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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 2/2/26. Accordingly the application has been amended.
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 1-6,9-21 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 written description does not reasonably convey “wherein the first and second struts of each strut assembly are arranged symmetrically on opposite sides of a respective gusset plate such that a centroidal axis of each strut assembly intersects a geometric centroid of the gusset plate” or “wherein each gusset plate defines a structural root node through which load is transferred between the upper chord assembly and the lower chord assembly via the centroidal axis of the strut assemblies, and wherein the tensile and compressive forces in the first and second struts are balanced about the centroid of the gusset plate so as to substantially eliminate torsional loading of the gusset plate”. The specification does not describe a centroidal axis of the strut assemblies, a root node, a geometric centroid of the gusset plate or forces balanced about the centroid to eliminate torsional loading. Further it is unclear what is meant by “structural root node” or how the struts are balanced to substantially eliminate torsional loading of the gusset plate.
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 1-6,9-21 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 recites “structural root node” it is unclear what is encompassed by this term causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Accordingly the claims will be examined as best understood.
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) 1-6,9-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (6634153) in view of Slater (5901522).
Claim 1. Peterson discloses a truss assembly wherein a section of the truss comprises:
an upper chord assembly (12T) comprising first and second upper chords (12TR, 12TL) parallel and adjacent to each other, the upper chord assembly comprising parallel and adjacent metal members (as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure);
a lower chord assembly comprising first and second lower chords (12BL, 12BR) parallel and adjacent to each other, the lower chord assembly comprising parallel and adjacent metal members (as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure);
a plurality of upper (16,26) and lower (18,26) gusset plates spaced apart from each other and each gusset plate disposed along a length of either the upper chord assembly or lower chord assembly (as seen in the figures);
a plurality of strut (20,24 as seen in figure 2) assemblies comprising paired first and second struts (as can be seen in figure 2 there are first and second struts, one on each side of the gusset and spaced by the gusset, col.3) parallel and adjacent to each other and extending between one of the upper gusset plates and one of the lower gusset plates (as seen in figures 2,5,7-14), wherein the first and second struts are first parallel and adjacent metal members, wherein the first and second struts of each strut assembly are arranged symmetrically on opposite sides of a respective gusset plate such (as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure), such that a centroidal axis of each strut assembly intersects a geometric centroid of the gusset plate (as best understood as seen in at least figure 2);
wherein at least at one of the plurality of upper gusset plates is a first upper gusset plate and comprises the first and second upper chords secured to the first upper gusset plate and at least one of the plurality of strut assemblies being secured to the first upper gusset plate and extending in a downward diagonal direction to a first lower gusset plate of the plurality of lower gusset plates and at least one more of the plurality of strut assemblies being secured to the first lower gusset plate and extending in a upward diagonal direction away from the first lower gusset plate of to a second upper gusset plate of the plurality of upper gusset plates (as seen in the figures and noted in the annotated figure below)
wherein each gusset plate defines a structural root node through which load is transferred between the upper chord assembly and the lower chord assembly via the centroidal axis of the strut assemblies (where the load is transferred via the axis, including the centroidal axis of the strut), and
wherein the tensile and compressive forces in the first and second struts are balanced about the centroid of the gusset plate so as to substantially eliminate torsional loading of the gusset plate (as seen the figures where the forces are balanced about the centroid).
Should applicant disagree that each strut assembly are arranged symmetrically on opposite sides of a respective gusset plate such that a centroidal axis of each strut assembly intersects a geometric centroid of the gusset plate, it is noted that the angle of the strut with respect to the chords and gusset are a function of the spacing of the gusset plates along the chord, the angle of the struct directly determines the how the centroidal axis of the strut intersects the gusset plate, whether at the centroid or offset from the centroid. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the spacing of the gusset plates to be closer or farther or at specific intervals where such an interval would cause the centroidal axis of the strut to intersect a geometric centroid of the gusset plate, to achieve the predictable result of a specifically designed load conditions of the truss, where the spacing and number of struts are a function of the intended use and loading of the truss as they are a result effective variable to change the strength, weight and load parameters of the truss. It would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and optimize the dimensions and spacings to achieve a desired result to meet code and or use parameters.
