DETAILED ACTION This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 4/18/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are under consideration. 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 filed on 4/18/2023 are acceptable for examination. Claim Objections Claim 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14, “openigns” is objected to because the word appears to be a typo. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “openings”. Claim 19, “ the relief walls each has a first end and a second end ” is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “ each of the relief walls each has a first end and a second end ” or equivalent. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1, “the rear edge” (line 10) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining the knife plate as comprising a rear edge. Claim 1, “the one or more second fastenings” (lines 15-16) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim does not previously define one or more second fastenings. This rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining one or more second fastenings. Claim 1, “the first fastenings” (line 17) is indefinite because the claim previously defines one or more first fastenings. Does applicant intend for the previously recited one or more first fastenings to be a plurality of first fastenings? This rejection can be overcome by reciting “the one or more first fastenings” or equivalent. Claim 1, “the first fasteners” (line 18) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim previously recites a plurality of elongated first fasteners. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the plurality of elongated first fasteners” or equivalent. See also claims 6-8. Claim 4, “the bottom edge” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining the fastening flange as comprising a bottom edge. Claim 4, “the fastening flange” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim previously recites one or more generally planar fastening flanges . This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the one or more fastening flange ” or equivalent. Claim 10, “A connection between a structural member and a connector and one or more first fasteners” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. The term “between” implies that two items are required to be connected. However, it appears that applicant intends for the connection to require three items: the structural member, the connector and the one or more first fasteners. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language to more clearly define what the claim requires. Claim 12, “the first extending openings” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited first extended opening? Claim 12, “the spacing” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to a spacing of the opposed and spaced apart relief walls? This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “ a spacing”. Claim 12, “the opposed relief walls” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the opposed and spaced apart relief walls”. Claim 12, “the opposed side walls” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the opposed and spaced apart side walls”. Claim 13, “ the flared opening ” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by reciting , “the second flared opening”. Claim 17, “ each side wall ” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the side walls”. Claim 17, “a relief wall” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited relief walls? Claim 18, “ the relief walls are preferably curved ” is indefinite because the phrase “preferably” is unclear as to whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). This rejection can be overcome by deleting “preferably”. Claim 19, “ each curved relief wall ” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claims do not previously require the relief walls to be curved. Further, it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to one or both of the relief walls. This rejection can be overcome by amending claim 18 to positively recite each of the relief walls being curved, and by reciting in claim 19, “each of the curved relief wall s ” or equivalent. See also claims 19-20. Claim 19, “the other opposed relief wall” (two recitations) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to one of the previously recited relief walls? This rejection can be overcome by defining the relief walls as comprising first and second relief walls, or equivalent. The remainder of the claims are dependent upon directly or indirectly a rejected base claim. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18, “the relief walls are preferably curved” does not positively recite any function or structure and thus the claim does not limit the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 10-1 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jureit (US 3498171). Claim 10, Jureit provides a connection between a structural member 10 and a connector 12 and one or more first fasteners 14 , the connection comprising: a. the structural member having an attachment surface (top surface of 10; Fig. 1) ; b. the connector having one or more fastening flanges (body of 12 attached to 10; Fig .1) being disposed generally parallel to the attachment surface of the structural member (Fig. 1) and in interfacing engagement with the attachment surface (Fig. 1) , the one or more fastening flanges being attached to the structural member by the one or more first fasteners (Fig. 1) ; wherein c. the one or more first fasteners are elongated fasteners (Fig. 1) , and d. the one or more fastening flanges are formed with one or more slotted openings 16 . Claim 11, Jureit further provides wherein: the one or more slotted openings are T-shaped (Fig. 2) . Claim 1 2 , Jureit further provides wherein: a. the one or more slotted openings are formed with a first extended opening (16 at 24; Fig. 3) disposed between opposed and spaced apart side walls 24 with the first extending openings intersecting with a second flared opening (16 at 34; Fig. 3) disposed between opposed and spaced apart relief walls (walls of 16 at wide end; Fig. 3) ; and b. the spacing between the opposed relief walls is greater than the spacing between the opposed side walls (Fig. 3) . Claim 1 3 , Jureit further provides wherein: the flared opening is disposed generally orthogonally to the extended opening (Fig. 3) . Claim 1 4 , Jureit further provides wherein: the first extending openings are longer than the flared openings (Fig. 3) . Claim 1 5 , Jureit further provides wherein: a tab 34 is disposed between portions of the side walls. Claim 1 6 , Jureit further provides wherein: the side walls are substantially straight and the side walls are of substantially equal length (Fig. 3) . Claim 1 7 , Jureit further provides wherein: each side wall has a first end and second end, and the second ends of the side walls intersects with a relief wall (Fig. 3) . 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1 -2 and 7 - 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka (US 5577856) in view of Allen (GB 2548090). Claim 1, Tezuka teaches a connection between a first structural member 8 and a second structural member 3 made with a connector 2 , the connection comprising: a. the first structural member having an attachment surface 8a ; b. the second structural member having an abutment surface 3a disposed in close proximity to the attachment surface of the first structural member (Figs. 5-7) , the second structural member having a slotted opening 3d in the abutment surface (Fig. 5) ; c. the connector having a generally planar knife plate 5 inserted in the slotted opening of the second structural member (Figs. 6-7) , the connector having one or more generally planar fastening flanges 4b connected to the rear edge of the knife plate (Fig. 5) , the one or more fastening flanges being disposed generally parallel to the attachment surface of the first structural member (Fig. 5) and at an angle to the knife plate (4b is at an angle to 5; Fig. 5) , the one or more fastening flanges being attached to the first structural member by one or more first fastenings 9 , the knife plate being attached to the second structural member by the one or more second fastenings (13 or alternatively 6; Figs. 5-7) ; wherein d. the first fastenings are a plurality of elongated first fasteners (nut and bolt assemblies col. 3, line 43) , Tezuka does not teach at least one of the first fasteners inserted upwardly and at an acute angle to the one or more fastening flanges and into the first structural member . However, Allen teaches a fastener alignment guide, connector and method comprising one or more first fasteners (see fasteners shown in Fig. 6a-6b) inserted upwardly and at an acute angle (“acute angle” α) to a first fastening flange 18 and into a first structural member 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the connection such that at least one of the first fasteners is inserted upwardly and at an acute angle to the one or more fastening flanges and into the first structural member using a known fastening arrangement with the reasonable expectation of success of improving the strength of the connection in response to a particular type of load (Allen page 1, lines 15-22 ). Claim 2, Tezuka further teaches wherein: the connector has a seat plate 4a attached to the knife plate (Fig. 5) , and the second structural member bears upon the seat plate (Figs. 5-7) . Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of Tezuka and Allen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein: a. the connector has a center line which divides the connector laterally and is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the connector ( Tezuka ; the connector has virtually infinite center lines that divide the connector laterally and are parallel to a longitudinal axis of the connector; the connector has virtually infinite longitudinal axes; Fig. 5) and which is parallel with the knife plate of the connector (Tezuka Fig. 5) , b. the first fasteners have tips that enter the first structural member first, shank portions which enter the first structural member following the tips and ends that do not enter the first structural member, the ends bearing against the one or more fastening flanges (Tezuka via nuts; Figs. 6-7) ; and c. the at least one of the first fasteners inserted upwardly and at an acute angle to the one or more fastening flanges is disposed so that the tip is disposed above the end (Allen Figs. 6a-6b) , and the tip is disposed closer to the center line of the connector than the end (Allen Figs. 6a-6b) . Note that the claim is a product-by-process claim, and the connection does not depend on the process of making it. The product-by-process limitation " the first fasteners have tips that enter the first structural member first, shank portions which enter the first structural member following the tips and ends that do not enter the first structural member, the ends bearing against the one or more fastening flanges " would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the connection. In other words, the sequential order of installing the first fastener would not be expected to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the claimed connection is not a different and unobvious connection from the combination of Tezuka and Allen . Claim 8, Tezuka further teaches wherein: a. the connector has a longitudinal axis aligned with the knife plate of the connector (Tezuka; the connector has virtually infinite longitudinal axes aligned with the knife plate; Fig. 5) ; b. at least two of the first fasteners are inserted at an orthogonal angle to the one or more fastening flanges and into the first structural member (Tezuka; two of the first fasteners are inserted horizontally, at a 90-degree angle with respect to the first structural member, which is oriented vertically; Fig. 5). Tezuka does not teach the at least one of the first fasteners inserted upwardly and at an acute angle to the one or more fastening flanges is disposed between the at least two of the first fasteners inserted at an orthogonal angle to the one or more fastening flanges along the longitudinal axis. However, Allen’s fastener alignment guide, connector and method compris ing the one or more first fasteners ( Allen; see fasteners shown in Fig. 6a-6b) that are inserted upwardly and at an acute angle ( Allen; “acute angle” α) to a first fastening flange (Allen 18 ) and into a first structural member (Allen 7 ) are arranged along a longitudinal axis (Allen Figs. 6a-6b) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try incorporating an additional fastener, such that the at least one of the first fasteners inserted upwardly and at an acute angle to the one or more fastening flanges is disposed between the at least two of the first fasteners inserted at an orthogonal angle to the one or more fastening flanges along the longitudinal axis , using two known fastening arrangement s (Tezuka and Allen), with the predictable result of further improving the strength of the connection in response to a particular type of load (Allen page 1, lines 15-22). Claim 9, Tezuka further teaches wherein: the one or more fastening flanges are formed with one or more openings (Tezuka 4c) , and the at least one first fastener is inserted into the one or more fastening flanges and thus is received by the one or more openings in the one or more fastening flanges (Tezuka Fig. 5). Tezuka does not teach the one or more openings being slotted openings, and the at least one first fastener inserted upwardly and at an acute angle to the one or more fastening flanges is received by one of the one or more slotted openings in the one or more fastening flanges. However, Allen ’s fastener alignment guide, connector and method comprisin g the one or more first fasteners (see fasteners shown in Fig. 6a-6b) are inserted upwardly and at an acute angle (“acute angle” α) to the first fastening flange 18 and into the first structural member 7 through one or more slotted openings (Allen 102; Fig . 4; see also Fig . 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the connection such that the one or more openings are slotted openings, and the at least one first fastener inserted upwardly and at an acute angle to the one or more fastening flanges is received by one of the one or more slotted openings in the one or more fastening flanges with the reasonable expectation of success of improving the strength of the connection in response to a particular type of load (Allen page 1, lines 15-22). Claim 10, Tezuka teaches a connection between a structural member 8 and a connector 2 and one or more first fasteners 9 , the connection comprising: a. the structural member having an attachment surface 8a ; b. the connector having one or more fastening flanges 4b being disposed generally parallel to the attachment surface of the structural member (Figs. 5-7) and in interfacing engagement with the attachment surface (Figs. 5-7) , the one or more fastening flanges being attached to the structural member by the one or more first fasteners (Figs. 5-7) ; wherein c. the one or more first fasteners are elongated fasteners (Figs. 5-7) , and d. the one or more fastening flanges are formed with one or more openings 4c . However, Allen teaches a fastener alignment guide, connector and method comprising one or more first fasteners (see fasteners shown in Fig. 6a-6b) inserted upwardly and at an acute angle (“acute angle” α) to a first fastening flange 18 and into a first structural member 7 through slotted openings ( see Fig. 4; see also 102, 103 collectively in Figs. 9-10) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the connection such that the one or more fastening flanges are formed with one or more openings that are slotted openings to accommodate the first fasteners being inserted upwardly and at an acute angle to the one or more fastening flanges and into the first structural member using a known fastening arrangement with the reasonable expectation of success of improving the strength of the connection in response to a particular type of load (Allen page 1, lines 15-22). Claim 11, as modified above, the combination of Tezuka and Allen teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches wherein: the one or more slotted openings are T-shaped (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the slotted openings are T-shaped as shown in Fig. 10) . Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka (US 5577856) in view of Allen (GB 2548090) and further in view of Morris (US 4616950). Claim 3, Tezuka and Allen teach all the limitations of claim 2 as above. Tezuka does not teach wherein: strengthening fasteners are inserted upward into a surface of the second structural member that rests on the seat plate of the connector. However, Morris teaches a timber joining device, wherein strengthening fasteners 20 are inserted upward into a surface of a second structural member 10 that rests on a seat plate 28 of a connector (Fig. 1A) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the connection such that strengthening fasteners are inserted upward into a surface of the second structural member that rests on the seat plate of the connector , with the reasonable expectation of success of further securing the second structural member to the connector using known fastening means. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka (US 5577856) in view of Allen (GB 2548090) and further in view of Sugiyama (US 5896721). Claim 4, Tezuka and Allen teach all the limitations of claim 2 as above. Tezuka does not teach wherein: the bottom edge of the fastening flange is formed with one or more projections that are received by one or more notches in the seat plate. However, Sugiyama teaches a metal device for joining wooden members in a building, comprising a bottom edge of a fastening flange being formed with one or more projections (projections at reference character 14 in Figs. 7-8) that are received by one or more notches in a seat plate (notch in 56; Fig. 8) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the connection such that the bottom edge of the fastening flange is formed with one or more projections that are received by one or more notches in the seat plate , with the reasonable expectation of success of forming the fastening flange and the seat plate separately and connecting them together using known means to provide a strong connection, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka (US 5577856) in view of Allen (GB 2548090) and further in view of Knapp (US 20200399887). Claim 5 , Tezuka and Allen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Tezuka does not teach wherein: the knife plate is formed with one or more projections that fit into openings in the one or more fastening flanges. However, Knapp teaches a connector for two workpieces, wherein a plate 4 is formed with one or more projections 14 that fit into openings 16 in one or more fastening flanges 5 . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the connection such that the knife plate is formed with one or more projections that fit into openings in the one or more fastening flanges , with the reasonable expectation of success of forming the knife plate and fastening flange as separate components and connecting them using known means to provide a strong connection, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka (US 5577856) in view of Allen (GB 2548090) and further in view of Holland (US 20180127971). Claim 6, Tezuka and Allen teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Tezuka does not teach the first fasteners are self-drilling and self-tapping threaded fasteners. However, Holland teaches a concealed joist tie, wherein first fasteners 5 are self-drilling and self-tapping threaded fasteners [0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use self-drilling and self-tapping threaded fasteners for the first fasteners, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known fastening means to secure the one or more fastening flanges to the first structural member, since such self-drilling and self-tapping threaded fasteners are known in the art and would be expected to provide a strong connection. Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jureit (US 3498171) in view of Sanford (US 3479920). Claim 18 Jureit further teaches wherein: the relief walls are preferably curved (not required by the claim due to recitation of “preferably”). In the event that applicant intends to recite the relief walls being curved, Sanford teaches a connector plate comprising curved relief walls (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the relief walls being curved, with the reasonable expectation of success of preventing undesired bending upon embedment (Sanford col. 2, lines 35-38), since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Claim 19, as modified above, the combination of Jureit and Sanford teaches all the limitations of claim 18, and further teaches wherein: a. the relief walls each has a first end and a second end ( Jureit Fig. 3) , and b. each curved relief wall curves away from the other opposed relief wall and then curves back toward the other opposed relief wall (Sanford Fig. 2) . Claim 20 , as modified above, the combination of Jureit and Sanford teaches all the limitations of claim 19, and further teaches wherein: the second end of each curved relief wall intersects with an end wall that connects the two curved relief walls ( Sanford; middle portion between two ends of the curved relief wall; Fig. 3) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7861 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7-4pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Brian Mattei can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES M. FERENCE Primary Examiner Art Unit 3635 /JAMES M FERENCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635