DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the application filed on 12th May, 2023. Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1-21 stand rejected as set forth below.
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):
FIGS 8-13: reference character 3 and 2 have been used to designate “Supported member” and “Supporting member” in the drawings respectively but the specification and claims shows 3 and 2 to designate “Supporting member” and “Supported member” respectively.
Therefore, drawings need to show 3 as the Supported member and 2 as the Supporting member.
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 Objections
Claim 2, line 4 reads, “upward acute to” but should read “upward acute angle.” Correction is required.
Claim 5, line 5 reads, “a supporting member” but should read “the supporting member.” 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.
Claim 19 is 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 19, line 4 recites the limitation “is lifted into place” is indefinite because this is a method step in an apparatus claim. The examiner will interpret it as “ is configured to be lifted” henceforth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stratton (US5058358A) in view of Daudet (US 20210230858 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Stratton teaches, A connection between a supported member and a supporting member (See Fig 3, 5), the connection comprising:
a. the supported member (50, 52), the supported member having front (See annotated Fig 5 below) and back side faces (See annotated Fig 5 below) that are generally parallel to each other and are spaced apart a first selected distance (See annotated Fig 5 below), the supported member also having an end face that meets with the back and front side faces of the supported member at front and back side edges of the end face (See annotated Fig 5 below), the supported member also having a top face (Surface at the top of supported member 50 is the top face) and a bottom face (Surface at the bottom of supported member 50 that sits on element 16 is the bottom face) that meet with the front and back side faces and the end face (See annotated Fig 5 below);
b. the supporting member (38), the supporting member having an attachment face (See annotated Fig 5 below) with the back side face of the supported member being in close proximity to the attachment face such that the back side face of the supported member abuts or disposed in close association with the attachment face of the supporting member (See annotated Fig 5 below); and
c. a connector (10, See Fig 1), the connector having front (12, 32) and back members (Back member 14) connected to each other at their bottom edges by a seat member (16) with the front and back members extending upwardly from the seat member (See Fig 1) and the seat member supporting the bottom surface of the supported member (See annotated Fig 5 below) and the front member of the connector being closely adjacent to the front side face of the supported member (See annotated Fig 5 below) and the back member of the connector being closely adjacent to the back side surface of the supported member (See annotated Fig 5 below), and the front member is formed with an upper portion (32) and a lower portion (12), and the back member is formed with an upper portion (18), a middle portion (22) and a lower portion (20, See Column 4, Lines 61-63); and
d. fastener (66, See Fig 5) pass through the connector (Hole 30 of connector 10, See Fig 1) and the supported member and enter the supporting member to attach the connector and the supported member to the supporting member (See annotated Fig 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
800
1325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stratton does not disclose, “fasteners”
However, Daudet discloses, fasteners (7, See Figs 1) pass through the connector (5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Stratton with to have a plurality of fasteners as taught by Daudet in order to have a stronger connection joint that enhances structural integrity, load distribution and overall stability.
Regarding Claim 2 Stratton in view of Daudet teaches, The connection of claim 1.
Stratton in view of Daudet discloses, fasteners (66 - modified connector 10 of Stratton in view of Daudet includes multiple fasteners) that pass through the front member (12,32) of the connector (10) and through the supported member (50, 52) and enter the supporting member (38, See Stratton Fig 5).
Stratton does not disclose,
" The fasteners are angled fasteners.”
“At an upward acute angle to the seat member.”
However, Daudet discloses, the fasteners (7) are angled fasteners (See Fig 1, Para 0034) and at an upward acute angle to the seat member (See Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of fasteners that pass through the front member of the connector and through the supported member and enter the supporting member as taught by Stratton in view of Daudet to be angled fasteners coming in at an upward acute angle to the seat member as taught by Daudet in order to provide a stronger connection between materials, prevent wood splitting, enhance load transfer, and improve the overall structural integrity of the building.
Regarding Claim 3 Stratton in view of Daudet teaches, the connection of claim 2. Daudet further discloses wherein: at least two angled fasteners (7, See Fig 1) are driven through the front member (22) and enter the supporting member (First member 8 with first lower flange 11) near the upper portion of the back member (9) such that they bracket the upper portion of the back member (the modified connector 10 of Stratton in view of Daudet would essentially allow the fasteners 66 to be angled passing through the front member 12 & 32, supported member 50, 52 and supporting member 38 near the upper portion 18 of the back member 14 as taught by Stratton).
