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 March 17, 2026. The amendment and remarks have been received and reviewed by the examiner. However, upon further consideration, a new second action non-final is presented below.
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 52-55, 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 claim 52, line 13, “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.
In regard to claim 65, line 12, “the horizontal member” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if the horizontal member is the rigid member or the cross member, or if they are all different elements. 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) 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espinosa (2011/0041450).
In regard to claim 44, Espinosa discloses a reinforced building wall, comprising: a) a first stud wall disposed above a foundation, the first stud wall having a first top plate supporting a first and second floor joists; b) a second stud wall disposed above the first stud wall, the second stud wall having a second bottom plate operably supported by the first and second floor joists; there is also a subfloor located between the tops of the joists and the bottom of the second bottom plate (figure 1);
c) a rigid member 16 disposed above the first top plate on the second bottom plate, a tie-rod 8 with a lower end portion for being operably anchored to the foundation 6, the tie-rod extending through the first top plate, and the second bottom plate, and the rigid member; and a fastener 12 disposed on the rigid member, the fastener being attached to the tie-rod.
Espinosa does not specifically disclose that the rigid member and fastener are between the first and second floor joists such that they operably bear on the first top plate. 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 between the joist members and blocking members shown in figure 1, 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 to between the joists, they would produce the same effects as placing them on the bottom members. They will all act to place a compression force on the wall in order to strengthen the wall to resist external forces.
In regard to claim 45, Espinosa discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein a first blocking and a second blocking are disposed between the first top plate and the second bottom plate, the tie-rod extending between the first blocking and the second blocking (figure 1).
In regard to claim 46, Espinosa discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein a subfloor is disposed underneath the second bottom plate (figure 1).
Claim(s) 39, 40, 47, 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, 47, and 52 (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 disposed on 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 operably attached to the second bottom plate. 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 does not specifically disclose that the fastener is a split nut fastener. 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 claim 40, Espinosa in view of Gray disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein 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 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 48 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espinosa (2011/0041450) in view of Espinosa (7762030).
In regard to claim 48, Espinosa ‘450 discloses the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing that the fastener 12 includes a spring that operatively bears on the first top plate. However, Espinosa ‘030 teaches that it is known to use a fastener having a spring 130 that “operatively” bears on a plate member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the spring fastener into Espinosa ‘450’s invention, because by using the spring, a constant force can be applied to the fastener to ensure that it continues to engage the tie rod and keep it in tension even if the building settles or shifts.
In regard to claim 51, Espinosa ‘450 discloses the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing a bearing plate disposed between the rigid member and the first top plate. However, Espinosa ‘030 teaches that it is known to use the combination of a bearing plate and a rigid member (fig. 9, 114, 122) when supporting a fastener in a reinforced wall structure. 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 bearing plate and a rigid member in combination at taught by Espinosa ‘030 because the combination of supporting members will provide a strong durable base for the fastener to bear on. There will be large loads applied to the tension member that need to be supported, so two support members will be more sufficient than only one would be.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 49 and 50 are 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.
Claim 67 is allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the prior art references of record disclose similar features of applicant’s claimed device, they fail to show or teach the combination of limitations set forth in claims 44 and 49, 44 and 50, or 67. The reference of record fail to show or teach the use of a fastener as specifically set forth in claims 49, 50, or 67. The fasteners of the prior art of record have spring members and cylindrical members being used to provide tension, but they do not claim the spring and cylindrical members arranged as set forth in these claims. The examiner can find no proper motivation, absent hindsight, to modify the references of record to produce the claimed device.
Response to Arguments
Due to the fact that the claims have been rejected on a new ground of rejection, the applicant’s arguments and response are moot.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights