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 .
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment filed on August 24, 2026. The amendment and remarks have been received and reviewed by the examiner.
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.
Claim 39-41, 52-55, 59-63, 65, and 66 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. Claims 39, 52, 59, 65, and 66 contain the language “the split nut is directly attached to the rigid member “independently” of the rigid member being attached to the second bottom plate”. This language is not supported in the specification or the drawings. Therefore, it is considered new matter and will be examined as best understood until further clarification is provided. Unless the applicant can show support for this limitation, the limitation should be removed from the claims.
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 39-41, 52-55, 59-63, 65, and 66 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 regard to claims 39, 52, 59, 65, and 66, the scope of the claims is unclear because it is not understood how the split nut is directly attached to the rigid member “independently”of the rigid member being attached to the bottom plate. The specification does not describe or appear to show how this is accomplished. Figures 51 and 54 show the split nut assemblies 388 attached to the rigid member 382, but the extent of the fasteners is not shown or described. Therefore, it is not clear if the fasteners only extend less than the thickness of the rigid member or if they extend through the rigid member and into the bottom plate. Their extent is not supported and it is thus unclear if they penetrate the bottom plate or not. Appropriate correction is required.
In regard to claim 66, line 12, “the horizontal member” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if the horizontal member is the rigid member, or if they are different elements. Appropriate correction is required.
For the above claims, the horizontal member will be treated as the rigid or cross member until further clarification is provided.
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) 39, 40, 52-55, 59-63, 65, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espinosa (2011/0041450) in view of Gray et al. (2013/0340366).
In regard to claims 39 and 52, as “best understood”, Espinosa discloses reinforced building wall, comprising: a) a first stud wall disposed above a foundation, the first stud wall having a first top plate; b) a second stud wall disposed above the first stud wall, the second stud wall having a second bottom plate disposed on a subfloor; c) a rigid member 16 directly attached (it is in direct contact and bearing down on the second bottom plate as shown) to the second bottom plate; d) a tie-rod 8 with a lower end portion being operably anchored to the foundation 6, the tie-rod extending through the first top plate, the second bottom plate, and the rigid member (this is all clearly shown in figure 1), and a fastener 12 directly attached to the rigid member (the fastener 12 is shown in direct contact with and bearing down on the rigid member).
Espinosa does not specifically disclose that the fastener is a split nut fastener that is independently attached to the rigid member being attached to the second bottom plate. Gray teaches that it is known to use a split nut fastener with a tie rod in a reinforced wall of a building. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a split nut, because, as taught by Gray, as the rod pulls down, the nut digs into or engages the rod more and more securely [0007]. The examiner would also like to note that conversely, if the rod were to move upward, or the wood members moved downward, the nut would also loosen and could grip the rod at a lower location. This would keep the tension in the rod even if the wood members were to move downward.
In regard to the independent attachment, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to attach the split nut to the rigid member with fasteners that do not extend into the second bottom plate, because by doing so, one could pre-attach the split nut to the rigid member and then install the rigid member and split nut as a one piece unit to speed up installation.
In regard to claim 40, Espinosa in view of Gray disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Espinosa further teaches the use of a first blocking and a second blocking disposed between the first top plate and the subfloor, the tie-rod extending between the first blocking and the second blocking. Again, the blocking members can be seen between the joist members in figure 1. They are not labeled, but one of ordinary skill can clearly see the blocking and joist members.
Espinosa further teaches the first stud wall includes a first stud with a top end bearing on an underside of the first top plate below the first blocking (figure 1).
In regard to claim 53, Espinosa in view of Gray disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the rigid member 16 is operably attached to the bottom plate. See figure 1 of Espinosa. Further, the examiner would like to note that only one stud wall is claimed above the foundation. Therefore, the stud wall, for purposes of claims 52 and 53, is considered to be the middle stud wall in figure 1 of Espinosa.
In regard to claim 54, Espinosa in view of Gray disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the split nut is operably attached to the rigid member and the rigid member is operably attached to the bottom plate. (Also see figure 1 and explanation above in the rejection of claim 53).
In regard to claim 55, Espinosa in view of Gray disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the split nut includes a housing 26 attached to the rigid member (figures 15A, 15B).
In regard to claim 59, Espinosa discloses a reinforced building wall, comprising: a) a first stud wall (second stud wall section from the foundation is being considered the “first stud wall, fig. 1) disposed above a foundation 6, the first stud wall having a first horizontal member (horizontal bottom plate below lower member 16); b) a second stud wall (third stud wall section above the foundation is being considered the “second” stud wall) disposed above the first stud wall, the second stud wall having a second horizontal member(horizontal bottom plate below middle 16); c) a first rigid member 16 supported on the first horizontal member of the first stud wall, the first rigid member including a first opening, the first rigid member being operably attached to the first horizontal member; d) a first fastener 12 disposed on the first rigid member, the first fastener being operably attached to the first rigid member; e) a second rigid member 16 (middle number 16) supported on the second horizontal member, the second rigid member including a second opening, the second rigid member being operably attached to the second horizontal member; f) a second fastener 12 disposed on the second rigid member, the second split nut being operably attached to the second rigid member; g) a tie-rod 8 with a lower end portion being operably anchored to the foundation 6, the tie-rod extending transversely through the first and the second openings and the first and the second fasteners, the first and second fasteners engaging the tie-rod to resist tension load on the tie-rod. Espinosa does not specifically disclose that the first and second fasteners are split nuts or that the first and second split nuts disengage from the tie-rod when the first and second horizontal members move down.
Gray teaches that it is known to use a split nut fastener with a tie rod in a reinforced wall of a building. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use split nuts for the first and second fasteners, because, as taught by Gray, as the rod pulls down, the nut digs into or engages the rod more and more securely [0007]. The examiner would also like to note that conversely, if the rod were to move upward, or the wood members moved downward, the nut would also loosen and could grip the rod at a lower location. This would keep the tension in the rod even if the wood members were to move downward.
In regard to the independent attachment, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to attach the split nuts to the rigid members with fasteners that do not extend into the first and second horizontal members, because by doing so, one could pre-attach the split nuts to the rigid members and then install the rigid members and split nuts as a one piece unit to speed up installation.
In regard to claim 60, Espinosa in view of Gray disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the first horizontal member comprises a first bottom plate of the first stud wall, and the second horizontal member comprises a second bottom plate of the second stud wall.
In regard to claims 61 and 62, Espinosa in view of Gray disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing that the first horizontal member comprises a first top plate of the first stud wall, and the second horizontal member comprises a second top plate of the second stud wall, or that the first horizontal member comprises a first bottom plate of the first stud wall, and the second horizontal member comprises a second top plate of the second stud wall. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the fastener and rigid member to a lower location on the top plates or top and bottom plates of the first and second stud walls, because it has been held that the rearrangement of parts of a device is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. If all of the fasteners and rigid members of Espinosa’s bearing wall were moved from the bottom plate members to the top plate members, or to one bottom and one top member, they would produce the same effects as placing them on the bottom members. They would continue to act to place a compression force on the wall in order to strengthen the wall to resist external forces. Again, the only difference between the claim is the location of the fasteners within the wall, and the fasteners will function equally well any of the claimed locations. This is supported by the fact that the applicant even claims the fasteners at the various locations. Thus, the examiner contends that this fact supports the examiner’s position that placing the fasteners in any of the claimed locations within the wall would produce the same end result.
In regard to claim 63, Espinosa in view of Gray disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the second horizontal member comprises a cross member. The examiner would like to point out that the member below the middle 16 extends across the width of the wall. Thus, it is considered a “cross” member. However, the examiner would also like to point out that if the term “cross” member is treated as shorter length member between two studs, then Espinosa also teaches this interpretation. See figure 1 of Espinosa at the top where the top members 16 and 12 are located on the “cross” member between the studs in the second stud wall. In either case, the claimed limitations are taught by Espinosa.