Regarding Claim 4 Stratton in view of Daudet teaches, The connection of claim 3. Stratton further discloses wherein: one or more additional fasteners (44, See Fig 5) pass through the back member (14) and enter the supporting member (38, See Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 5 Stratton in view of Daudet teaches, The connection of claim 4, wherein: a. the front (12, 32) and back members (14) have portions that are generally planar (See Stratton Fig 2), the seat member is generally planar (16, See Stratton Fig 2), the back member preferably extends above the seat member much higher than the front member (See Stratton Fig 2), and when the connector (10, See Stratton Fig 1) is installed on the supporting member (See annotated Stratton Fig 5 above), the front (12, 32) and back members (14) generally extend vertically (See annotated Stratton Fig 5 above), and the seat member (16) extends generally horizontally (See Stratton Figs 1 and 5).
Regarding Claim 6 Stratton in view of Daudet teaches, The connection of claim 5. Stratton further discloses wherein: the front member (12, 32) is a generally rectangular member (A square is a type of rectangle by definition) that is substantially as wide as the seat member (16) (See Stratton Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 19 Stratton in view of Daudet teaches, the connection of claim 1,
Stratton further discloses,
wherein: a. the supported member is a ledger (See annotated Stratton Fig 3, 5 below), and the ledger is part of a prefabricated member including additional members and the prefabricated member is lifted into place at the same time the ledger is set on the seat member of the connector (See annotated Stratton Fig 3, 5 below);
PNG
media_image2.png
800
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and b. the supporting member is a header (See Stratton fig 2, and annotated fig 5) .
It should further be noted that the language “and the ledger is part of a prefabricated member including additional members and the prefabricated member is lifted into place at the same time the ledger is set on the seat member of the connector” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stratton (US5058358A) and Daudet (US 20210230858 A1), and further in view of Commins (US 4717279A).
Regarding Claim 7 Stratton in view of Daudet teaches, The connection of claim 6. Stratton further discloses wherein:
a. the middle portion (22) of the back member (14) is disposed upwardly from the seat member (16) above the lower portion (20), and the upper portion (18) of the back member (14) is disposed above the middle portion (22, See Stratton Fig 1); and
b. the lower portion (20) of the back member (14) is substantially as wide as the seat member (16, See Stratton Fig 1) and the middle portion (22) of the back member (14) extends between the lower portion (20) and the upper portion (18).
Stratton in view of Daudet does not disclose, “the upper portion of the back member is narrower than the seat member and the front member, and tapers in width from the lower portion to the upper portion.”
“And tapers in width from the lower portion to the upper portion.”
However, Commins discloses, the upper portion of the back member (See annotated Figs 1 & 2 below) is narrower than the seat member (6, See annotated Figs 1 & 2 below),
and tapers in width from the lower portion to the upper portion (See annotated Figs 1 & 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
662
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
688
780
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the back member as taught by the Stratton in view of Daudet with the upper portion to be narrower than the seat member and the middle portion tapering in width from the lower portion to the upper portion as taught by Commins in order to allow the narrow upper portion of the back flange to be seated in tight spaces while still maintaining the structural integrity at the connecting joint to adequately seat a ledger by having a wider lower portion. This would drastically improve the strength at the connecting portions between the ledger attached to the deck or staircase cassette and the external supporting member of the building structure.
Further, this combination would also result in the upper portion of the back member being narrower than the front member.
Regarding Claim 8 Stratton in view of Daudet and Commins teaches, the connection of claim 7. Stratton further discloses wherein: the upper portion of the back member (See annotated Fig 5 above) has a bottom end (upper portion 18 has a bottom end, See Figs 1 & annotated fig 5 above) and the bottom end of the upper portion and the interface between the middle portion (22, See Figs 1 & annotated fig 5 above) and the upper portion of the back member is disposed above the seat member (16, See Figs 1 & annotated fig 5 above) a distance that is similar to the height of an upper edge (upper edge of 32) of the front member (front member 12, upper edge 32 and middle portion 22 are disposed above the seat member a distance similar to the height of the upper edge, See annotated Fig 5 above).