Peterson does not expressly disclose that the upper chord assembly, lower chord assembly and first and second struts as noted above are metal tubes, however Peterson does disclose that some struts (28,30) may be made of metal tubes.
It is known in the art to have upper and lower chords and struts made of metal tubes. For example, Slater discloses a truss assembly having upper and lower chords and struts (22 or 306 or 406) made of metal tubes (as noted in the disclosure).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue known design options and modify the upper and lower chords and first and second struts of Peterson to be metal tubes as taught by Slater (and Peterson) to achieve the predictable result of streamlined material sourcing and storage where one strut design may be sourced and stored where relatively long lengths can be sourced and stored and cut to the desired strut dimension simplifying the truss design and assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
1019
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2. The truss assembly of claim 1 and further comprising:
at least one upper tie gusset plate (as seen in the annotated figure);
at least one lower tie gusset plate (as seen in the annotated figure); and
at least one tie assembly comprising first and second ties parallel and adjacent to each other and extending between one of the upper gusset plates and one lower tie gusset plate or one of the lower gusset plates and one upper tie gusset plate (as seen in at least figure 2).
Claim 3. The truss assembly of claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of upper gusset plates are offset vertically from each of the plurality of lower gusset plates as the gusset plates are spaced apart along the length of truss assembly (as seen in the figures).
Claim 4. The truss assembly of claim 2 wherein two of the plurality of upper gusset plates are spaced apart along a length of the upper chord assembly with one of the plurality of upper tie gusset plates therebetween (as seen in the figures).
Claim 5. The truss assembly of claim 2 wherein two of the plurality of lower gusset plates are spaced apart along a length of the lower chord assembly with one of the plurality of lower tie gusset plates therebetween (as seen in the figures).
Claim 6. The truss assembly of claim 1 wherein at least three or more of the plurality of upper and lower gusset plates are spaced apart a substantially same distance along the length of the truss (as seen in at least figure 7).
Claim 9. Peterson in view of Atkinson discloses the truss assembly of claim 1 wherein the parallel and adjacent metal tubes are steel tubes (as noted throughout the disclosure), wherein the metal tubes have at least one cross sectional dimension of at least ½ inch (as noted at least at col. 5, lines 41-49) but it silent regarding the dimensions having a wall thickness of at least 1/8 inch. Applicant has not disclosed that having the claimed thickness solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Further applicant discloses in the specification at page 10 that a range of thickness dimensions are suitable and would be optimized based on particular use/installation design parameters. Moreover, it appears that the truss of Peterson in view of Slater, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with a variety of thickness.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the struts of Peterson in view of Slater such that the wall thickness bet at least 1/8 inch, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Peterson in view of Slater. It would have been obvious for at least the reason of optimizing material to suit specific expected loads to minimize cost of material and manufacturing (as noted in Peterson).
Claim 10. The truss assembly of claim 1 and further comprising at least one splice (71,73) between two adjacent upper and lower gusset plates along the length of the truss to encapsulate a length of one or both of the upper or lower chord of the truss to connect two lengths of the truss in series or to reinforce one or both chords of the truss (as seen in figure 2).
Claim 11. The truss assembly of claim 10 wherein each splice comprises at least one plate having one or more bends along a length of the plate (as seen in figure 2).
Claim 12. The truss assembly of claim 11 wherein the splice further comprises a flat plate for securing directly between the two adjacent and parallel upper or lower chord members at the location of the splice (as seen in figure 2).
Claim 13. The truss assembly of claim 1 and further comprising an end saddle for securing across terminal ends of the upper chord assembly of the truss assembly wherein the end saddle comprises an upper plate (76, figure 10) and a lower plate (73, figure 11) for encapsulating a perimeter of the terminal ends of the upper chord assembly.