In regard to claim 65, Espinosa teaches a reinforced building wall, comprising: a) a stud wall (the uppermost stud wall section in figure 1) disposed above a foundation, the stud wall having a cross member (member below elements 12 and 16 at the top of figure 1); b) a rigid member 16 operably attached to the cross member, the rigid member including an opening; c) a fastener 12 disposed on the rigid member, the fastener being operably attached to the rigid member; d) a tie-rod 8 with a lower end portion being operably anchored to the foundation 6, the tie-rod extending transversely through the opening and the fastener, the fastener engaging the tie-rod to resist tension load on the tie-rod. Espinosa does not specifically disclose that the split nut disengages from the tie-rod when the cross member moves down.
Gray teaches that it is known to use a split nut fastener with a tie rod in a reinforced wall of a building. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a split nut for the fastener, because, as taught by Gray, as the rod pulls down, the nut digs into or engages the rod more and more securely [0007]. The examiner would also like to note that conversely, if the rod were to move upward, or the wood members moved downward, the nut would also loosen and could grip the rod at a lower location. This would keep the tension in the rod even if the wood members were to move downward.
In regard to the independent attachment, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to attach the split nut to the rigid member with fasteners that do not extend into the cross member, because by doing so, one could pre-attach the split nut to the rigid member and then install the rigid member and split nut as a one piece unit to speed up installation.
In regard to claim 66, Espinosa discloses a stud wall disposed above a foundation, the stud wall having a top plate; b) a rigid member 16 operably attached to the bottom plate, the rigid member including an opening; c) a fastener disposed on the rigid member, the fastener being operably attached to the rigid member; d) a tie-rod 8 with a lower end portion being operably anchored to the foundation 6, the tie-rod extending transversely through the opening and the fastener, the fastener engaging the tie-rod to resist tension load on the tie-rod. Espinosa does not specifically disclose that the fastener is a split nut that disengages from the tie-rod when the rigid member moves down, or that the bottom plate is actually a top plate. Gray teaches the use of a split nut. It would have been obvious to use a split nut for the same reasons set forth above with respect to at least claim 65 and will not be repeated again here. As for the rigid member being attached to the top plate member instead of the bottom plate member, again, this would be obvious for the same reasons set forth in the above rejection of at least claims 61 and 62 and will not be repeated here.
In regard to the independent attachment, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to attach the split nut to the rigid member with fasteners that do not extend into the top plate, because by doing so, one could pre-attach the split nut to the rigid member and then install the rigid member and split nut as a one piece unit to speed up installation.
Claim(s) 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espinosa (2011/0041450) in view of Gray et al. (2013/0340366) and further in view of Espinsoa (7762030).
In regard to claim 41, Espinosa in view of Gray disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the second stud wall includes a second stud with a bottom end bearing on a second bottom plate. Espinosa does not specifically disclose that the bottom end bears on the rigid member. Espinosa ‘030 teaches that it is known to provide a stud member bearing on a rigid member that is on top of a bottom plate of a stud wall. See figure 37 of Espinosa ‘030. The studs 56 bear on the rigid member 44. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional stud member bearing on the rigid member in Espinosa in view of Gray’s invention, because the additional stud members will strengthen the wall and having them bear on the rigid member, it will help to prevent the rigid member from being pushed vertically if the tie rod applied any vertical pressure to it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 44-48, 51, 67, and 68 are allowable.
The claims are allowable for the reasons set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s argument with respect to claims 39, 52, 59, 65, and 66, the argument is not found persuasive and the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant’s argument for all of the above claims is directed towards the direct, independent attachment of the split nut to the rigid member. This limitation does not appear to be supported in the original disclosure as pointed out above in the 112a rejection. The split nuts are shown in applicant’s figures 51 and 54 respectively. These figures do not show the extent of how far the fasteners penetrate into the members 382 or 427. Therefore, the independent limitation does not appear to be supported. However, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to only attach the split nut to the rigid member so the two members could be installed where and when desired as a single unit. By pre-fastening the split nut to the rigid members, one would not have to perform this step in the field. Thus, installation would be faster and more efficient. Further, the pre-assembly of elements is well known to those who have ordinary skill, and it would have been obvious to do so with respect to Espinosa’s invention as well. Thus, the applicant’s amendments with respect to claims 39, 52, 59, 65, and 66 are not persuasive and the claims stand rejected.
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 Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