Regarding Claim 9 Stratton in view of Daudet and Commins teaches, the connection of claim 8. Stratton further discloses wherein: the upper portion (32) of the front member (12, 32) is preferably formed as a jutting lip flange (34, See Stratton Figs 1 and 5), and the lower portion (front member portion that is adjacent to the seat) of the front member is formed as a generally planar member (See Stratton Figs 1 and 5), the jutting lip flange having an upper edge (upper edge of 32, 34).
Regarding Claim 10 Stratton in view of Daudet and Commins, the connection of claim 9. Stratton further discloses wherein: an upper edge (upper edge of 12 connects to lower portion of 32 and 34) of the lower portion of the front member is connected to the jutting lip flange (See Figs 1 and annotated fig 5 above), and the jutting lip flange (34) extends outwardly and further away from the back member (14) than the generally planar lower portion of the front member (See Figs 1 and annotated fig 5 above).
Regarding Claim 11 Stratton in view of Daudet and Commins, The connection of claim 10. Stratton further discloses wherein: the jutting lip flange (34) is a planar member that preferably extends outwardly at a 45-degree angle to the generally planar lower portion of the front member (See Figs 1 and annotated fig 5 above).
Regarding Claim 12 Stratton in view of Daudet and Commins, The connection of claim 11. Stratton further discloses wherein: the jutting lip flange (34) is attached to the lower portion of the front member at an upper edge bend line of the lower portion of the front member (See Stratton Figs 1 and 5).
Regarding Claim 13 Stratton in view of Daudet and Commins, The connection of claim 12.
Stratton doesn’t disclose, “wherein :one or more fastener openings are provided in the front member.”
However, Daudet discloses, wherein: one or more fastener openings (fastener openings 29, See Fig 1) are provided in the front member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector with the front member as taught by Stratton in view of Daudet and Commins to have one or more fastener openings as taught by Daudet in order to allow for a plurality of angled fasteners for ensuring a stronger connection joint that enhances structural integrity, load distribution and overall stability.
Claim(s) 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stratton (US5058358A) and Daudet (US 20210230858 A1) and Commins (US 4717279A), and further in view of Leek (US 7958690 B2).
Regarding Claim 14 Stratton in view of Daudet and Commins teaches, the connection of claim 13.
Stratton discloses, wherein: at an interface between the jutting lip flange (34) and the lower portion of the front member (Lower portion of front member 12, 32)
Stratton does not disclose, “one or more gusset members are provided that extend between the jutting lip flange and the lower portion of the front member.”
However, Leek discloses, one or more gusset members (120, 121, See Fig 2A, Fig 2B) are provided that extend between the lip flange (114, See annotated Leek Fig 2A below) and the lower portion of the front member (See annotated Leek Fig 2A below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector as taught by Stratton in view of Daudet and Commins with one or more gusset members as taught by Leek in order to stiffen the joint between the jutting lip flange and the lower portion of the front member. This would prevent unwanted movement, buckling, or excessive stress concentration at joints.
PNG
media_image5.png
768
807
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Further, this combination would result in one or more gusset members that extend between the jutting lip flange and the lower portion of the front member.
Regarding Claim 15 Stratton in view of Daudet, Commins and Leek teaches, The connection of claim 14. Leek further discloses, wherein: the one or more gusset members have generally planar fastener receiving members (120, 121, See Fig 2A, Fig 2B) that extend outwardly and away from the generally planar lower portion of the front member (The modified connector 10 as taught by Stratton in view of Daudet, Commins and Leek would result would result in the Gusset member extending outwardly and away from the generally planar lower portion of the front member 12, 32 as taught by Stratton).
Stratton in view of Daudet and Commins doesn’t disclose, “each fastener receiving member is formed with at least one of the one or more fastener openings for receiving an angled fastener.” (Fastener receiving member being a gusset).
However, Leek discloses, each fastener receiving member (120, 121, 122, See Leek Fig 2A and 2B) is formed with at least one of the one or more fastener openings (120a, 121a, 122a) for receiving an angled fastener (164, 162, See annotated fig 2A and 2B above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Stratton in view of Daudet and Commins to have each fastener receiving member configured with at least one or more fastener openings for receiving an angled fastener as taught by Leek in order to allow the fastener to pass through the opening in the modified front member of Stratton in view of Daudet thus ensuring a stronger connection joint that enhances structural integrity, load distribution and overall stability.
Stratton in view of Daudet, Commins and Leek does not explicitly disclose, ”at an angle of approximately 22.5 degrees.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one or more gusset members extending outwardly and away from the generally planar lower portion of the front member at an angle of approximately 22.5 degrees in order to accommodate specific suitability requirements thus allowing the fastener to be screwed in easily and still maintain a secure connection between the supported member, supporting member and the modified connector with the gusset attached. In general, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Regarding Claim 16 Stratton in view of Daudet, Commins and Leek teaches, The connection of claim 15. Leek further discloses wherein: the fastener receiving members of the gussets are preferably formed as rectangular members with upper and lower edges and right and left side edges (See annotated Leek Fig 2A, 2B above), and the upper edges of the fastener receiving members connect to the jutting lip flange and the lower edges of the fastener receiving members connect to the lower portion of the front member (The modified connector 10 with front member 12, 32 as taught by Stratton in view of Daudet and Leek – where Leek teaches gusset members would essentially result in the upper edges of the fastener receiving members connecting to the jutting lip flange and the lower edges of the fastener receiving members connecting to the lower portion of the front member in the modified connector of Stratton).
Regarding Claim 17 Stratton in view of Daudet, Commins and Leek teaches, the connection of claim 16, Leek further discloses wherein: the one or more gussets are preferably formed with triangular left and right end portions that respectively connect the left and right side edges of the generally planar fastening receiving members (See annotated Leek Fig 2A, 2B above, The modified connector 10 with front member 12, 32 as taught by Stratton in view of Daudet and Leek – where Leek teaches gusset members would essentially result in gusset members with its triangular left and right end portion connected to the left and right side edges of the planar fastening members to the jutting lip flange and the front member as taught by Stratton).
Regarding Claim 18 Stratton in view of Daudet, Commins and Leek teaches, the connection of claim 17. Stratton further discloses wherein: the front and back members and the seat member are preferably formed from metal and are integrally joined to each other and are formed by bending sheet steel to make the three-dimensional shape of the connector (Column 2, Lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stratton (US5058358A) and Daudet (US 20210230858 A1), and further in view of Schuette (US 5205093 A).
Regarding Claim 20 Stratton in view of Daudet teaches, the connection of claim 19.
Stratton further discloses, wherein: the prefabricated member is a preassembled deck (40) comprised of a plurality of parallel joist members (46) formed with ledger (Column 6, Lines 28-31)
Stratton in view of Daudet does not disclose, “wherein: the prefabricated member is a cassette formed with the ledger (See Fig 3), an opposed end board, and rim side boards which are disposed at the periphery of the cassette, and the cassette is provided with decking materials that are connected to the ledger, opposed end board and rim side boards.”
However, Schuette discloses, wherein: the prefabricated member is a cassette formed with the ledger (Column 1, Lines 5-8, See annotated Fig 3 below), an opposed end board (See annotated Fig 3 below), and rim side boards (66) which are disposed at the periphery of the cassette (See annotated Fig 3 below), and the cassette is provided with decking materials (81) that are connected to the ledger(See annotated Fig 3 below), opposed end board and rim side boards (See annotated Fig 3 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
734
862
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prefabricated member attached to the ledger as taught by Stratton to be a staircase cassette as taught by Schuette in order to allow access to higher elevation of entry points of building structure such as elevated patios or main door entrances or upper floors.
Regarding Claim 21 Stratton in view of Daudet and Schuette teaches, the connection of claim 20. Schuette further discloses wherein: the cassette is a staircase cassette (See annotated Fig 3 above), and the rim boards are sloped stair stringers (66) formed with notches in their top surfaces (tread 81 forms the decking material portion and are considered to be notches, See annotated Fig 3 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHY JOHNSON GEORGE whose telephone number is (703)756-5857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30am-5pm ET, 000 First Friday.
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 Mattei can be reached on 5712703238. 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.
/J.J.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635