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 ACTION
This is a final office action in response to the amendment filed 12/10/2025.
Claims 1-9, 11-12 and 14-18 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 2, “configured to define” should be changed to “comprising”; in claim 3, line 2, “first” should be changed to “the first”; and in claim 14, line 3, “configured to define” should be changed to “comprising”. 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.
In claim 1, lines 7 and 8 it is not clear how the first and second beams interrelate with the preformed beam of line 2. It appears that the first and second beams are made of the beam of line 2. By changing “a preformed beam” to “a plurality of preformed beams, each of the beams” in line 2, the rejection would be overcome. See claim 14 for similar language.
In claim 1, lines 10-11, it is not clear how the beams are “overlapping first and second ends” when only two beams make up the layer and only one layer is defined. By inserting “a plurality of stacked layers, each of the layers comprising,” before line 2, and changing lines 7-11 to “wherein each of the layers comprises the first end of a first of the preformed beams abuts the second end of a second of the preformed beams in a plane in a first static compression of the preformed beams and self- aligned to a stacked adjacent one of the layers wherein the first and second ends are alternating abutting and overlapping; and” the rejection would be overcome. See claim 14 for similar language.
In claim 1, lines 16-20, it is not clear how the layers interrelate and are a zigzag and an orthogonal zig zag pattern. By changing lines 16-19 to “a first set of dowel pins received into the first set and into the second set of dowel pin holes of a first and an adjacent second of the layers in a first zig-zag pattern interlocking the first and second layers and a second set of dowel pins received into the first set and into the second set of the dowel pin holes of the second of the layers and an adjacent third of the stacked layers forming a second zig-zag pattern interlocking the second and third layers, the second zigzag pattern orthogonal to the first zigzag pattern”. See claim 14 for similar language regarding the zigzag pattern and need for at least 3 layers to adequately and clearly define the “zigzag pattern”.
In claim 8, it is not clear how the cable can a rod with sections. By changing cable in claims 1 and 8 to mechanism the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 17, it is not clear how the layers are straight inline when claim 14 sets forth he layers at corners.
In claim 18, line 2, “tension cable” has no antecedent basis and should be changed to “tension rod” to overcome the rejection.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous drawing and claim objections, and the 112, 102 and 103 rejections of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 appear to be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. A final determination will be made when the 112 rejections have been overcome.
No prior art of record shows a construction having layers of beams with abutting an overlapping ends, the ends having holes for receiving dowels and a center hole receiving a tension mechanism therein to interlock the layers to one another, the dowel pins in the holes in two of the adjacent layers offset from the dowel pins in the holes of the layer adjacent to the two adjacent layers thereby forming zig zag patterns, see claim 1, and a similar construction with beams defining a corner, as in claim 14, any motivation to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, as discussed above the claims are unclear as to how the layers interrelate and how the zigzag and orthogonal zigzag pattern relates to the sets of holes of the layers. The examiner has proposed several changes to aid in overcoming the rejections.
Applicant is urged to refer to paragraph 38, lines 3-4 of the specification for an unclear phrase.
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 BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/