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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first truss attachment segment extending downward from an interior region of a lower surface of the first portion” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (claim 42). (See corresponding 112 rejections below)
No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claims 42-47 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The examiner does not see where in the original specification there is support for the newly added limitation “a first trust attachment segment extending downward from an interior region of a lower surface of the first portion”.
In the remarks filed September 25, 2025 applicant points to figure 50 and [0104], citing “projections that extend from the inner surfaces of the segments”.
However, “a first truss attachment segment extending downward from an interior region of a lower surface of the first portion” (newly added claim limitation) is not the same as replacing openings 234 and fasteners 236 with “projections that extend from the inner surfaces of the segments”. The newly added limitation is distinctly different than what is disclosed in the original specification.
Additionally, the claim now has both the openings for fasteners AND the segment extending downward from interior lower surface when specification suggests the projections would replace the openings and couplers. There does not appear to be any disclosure of both alternatives being present in one embodiment as now claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 32, 33, 36, 38 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thornton (US 5,896,719).
Thornton discloses:
32. An attachment system for use in the installation, maintenance, or repair of a roof on a building structure (figure 10, see below), the attachment system comprising:
a support assembly (200, figure 13, see below) that is configured to be permanently attached to an extent of the roof (R3) of the building structure (figure 10), the support assembly including:
a first support structure (200, figure 13):
a first portion (25) configured to underlie an extent of the roof when the roof is installed (col. 5, lines 55-56), the first portion (25) having a plurality of openings (30) formed there through (figure 13), wherein each of said openings (30) are configured to receive an elongated fastener (nails) to secure the first support structure to a first frame member of the roof (col. 5, lines 65-66),
a second portion (65, figure13) extending upward from the first portion (figure13), and
a third portion (portion extending from bend line 62 to end of, and including, 26) extending outward from the second portion (figure 13),the third portion rigidly connected to the second portion (figure 13), the third portion extending over said extent of the roof that overlies said first portion (figure 10 and col. 5, lines 57-59), the third portion having an opening (28) formed there through (figure 13), wherein said opening (28) is configured to provide a first anchor point that an installer (18, figure 1) can couple a safety line (20) to during the installation, maintenance, or repair of the roof (figure 1),
wherein the first and third portions are arranged in a substantially parallel relationship (the majority of the third portion- section between 62 and 60, runs parallel to 25) to define a securement channel between the first and third portions (see below), and wherein the securement channel is configured to receive at least one of: an extend of a ridge cap of the roof and an extent of a panel (roof cladding 16) of the roof, and,
wherein the second portion (65) is oriented substantially perpendicular to both the first and third portion (the “second angle” mentioned below is A4 in fig 12, and the “third angle” is A5 in fig 12; both ranges allow for a “substantially perpendicular” relationship).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
199
345
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
295
445
media_image3.png
Greyscale
33. The attachment system of claim 32, wherein the first support structure (200) includes a first truss attachment segment (76, figure 20) coupled to the first portion (25) of the first support structure (figure 20) and positioned substantially perpendicular to said first portion (figure 21).
36. The attachment system of claim 32, wherein the support assembly includes a second support structure (figure 1 depicts option of providing a second anchor 10) having:
a first portion (25, figure 13) having a plurality of openings formed there through (opening through which “fastening means 30” pass through), wherein said openings are configured to receive elongated fasteners (“nails or other equivalents”) to secure the first support structure to a second frame member of the roof (figure 1),
a second portion (65) extending upward from the first portion (figure 13), and
a third portion (portion from bend line 62 to end of 26) extending outward from the second portion (figure 13) and having an opening (28) formed there through (figure 13), wherein said opening (28) is configured to provide a second anchor point that an installer can couple a safety line to during the installation, maintenance, or repair of the roof (figure 1).
38. The attachment system of claim 36, wherein the first anchor point and the second anchor point are in an opposed positional relationship (figure 3 of incorporated reference US 5,361,558 depicts an example of a first a second support structure connected to one another to form the support assembly) and an apex (18, fig 1 of incorporated reference US 5,361,558) of the roof (12, fig 1 of incorporated reference US 5,361,558) is located between the first and second anchor points (figures 1 & 3 of incorporated reference US 5,361,558).
41. The attachment system of claim 32, wherein the support assembly is configured to be coupled to a truss (88, figure 25) prior to the truss being installed to the building structure (figure 25 demonstrates one of the many configurations the support assembly can take, and is certainly capable of being attached to a truss prior to installation).
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.
Claim(s) 37 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton as applied to claims 32 and 36 above, and further in view of Larsen (US 9,248,323). Thornton does not disclose wherein the support assembly includes an intermediate segment residing between the first support structure and the second support structure, and wherein said intermediate segment includes a midline that defines a pivot axis that permits angular adjustment of the first support structure relative to the second support structure.
However, Larsen teaches:
37. The attachment system of claim 36, wherein the support assembly (figure 17) includes an intermediate segment (32P, figure 17) residing between the first support structure (30F, figure 17) and the second support structure (30S, figure 17), and wherein said intermediate segment (32P) includes a midline (32) that defines a pivot axis (32 being the hinge pin and defining the axis) that permits angular adjustment of the first support structure relative to the second support structure (figure 17).
39. The attachment system of claim 36, wherein the support assembly (figure 17) includes an intermediate segment (32P) residing between the first support structure (30F, figure 17) and the second support structure (30S, figure 17), and wherein the intermediate segment includes an uppermost extent (peak of hinge structure) that is configured to be aligned with an uppermost extent of a ridge cap when the support assembly is attached to an extent of the roof of the building structure (figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support assembly of Thornton with an intermediate segment residing between the first support structure and the second support structure, and wherein said intermediate segment includes a midline that defines a pivot axis that permits angular adjustment of the first support structure relative to the second support structure, as taught by Larsen, so as to provide a stronger hinge point then a bend line, creating a more durable structure that can continue to be adjusted to varying roof angles without wear from repeated adjustment.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton as applied to claims 32 and 36 above, and further in view of Pantano (US 5,845,452). Thornton does not disclose the support assembly to meet specific safety regulations.
However, Pantano, while not specifying the support assembly meets Appendix C of Part 1926 of Chapter XVII of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Section 2 of Part II Chapter 4 of Section V of OSHA Technical Manual, they do disclose that the system is designed to meet both OSHA and ANSI standards (column 1, line 24-25 and column 5, lines 40-41 and 53-56). As the system is designed to meet multiple safety standards and regulations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the assembly to meet as many relevant safety regulations and standards as possible for the materials used and for the intended application, as the system is ultimately directed the safety of users, and constructing the system to meet anything less than the known safety standards could be dangerous to both those working at elevation as well as those below. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the support assembly of Thornton to meet relevant safety regulations and standards for the materials used and for the intended application, as taught by Pantano as the system is ultimately directed the safety of users, and constructing the system to meet anything less than the known safety standards could be dangerous to both those working at elevation as well as those below
Claim(s) 21-23, 25-29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton (US 5,896,719) in view of Larsen (US 9,248,323).
Thornton discloses:
21. An attachment system (figure 1) for use in the installation, maintenance, or repair of a roof (12) on a building structure (figure 1), the attachment system comprising:
a support assembly (10, figure 1) that is configured to be permanently attached to an extent of the roof of the building structure (col. 1, lines 11-15), the support assembly including:
a first support structure (figure 13) having:
a first portion (25) with a plurality of openings formed there through (openings through which fastening means 30 pass through), wherein each of said openings are configured to receive an elongated fastener (“nails”) to secure the first support structure to a first frame member of the roof (figure 10),
a second portion (65) extending upward from the first portion (figure 13), and
a third portion (portion from bend line 62 to end of 26; figure 13) extending outward from the second portion (figure 13) and having an opening (28) formed there through (figure 13), wherein said opening (28) is configured to provide a first anchor point that an installer can couple a safety line (20, figure 1) to during the installation, maintenance, or repair of the roof (figure 10);
a second support structure (other anchor 10, note that figure 1 depicts more than one) having:
a first portion (25) with a plurality of openings (openings through which fastening means 30 pass through), formed there through (figure 13), wherein said openings are configured to receive elongated fasteners (nails) to secure the second support structure to a second frame member of the roof (figure 1),
a second portion (65) extending upward from the first portion (figure 13), and
a third portion (portion from bend line 62 to end of 26) extending outward from the second portion (figure 13) and having an opening (28) formed there through (figure 13), wherein said opening (28) is configured to provide a second anchor point (figure 1) that an installer can couple a safety line (20, figure 1) to during the installation, maintenance, or repair of the roof (figure 1).
Additionally, Thornton teaches (by incorporation of US 5,361,558), an embodiment (figure 3 of US 5,361,558) where a first (24 of US 5,361,558) and second (26 of US 5,361,558) support structure are connected to one another to form the support assembly (figure 3 of US 5,361,558), wherein their connection point includes a midline (28 of US 5,361,558) that defines a pivot axis that is configured to permit angular adjustment of one segment relative to another (figure 3 & Abstract of US 5,361,558).
Thornton does not teach an intermediate segment from which the first and second support structures extend, wherein the intermediate segment resides between the first support structure and the second support structure, and wherein said intermediate segment includes the midline that defines the pivot axis that permits angular adjustment of the first support structure relative to the second support structure.
However, Larsen teaches: an intermediate segment (32P, figure 17) from which the first (30F, figure 17) and second (30S, figure 17) support structures extend (figure 17), wherein the intermediate segment (32P) resides between the first support structure and the second support structure (figure 17), and wherein said intermediate segment includes the midline that defines the pivot axis (axis of hinge pin 32) that permits angular adjustment of the first support structure relative to the second support structure (figure 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the attachment system of Thornton with an intermediate segment between the first support structure and the second support structure, as taught by Larsen, so as to provide a stronger hinge point then a bend line, creating a more durable structure that can continue to be adjusted to varying roof angles without wear from repeated adjustment.
Thornton additionally discloses:
22. wherein the first support structure includes a first truss attachment segment (74, 76) coupled to the first portion (25) of the first support structure and positioned substantially perpendicular to said first portion (figure 21).
23. The attachment system of claim 22, wherein the first truss attachment (74, 76) segment includes a plurality of openings (78) formed there through, wherein each of said openings are configured to receive an elongated fastener (nails).
25. The attachment system of claim 21, wherein when the support assembly is attached to an extent of the roof of the building structure, the first portion (25) of the first support structure overlies the first frame member of the roof (figure 1) and an extent of the roof (cladding 16, figure 10) overlies said first portion (25) of the first support structure (cladding 16 overlies 25 when installed).
26. The attachment system of claim 25, wherein the third portion (as defined above) of the first support structure overlies both (a) said first portion (25)of the first support structure (figure 13), and (b) said extent of the roof (16) that overlies said first portion of the first support structure (cladding 16 lies over 25 and beneath third portion).
28. The attachment system of claim 27, wherein at least a major extent of the third portion (as defined above) of the first support structure is configured to reside under the ridge cap installed on the roof (intended use and capable of; also dependent upon the size of the ridge cap).
29. The attachment system of claim 21, wherein the opening (28) formed in the third portion of the first support structure overlies at least one of the plurality of openings (@30) formed in the first portion of the first support structure (depending on the steepness of the ridge the end of could be positioned above the apertures).
31. The attachment system of claim 21, wherein the angular adjustment of the first support structure relative to the second support structure allows the support assembly to be adjusted to match the pitch of the roof (figure 1).
Re: 27. Thornton as modified by Larsen would result in a construction wherein both the intermediate segment and the second portion of the first support structure are configured to (intended use and capable of) reside under a ridge cap installed on the roof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants remarks with respect to new claims 42-47 are addressed in the above drawing objections and 112 rejections.
With respect to the 102 rejection of claims 32, 33 and 41, applicant argues that the prior art of Thornton (US 5,896,719) does not anticipate the claims, alleging that the second portion 65 “is not perpendicular to the alleged first portion 25 and the alleged third portion 26.” However, this argument is not persuasive for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the claim rejection now identifies the third portion as the portion extending from bend line 62 to the end of 26, which includes the elongated portion parallel to first portion 25, which is also “substantially perpendicular” to the second portion 65. Secondly, the claims only require the second portion to be oriented “substantially perpendicular” to both the first portion and the third portion. It should be noted that the use of “substantially” allows for variation greater and less than 90°. Applicant points to column 1, line 59 - column 2, line 8 of Thornton for evidence that the prior art teaches away from 90° by teaching angles in a range of 70- 90° and 95-110°. However, these ranges still read on the claim language by the inclusion of “substantially”, which again allows for some variation. Not only does one of the angle options in Thornton include exactly 90°, but even those just less than 90° and those in the 95 to 110° can still considered “substantially perpendicular”.
With respect to claim 40 and the prior art of Pantano applicant argues that the prior art does not address the specific OSHA standard claimed, arguing that the claim was largely ignored. Examiner notes that Pantano was not cited for teaching the specific standard, but was cited for teaching that it would be obvious to construct safety anchors to meet known safety regulations. As noted in the rejections, the system [of Pantano] is designed to meet multiple safety standards and regulations, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the assembly to meet as many relevant safety regulations and standards as possible for the materials used and for the intended application, as the system is ultimately directed the safety of users, and constructing the system to meet anything less than the known safety standards could be dangerous to both those working at elevation as well as those below. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the support assembly of Thornton to meet relevant safety regulations and standards for the materials used and for the intended application, as taught by Pantano as the system is ultimately directed the safety of users, and constructing the system to meet anything less than the known safety standards could be dangerous to both those working at elevation as well as those below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the other rejections applying the prior art of Pantano, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference as previously applied.
For at least these reasons applicant’s remarks are not found persuasive in the claims remain rejected as advanced 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 COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634