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 .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21, line 6, the correct phrase is “above the studs”
Claim 21, line 7, the correct phrase is “the studs are set”
Claim 23, line 4, the correct phrase is “structural panel such that the cap”
Claim 24, line 3, the correct phrase is “in the opening in the top surface of the structural panel”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 21 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.
5. Claim 21 recites the limitation "the one or more upright studs" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 14, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL USPS connectors in view of Vilasineekul (US 12,077,959).
Regarding claim 14, NPL discloses a connection between a hoist and a structural frame (see NPL), the connection comprising:
a. the hoist, having at least one sling (see NPL);
b. the structural frame having a top surface and one or more structural members (see annotated Figure 1);
c. a clip connected to the structural panel and the hoist, the clip comprising:
i. a plate having an eye opening, the eye opening receiving at least one sling connected to the hoist, and;
ii. a tongue extending from and connected to the plate, the tongue lying in registration with an attachment surface of one of the one or more structural members of the structural panel, (see annotated Fig 1) and
d. fasteners connecting the tongue of the clip to the attachment surface of one of the one or more structural members of the structural panel (see annotated Fig 1),
e. the clip has a longitudinal axis that extends from a plate end of the plate to an opposed tongue end of the tongue and a lateral axis that extends orthogonally to the longitudinal axis; and
f. the tongue is formed with a plurality of fastener openings for receiving the fasteners, and the plurality of fastener openings includes a front pair of fastener openings formed closer to the eye opening than the other fastener openings of the plurality of fastener openings and the fastener openings that make up the front pair of fastener openings are aligned on a line parallel to the lateral axis of the clip (annotated Fig 1).
NPL does not disclose the structural frame is a structural panel. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the structural frame as part of a structural panel according to the desired function of the structural frame.
NPL does not disclose the tongue having first and second strengthening flanges formed at opposed first and second side edges of the tongue, and the first and second strengthening flanges extending into the plate along first and second side edges of the plate. However, Vilasineekul discloses a clip 3 having first and second strengthening flanges 23 formed at opposed first and second side edges along the length (Fig 12). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clip of the NPL to include first and second flanges as taught by Vilasineekul, in order to strengthen the plate and the clip preventing deformation. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, NPL discloses the plurality of fastener openings includes a back pair of fastener openings formed farthest away from the eye opening than the other fastener openings of the plurality of fastener openings and the fastener openings that make up the back pair of fastener openings are aligned on a line parallel to the lateral axis of the clip (see annotated Fig 1).
Regarding claim 19, NPL discloses a connection between a hoist and a structural frame (see NPL), the connection comprising:
a. the hoist, having at least one sling (see NPL);
b. the structural frame having a top surface and one or more structural members (see annotated Figure 1);
c. a clip connected to the structural panel and the hoist, the clip comprising:
i. a plate having an eye opening, the eye opening receiving at least one sling connected to the hoist, and;
ii. a tongue extending from and connected to the plate, the tongue lying in registration with an attachment surface of one of the one or more structural members of the structural panel, (see annotated Fig 1) and
d. fasteners connecting the tongue of the clip to the attachment surface of one of the one or more structural members of the structural panel (see annotated Fig 1),
e. the clip has a longitudinal axis that extends from a plate end of the plate to an opposed tongue end of the tongue and a lateral axis that extends orthogonally to the longitudinal axis; and
f. the tongue is formed with a plurality of fastener openings for receiving the fasteners, and the plurality of fastener openings includes a back pair of fastener openings formed farthest away from the eye opening than the other fastener openings of the plurality of fastener openings and the fastener openings that make up the back pair of fastener openings are aligned on a line parallel to the lateral axis of the clip (annotated Fig 1).
NPL does not disclose the structural frame is a structural panel. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the structural frame as part of a structural panel according to the desired function of the structural frame.
NPL does not disclose the tongue having first and second strengthening flanges formed at opposed first and second side edges of the tongue, and the first and second strengthening flanges extending into the plate along first and second side edges of the plate. However, Vilasineekul discloses a clip 3 having first and second strengthening flanges 23 formed at opposed first and second side edges along the length (Fig 12). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clip of the NPL to include first and second flanges as taught by Vilasineekul, in order to strengthen the plate and the clip preventing deformation. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1, 3-13, 17, 18, 20, 22-33 are allowed.
10. Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion of the combination of a hoist, a structural panel, a clip having a plate with an eye opening and a tongue extending from the plate, fasteners, having the structural limitations as recited in the claims and the inclusion of the structural limitations towards the plate having a neck and a body portion. Examiner believes that it will not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art of record to reach applicant’s claimed invention without impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14 and 19 under the NPL in view of Vilasineekul have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the NPL (see annotated Fig 1) in view of Vilasineekul.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8281. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM MONDAY-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 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.
/ADRIANA FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
12/18/2025