similarly, the claimed “bottomside” is confusing as having not been explicitly disclosed. For the purposes of examination, these will be treated as the commonly understood “top side” and “bottom side”
Page 43 of 44, ln. 22: after “In some implementations, the hole in the flange is defined by the base of the tab and” the phrase “the top side of hole” appears to be a typographical error and should be replaced by “the top side of --the-- hole” as best understood
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 etc. objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 1 ln. 5, 9, 13, etc: “topside” should be replaced with --top side-- and “bottomside” should be replaced with --bottom side--. For the purposes of examination, these will be treated as a commonly understood upper “top side” and lower “bottom side”
Cl. 1 ln. 36; Cl. 10, ln. 40: after “wherein all of” insert --the--
Cl. 4 ln. 3-5: after “planar… connected at one end of the tab leg to” insert --a-- as no “tab base” has been introduced; this appears to be a typographical error;
Cl. 4 ln. 33: after “respective flange and” replace [[with]] with --wherein--
Cl. 5 ln. 1-2: after “assembly of claim 4” insert --the assembly--
Cl. 13 ln. 15: after “the plurality of the steel framing” delete [[steel framing]]
Cl. 122 ln. 1-2: after “The composite assembly of claim 121,” replace [[that]] with --wherein the assembly--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Cl. 9 ln. 5; Cl. 20 ln. 4: after “microfiber and” the recitation “microrebar” is not supported by the original disclosure. The disclosure fails to describe “microrebar” This is considered new matter.
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.
Claim 9 and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 9 ln. 5; Cl. 20 ln. 4: after “microfiber and” the recitation(s) of “microrebar” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as having not been disclosed in the specification as filed, making it unclear what this recitation means. For examination purposes, this phrase will be treated as --rebar--, as disclosed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-3, 10-11 and 121-123 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer et al. US 6729094 B1 (Spencer) in view of Studebaker et al. US 8661755 B2 (Studebaker).
As per claim 1 the primary reference of Spencer teaches composite floor assembly (panel 10, FIG. 1) comprising:
a cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1);
a deck (panel 12, FIG. 1)
the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1) having a [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1) and a [[bottomside]] --bottom side-- (bottom of 12, FIG. 1), the [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1)
being adjacent to the cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1);
a plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) fixed to the [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1)
the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) fixed to the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1) by a plurality of screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1) that go through all of the
the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1), in which a screwhead (see top of 21, FIG. 1; note “fasteners 21, such as screws” 4:52; the upper portion of fastener 21, FIG. 1 is recognized as a “head” as broadly claimed) of each of the screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1) is above the [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1) of the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1) and the other end of each of the screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1) is below the [[bottomside]] --bottom side-- (bottom of 12, FIG. 1) of the
deck (panel 12, FIG. 1);
a cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1; note “studs are 16 or 18 gauge galvanized steel” Cl. 31; note: The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. (Product by Process 2113)) having a central longitudinal axis (see center of 18, FIG. 18), the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) having a top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) and the top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) having a top flange return (see downward portion of upper flange 19, FIG. 1) and the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) having a bottom flange (lower flange 20, FIG. 1), the bottom flange (lower flange 20, FIG. 1) having a bottom flange return (upward extending portion of lower flange 20, FIG. 1),
the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) having a web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1) that extends from the top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) to the bottom flange (lower flange 20, FIG. 1),
the top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) of the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) attached to the bottom side of the
deck (panel 12, FIG. 1) by the screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1);
wherein all of --the--plurality of screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1) are attached to the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1);
wherein each of the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) is attached to the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) by the plurality of screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1)
wherein the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) having a centroid (note: the centroid is inherently located above the middle of the web of the joist because the joist and concrete slab are formed into a composite by virtue of the plurality of tabs) that is located above a middle of the web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1) of the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) in the composite floor assembly but fails to explicitly disclose:
the deck being a metal deck having a corrugation by a plurality of ribs and a plurality of valleys,
the fasteners extending throughout the plurality of valleys
the fasteners through the plurality of valleys of the metal deck;
Studebaker reaches teaches a metal deck and cold forming members, specifically:
the deck being a metal deck (“steel decking” 10:48) having a corrugation by a plurality of ribs (see top surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5) and a plurality of valleys (see lower planar surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5),
the fasteners (fasteners 130, FIG. 5) extending throughout the plurality of valleys (see lower planar surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5)
the fasteners (fasteners 130, FIG. 5) through the plurality of valleys (see lower planar surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5) of the metal deck (panel 12, FIG. 1);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Spencer by substituting the corrugated decking as taught by Studebaker in order to use the assembly as a floor.
As per claim 2 Spencer in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Studebaker further discloses wherein the cold formed metal floor joist (see joist 122, FIG. 5; this is considered exemplary) is perpendicular to the plurality of the ribs (decking 138, FIG. 5; this is considered exemplary) and the plurality of the valleys of the metal deck (decking 138, FIG. 5; this is considered exemplary; also “perpendicular to the corrugations” 10:51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Spencer in view of Studebaker by substituting the disposition of the members to be perpendicular relative to one another as taught by Studebaker in order to achieve a structure having desired shape and strength characteristics.
As per claim 3 Spencer in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 2, and Spencer further discloses the centroid (see note: the centroid is inherently located above the middle of the web of the joist because the joist and concrete slab are formed into a composite by virtue of the plurality of tabs) of the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) is located near a top of the web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1) of the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1).
As per claim 10 the primary reference of Spencer teaches composite floor assembly (panel 10, FIG. 1) comprising:
a cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1);
a deck (panel 12, FIG. 1)having
a [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1) and a [[bottomside]] --bottom side-- (bottom of 12, FIG. 1), the [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1)
being adjacent to the cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1);
a plurality of steel framing members (studs 13, FIG. 1; note “studs are 16 or 18 gauge galvanized steel” Cl. 31), each of the plurality of steel framing members (studs 13, FIG. 1; note “studs are 16 or 18 gauge galvanized steel” Cl. 31) including:
a plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) fixed to the [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1) of the deck
deck (panel 12, FIG. 1), the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) fixed to the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1) by a plurality of screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1)
in which a screwhead (see top of 21, FIG. 1; note “fasteners 21, such as screws” 4:52; the upper portion of fastener 21, FIG. 1 is recognized as a “head” as broadly claimed) of each of the screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1) is above the [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1) of the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1) and the other end of each of the screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1) is below the [[bottomside]] --bottom side-- (bottom of 12, FIG. 1) of the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1); and
a cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1; note: The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. (Product by Process 2113)) having a central longitudinal axis (see center of 18, FIG. 18), the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) having a top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) and the top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) having a top flange return (see downward portion of upper flange 19, FIG. 1) and the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) having a bottom flange (lower flange 20, FIG. 1), the bottom flange (lower flange 20, FIG. 1) having a bottom flange return (upward extending portion of lower flange 20, FIG. 1),
the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) having a web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1) extending from the top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) to the bottom flange (lower flange 20, FIG. 1), the top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) of the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) attached to the [[bottomside]] --bottom side-- (bottom of 12, FIG. 1) of the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1) by the screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1) wherein all of --the-- plurality of screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1) are attached to the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1);
wherein each of the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) is attached to the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) by the plurality of screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1) through the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1);
wherein the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1) has a centroid (see note: the centroid is inherently located above the middle of the web of the joist because the joist and concrete slab are formed into a composite by virtue of the plurality of tabs) that is located near the cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1), but fails to explicitly disclose:
a metal deck
a corrugation by a plurality of ribs and
a plurality of valleys,
of each of the plurality of ribs and the [[topside]] --top side-- of each of the plurality of the valleys of the metal deck
the fasteners that go through all of the plurality of valleys of the metal deck
the plurality of valleys of the metal
placing near 100% of the cementitious material in compression and placing at least 65% of the plurality of steel framing members in tension.
Studebaker reaches teaches a metal deck and cold forming members, specifically:
the deck being a metal deck having a corrugation by a plurality of ribs (see top surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5) and
a plurality of valleys (see lower planar surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5),
the fasteners that go through all of the plurality of valleys (see lower planar surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5) of the metal deck
placing the cementitious material in compression and placing the plurality of steel framing members in tension (see “structural member that can be loaded in tension and compression,” 26:36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Spencer by substituting the corrugated decking, fasteners, tension and compression as taught by Studebaker in order to use the assembly as a reinforced floor.
.Regarding the limitations of “near 100%” and “at least 65%” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to impart tension and compression into the assembly, including “near 100%” and “at least 65%” in order to impart a desired resistance to buckling, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
As per claim 11 Spencer in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 10, and Spencer further discloses wherein the centroid (see note: the centroid is inherently located above the middle of the web of the joist because the joist and concrete slab are formed into a composite by virtue of the plurality of tabs) is located near the bottom plane of the cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1).
As per claim 121 the primary reference of Spencer teaches a composite assembly comprising:
a floor (panel 10, FIG. 1) having:
a cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1);
a deck (panel 12, FIG. 1)having
a [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1) and a [[bottomside]] --bottom side-- (bottom of 12, FIG. 1), the [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1) being adjacent to the cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1);
tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) positioned on the [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1) in the cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1);
screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1) that go through the tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) and through the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1);
a cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1; note: The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. (Product by Process 2113)) having a top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) that is adjacent to the [[bottomside]] --bottom side-- (bottom of 12, FIG. 1) of the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1),
a floor web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1) and a bottom flange (lower flange 20, FIG. 1), the top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) attached to the [[bottomside]] --bottom side-- (bottom of 12, FIG. 1)
of the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1) by the screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1);
wherein all of the screws (fasteners 21, FIG. 1) are attached to the cold formed metal floor joist (studs 13, FIG. 1);
wherein each of the tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) is attached through the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1);
a floor top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) extending from a top of the floor web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1);
a floor bottom flange (lower flange 20, FIG. 1) having a bottom flange return (upward extending portion of lower flange 20, FIG. 1); and
a floor tab (connectors 17, FIG. 1) attached to, or extending from, the floor top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1),
a roof having:
a cold formed metal roof joist having a roof web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1);
a roof top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) extending from a top of the roof web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1);
a roof bottom flange (lower flange 20, FIG. 1) having a bottom flange return (upward extending portion of lower flange 20, FIG. 1); and
a roof tab (connectors 17, FIG. 1) attached to, or extending from, the roof top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1),
wherein the roof and the floor are both connected to a wall (see FIG. 1; also “when the panel is used to construct a wall” 4:20) but fails to explicitly disclose:
metal deck having a corrugation of ribs and valleys, the ribs and the valleys having
of the ribs and the [[topside]] --top side-- of the valleys
through the valleys.
Studebaker reaches teaches a metal deck and cold forming members, specifically:
metal deck having a corrugation of ribs (see top surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5) and valleys (see lower planar surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5), the ribs (see top surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5) and the valleys (see lower planar surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5) having
through the valleys (see lower planar surfaces of decking 138, FIG. 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Spencer by substituting the corrugated decking as taught by Studebaker in order to use the assembly as a floor.
As per claim 122 Spencer in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 121, and Spencer further discloses --wherein the assembly-- [[that]] has a floor joist mid-point between the floor joist top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) and a bottom of the floor joist web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1),
wherein a floor joist centroid (see note: the centroid is inherently located above the middle of the web of the joist because the joist and concrete slab are formed into a composite by virtue of the plurality of tabs) being located above the floor joist mid-point,
the floor joist centroid (see note: the centroid is inherently located above the middle of the web of the joist because the joist and concrete slab are formed into a composite by virtue of the plurality of tabs) being a floor joist equilibrium point
having a roof joist mid-point between the roof joist top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) and a bottom of the roof joist web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1),
wherein a roof joist centroid (see note: the centroid is inherently located above the middle of the web of the joist because the joist and concrete slab are formed into a composite by virtue of the plurality of tabs) being located above the roof joist mid-point,
the roof joist centroid (see note: the centroid is inherently located above the middle of the web of the joist because the joist and concrete slab are formed into a composite by virtue of the plurality of tabs) being a roof joist equilibrium point.
Studebaker further discloses placing members in tension and compression, specifically a floor joist compression area of the floor and a floor joist tension area of the floor joist (see “structural member that can be loaded in tension and compression,” 26:36), the floor joist tension area being below the floor joist centroid and the floor joist compression area (see “structural member that can be loaded in tension and compression,” 26:36) being above the floor joist centroid and a roof joist compression area (see “structural member that can be loaded in tension and compression,” 26:36) of the roof joist and a roof joist tension (see “structural member that can be loaded in tension and compression,” 26:36) area of the roof joist, the roof joist tension area being below the roof joist centroid and the roof joist compression area (see “structural member that can be loaded in tension and compression,” 26:36) being above the roof joist centroid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Spencer in view of Studebaker by substituting tension and compression as taught by Studebaker into the assembly in order to impart a desired resistance to buckling, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
As per claim 123 Spencer in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 122 and Spencer further discloses the roof further including a roof cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1) on the top of the deck (panel 12, FIG. 1),
wherein the floor joist web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1), the floor joist top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) and the floor tab comprise a steel framing floor member,
wherein a portion of the floor cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1) is solidified around the floor tab and the portion of the floor cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1) is bonded to the floor tab, forming a floor bonded composite assembly of the steel framing floor member, the floor deck (panel 12, FIG. 1) and the floor cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1),
wherein the roof joist web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1), the roof joist top flange (upper flange 19, FIG. 1) and the roof tab comprise a steel framing roof member,
wherein a portion of the roof cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1) is solidified around the roof tab and the portion of the roof cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1) is bonded to the roof tab, forming a roof bonded composite assembly of the steel framing roof member, the roof deck (panel 12, FIG. 1) and the roof cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1).
Claim 4-5, 7, and 13-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Studebaker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Valle et al. US 7823350 B2 (Valle).
As per claim 4 Spencer in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Spencer further discloses wherein each of the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) comprise:
a tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) that is substantially planar, and is connected at one end of the tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) to --a-- tab base (lower horizontal member of connector 17, FIG. 1) and that projects outwardly from the [[topside]] --top side-- (top of 12, FIG. 1) of the tab base (lower horizontal member of connector 17, FIG. 1) at an angle of less than 90 degrees to the tab base (lower horizontal member of connector 17, FIG. 1); and
a tab foot (upper horizontal member of connector 17, FIG. 1) extending from the tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) of each of the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1)
and the tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) of each of the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) extends from the base side,
wherein the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) comprises a first tab and a second tab (see “one or more connectors” Cl. 1),
wherein the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) and a structural mesh (mesh 16, FIG. 1) are embedded in the cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1)) and [[with]] --wherein-- the web (elongated portion 18, FIG. 1) is not embedded in the cementitious material (see FIG. 1) but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
tab foot curving in a direction that is
(i) toward a plane extending perpendicular to the tab base through the one end of the tab leg of each of the plurality of tabs and
(ii) away from a hole in the tab base created by each tab being punched out of the tab base,
wherein the hole is defined by a base side and a top side,
the base side has a greater length than the top side,
with the tab foot of each of the plurality of tabs curving in the direction that is away from the respective hole in the respective flange created by the tab punched out of the respective flange
wherein one of the first tab being a lateral tab and the second tab being a longitudinal tab;
a total surface area of the holes created by the plurality of tabs is greater than about 10% of the total surface area of the tab base. and
Valle teaches a structural member capable of use with a composite floor having the particular angle and hole sides, specifically:
tab foot (see “a tab foot extending from the tab leg and curving either away from or toward a hole in the sidewall created by the tab punched out of the sidewall” 2:15; also 109, FIG. 2, and 227 FIG. 8) curving in a direction that is
(i) toward a plane (see “toward” an upper right direction, FIG. 2) extending perpendicular to the tab base through the one end of the tab leg of each of the plurality of tabs and
(ii) away from a hole (hole 111, FIG. 1, 211 FIG. 8) in the tab base created by each tab being punched out of the tab base,
wherein the hole is defined by a base side and a top side (see FIG. 2),
the base side has a greater length than the top side (see greater length base side and top side, FIG. 11)
with the tab foot of each of the plurality of tabs curving in the direction that is away from the respective hole in the respective flange created by the tab punched out of the respective flange (see “away” FIG. 2)
wherein one of the first tab being a lateral tab and the second tab being a longitudinal tab (see lateral and longitudinal, FIG. 8);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Spencer in view of Studebaker by including the angle of the tabs and relative sized edges as taught by Valle to pursue a known design option in order to provide any desired level of interaction between the elements and because changes in relative size/shape do not constitute a patentable difference.
Regarding the limitation of "total surface area", a skilled artisan would choose tabs and holes of any size, including "greater than about 10% of the total surface area" to fit any desired engagement, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As per claim 5 Spencer in view of Studebaker and Valle teaches the limitations according to claim 4 and Spencer further discloses --the assembly-- being pre-cast (see “PRE-FABRICATED” title) but fails to explicitly disclose:
at least one lifting anchor embedded in the cementitious material.
Valle teaches the old and well-known inclusion of a lifting element in a preconstructed cementitious panel specifically:
at least one lifting anchor (lifting anchor 127, FIG. 7) embedded in the cementitious material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Spencer in view of Studebaker and Valle by including the lifting anchor as taught by Valle in order to expedite placement of the assembly.
As per claim 7 Spencer in view of Studebaker and Valle teaches the limitations according to claim 5 and Spencer further discloses wherein the end of the tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) of each lateral tab that is connected (see “connected” FIG. 1) to the respective flange is substantially perpendicular (see “substantially perpendicular” FIG. 1) to the end of the tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) of each longitudinal tab that is connected to the respective flange.
As per claim 13 Spencer in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 11, and Spencer further discloses wherein each of the tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) comprise:
a tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) that is connected to the flange at one end of the tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) and that projects outwardly from the flange at an angle of less than 90 degrees to the flange (lower horizontal member of connector 17, FIG. 1); and
a tab foot (upper horizontal member of connector 17, FIG. 1) extending from the tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) and the tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) extends from the base side,
wherein the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) of each of the plurality of the steel framing [[steel framing]] members (studs 13, FIG. 1; note “studs are 16 or 18 gauge galvanized steel” Cl. 31; note: The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. (Product by Process 2113)) comprises a first tab and a second tab (see “one or more connectors” Cl. 1),,
wherein the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) of the plurality of steel framing members (studs 13, FIG. 1; note “studs are 16 or 18 gauge galvanized steel” Cl. 31) and a structural mesh (mesh 16, FIG. 1) are embedded with the tab foot (upper horizontal member of connector 17, FIG. 1) of the plurality of tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
tab foot curving in a direction that is
(i) toward a plane extending perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis through the one end of the tab leg and
(ii) away from a hole in the flange created by each tab being punched out of the flange,
wherein the hole is defined by a base side and a top side,
the base side has a greater length than the top side
wherein one of the first tab and the second tab of each floor steel framing member being a lateral tab and the other of the first and second tab of each steel framing member being a longitudinal tab;
a total surface area of the holes created by the plurality of tabs is greater than about 10% of the total surface area of the flange; and
curving in the direction that is away from the respective hole in the respective flange created by the tab punched out of the respective flange.
Valle teaches a structural member capable of use with a composite floor having the particular angle and hole sides, specifically:
tab foot (see “a tab foot extending from the tab leg and curving either away from or toward a hole in the sidewall created by the tab punched out of the sidewall” 2:15; also 109, FIG. 2, and 227 FIG. 8) curving in a direction that is
(i) toward (see “toward” an upper right direction, FIG. 2) a plane extending perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis through the one end of the tab leg and
(ii) away from a hole (hole 111, FIG. 1, 211 FIG. 8) in the flange created by each tab being punched out of the flange,
wherein the hole is defined by a base side and a top side (see FIG. 2),
the base side has a greater length than the top side (see greater length base side and top side, FIG. 11) and
wherein one of the first tab and the second tab of each floor steel framing member being a lateral tab and the other of the first and second tab of each steel framing member being a longitudinal tab (see lateral and longitudinal, FIG. 8);
curving in the direction that is away from the respective hole in the respective flange created by the tab punched out of the respective flange (see “away” FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Spencer in view of Studebaker by including the angle of the tabs and relative sized edges as taught by Valle to pursue a known design option in order to provide any desired level of interaction between the elements and because changes in relative size/shape do not constitute a patentable difference.
Regarding the limitation of "total surface area", a skilled artisan would choose tabs and holes of any size, including "greater than about 10% of the total surface area" to fit any desired engagement, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As per claim 14 Spencer in view of Studebaker and Valle teaches the limitations according to claim 13, and Spencer further discloses the end of the tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) of the lateral tab that is connected (see “connected” FIG. 1) to the respective flange is substantially perpendicular (see “substantially perpendicular” FIG. 1) to the end of the tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) of the longitudinal tab that is connected to the respective flange.
As per claim 16 Spencer in view of Studebaker and Valle teaches the limitations according to claim 13, and Spencer further discloses wherein each tab leg (vertical members of connector 17, FIG. 1) is substantially planar.
As per claim 17 Spencer in view of Studebaker and Valle teaches the limitations according to claim 13, and Spencer further discloses the tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) of the plurality of steel framing members (studs 13, FIG. 1; note “studs are 16 or 18 gauge galvanized steel” Cl. 31) and a structural mesh (mesh 16, FIG. 1) are embedded in the cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1).
As per claim 18 Spencer in view of Studebaker and Valle teaches the limitations according to claim 17, and Spencer further discloses being pre-cast (see “PRE-FABRICATED” title) and wherein the tabs (connectors 17, FIG. 1) are embedded in structurally reinforced cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1).
As per claim 19 Spencer in view of Studebaker and Valle teaches the limitations according to claim 18, and Spencer further discloses being pre-cast (see “PRE-FABRICATED” title) but fails to explicitly disclose:
and further comprising: at least one lifting anchor is embedded in the cementitious material with the plurality of steel framing members and the structural mesh.
Valle teaches the old and well-known inclusion of a lifting element in a preconstructed cementitious panel specifically:
at least one lifting anchor (lifting anchor 127, FIG. 7) embedded in the cementitious material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Spencer in view of Studebaker and Valle by including the lifting anchor as taught by Valle in order to expedite placement of the assembly.
Claim 9 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer in view of Studebaker as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Hunt US 20150013255 A1.
As per claim 9 and 20 Spencer in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and 10 above, but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
the cementitious material further comprises a material selected from the group consisting of microfiber and [[microrebar]] --rebar--;
Hunt teaches bar for embedding in a composite assembly, specifically:
the cementitious material (slab 11, FIG. 1) further comprises a material selected from the group consisting of microfiber and [[microrebar]] --rebar-- (rebars 11, FIG. 4);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Spencer in view of Studebaker by including the rebar as taught by Hunt in order to reinforce the assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-20, and 121-123 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 D MATTEI can be reached on (571)270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J. J. S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635