Claim 14. The truss assembly of claim 13 wherein the end saddle further comprises a fastener (75) for securing the upper plate and lower plate together (as seen in figure 7) and having fastener ends with a length sufficient for embedding the fastener ends into a building for installation of the truss assembly (where it is disclosed as being installed into building).
Claim 15. The truss assembly of claim 1 wherein the first and second upper chords are welded directly to first and second opposing sides of the first upper gusset plate (as noted in the figures and disclosure at least at col. 2-3).
Claim 16. The truss assembly of claim 15 wherein the first and second struts are welded directly to first and second opposing sides of the first upper gusset plate (as noted in the figures and disclosure at least at col. 2-3).
Claim 17. The truss assembly of claim 1 wherein the first and second lower chords are welded directly to first and second opposing sides of the first lower gusset plate (as noted in the figures and disclosure at least at col. 2-3).
Claim 18. The truss assembly of claim 17 wherein the first and second struts are welded directly to first and second opposing sides of the first lower gusset plate (as noted in the figures and disclosure at least at col. 2-3).
Claim 19. The truss assembly of claim 1 wherein the truss is installed in a building to support a roof or floor (as noted throughout the disclosure).
Claim 20. The truss assembly of claim 1 and further comprising an end saddle (76) for securing across terminal ends of the lower chord assembly of the truss assembly wherein the end saddle comprises an upper plate (76, figure 10) and a lower plate (76, figure 11) for encapsulating a perimeter of the terminal ends of the lower chord assembly (where the terminal ends of the lower chord are between the bottom of 76, figure 11 and the top of 76, figure 10 and therefore encapsulated therein).
Claim 21. The truss assembly of claim 20 wherein the end saddle further comprises a fastener (75) for securing the upper plate and the lower plate together (as seen in figure 7) and having fastener ends with a length sufficient for embedding the fastener ends into a building for installation of the truss assembly (where it is installed in a building as noted throughout the disclosure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argument, at page 1, that the prior art plates are used as simple connectors and thus do not contemplate the torsion control of the claimed subject matter is not persuasive. Firstly, it is unclear what applicant means by “simple connector” and the specification does not provide a description of contemplating torsion control. Thus applicants arguments are mere conjecture and speculation unsupported by fact or evidence.
It is noted that Slater is not relied upon for teaching the paired struts. Further Peterson is not relied upon alone for teaching the metal tubes.
Applicants assertion that the bars of Peterson are connected eccentrically to the gussets appears to be conjecture. There is nothing in the disclosure of Peterson to specifically teach eccentric connection. Rather it appears in the figures, at least at figures 2-14 where at least some of the struts have symmetrical and balanced connections where the centroid aligned paired strut assemblies intersect gusset centroids, thus functioning as primary load bearing root nodes. Thus as best understood Peterson does disclose and contemplates paired web members whose centroid passes through a gusset centroid functioning as a structural root (see for example figures 2,8,10,14). However should applicant disagree this feature is also rejected under a new rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
Applicants assertion at page 2 that Peterson teaches C channels specifically because cost savings is a stated goal of Peterson is conjecture. While cost savings is a stated goal of Peterson, there is nothing in the reference to suggest that the C channels are specifically to achieve that goal. Rather the sections applicant notes int eh remarks do not specifically relate to the cross section or shape design of the C channels. Peterson does disclose that weight, or about 20% weight reduction, as noted by applicant in the remarks, is achieved by web framing instead of wide flange beams. This does not in any way discredit, discourage, or criticize the use of tubular members. IN fact Peterson discloses some of the members are metal tubes. Therefore applicants remarks that the alleged modification of Peterson to include the metal tubes of Slater is contrary to the state purpose of Peterson is not persuasive. Applicant has not presented any evidence that the use of metal tubes would in fact be contrary to Peterson. Further Peterson discloses multiple paths for reducing costs, one being a weight/material reduction, it is a combination of some or all that result in a cost savings. The use of metal tubes in Peterson does not necessary mean there is not also cost savings. Thus applicants remarks are not persuasive to overcome the conclusion of obviousness.
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 JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 at 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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights