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 non-final office action in response to the RCE and amendment filed 1/22/2026.
Claims 134, 164-165 and 176 are amended, and claims 135, 141 and 149-163 canceled.
Claims 134, 136-140, 142-148 and 164-176 are pending and examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 136-140, 142-148 and 165-175 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 136-140 142-148 and 165-175, line 1, “A building” should be change to “The building”; in claim 148, line 7, change “beam” to “beam;”; and in claim 175, line 7, “a flange” should be “the flange”. 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 172-173 and 175 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 claims 172-173 and 175 it is not clear how the rod is disposed inside the steel beam when the rod is “operably bearing on top of the wood/steel beam”. The rod cannot bear on top of the beam and be within the beam at the same time.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 136-139, 143-144, 147-148 and 176 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phillips(5,384,993; cited on PTO 892).
Regarding claim 176, Phillips discloses a building wall, comprising:
a) a wood beam foundation(22, see column 3, lines 17-19 and Fig. 1; 22 is considered foundation of the building meeting the claim limitation);
b) studs(17, see column 3, lines 17-19 and Fig. 1) extending upwardly from the beam(see Figs. 1 and 2);
c) a bearing plate(41 or 32 via 41, see column 3, lines 37-38) supported on the foundation(see Fig. 1); and
d) a rod post(16, 28, 30, see Figs. 1-2) having a bottom end portion(considered 28) operably bearing on the bearing plate(30 bear on 32 which bears on 41 and 22, see Figs. 1 and 2) to transfer compression forces from the rod post to the wood beam(the rod post 16/ 28,30 is attached the upper and lower plates 26 and 41, see Figs. 1 and 2 as well as the foundation 22 via the plate 41 or 32, therefor any compression on the wall would inherently transfer from the wall to the rod to the plate to the foundation meeting the functional claim limitation).
Regarding claim 136, Phillips discloses the building wall as in claim 176, wherein:
the first bearing plate(32) includes a threaded opening(41, see column 3, lines 41-42); and
the bottom end portion is threaded to the threaded opening(see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 137, Phillips discloses the building wall as in claim 176, wherein:
a) the first bearing plate(41 extending along 22, see Fig. 1) includes an opening(for receiving 28);
b) the bottom end portion is disposed in the opening(see Fig. 2); and
c) a nut(32) is threaded to the bottom end portion, the nut bearing on the first bearing plate(see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 138, Phillips discloses the building wall as in claim 176, wherein:
a) the first bearing plate(41 extending along 22) includes a first opening(see Fig. 2);
b) the wood beam includes a second opening(see Fig. 2);
c) the bottom end portion extends through the first opening and into the second opening(see Fig. 2); and
d) a nut(32) is threaded to the bottom end portion, the nut bearing on the first bearing plate(see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 139, Phillips discloses the building wall as in claim 176, wherein:
a) the first bearing plate(32) includes a first threaded opening;
b) the wood beam(22) includes a second opening(see Fig. 2); and
c) the bottom end portion is threaded to the first threaded opening and extends into the second opening(see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 143, Phillips discloses the building wall as in claim 176, wherein:
a) the wood beam(22) includes a first opening(see Fig. 2);
b) the first bearing plate(41 extending along 22, or 32, see Fig. 2) is disposed on a top surface of the wood beam(see Fig. 2), the first bearing plate includes a second opening(for receiving 28, see Fig. 2);
c) a second bearing plate(29) is disposed on a bottom surface of the wood beam(se Fig. 4), the second bearing plate including a third opening(for receiving 28);
d) the bottom end portion extends through the first opening, the second opening and the third opening(see Fig. 2 and 4); and
e) the bottom end portion is operably attached to the first bearing plate(via 32) to transfer the compression forces from the rod post to the first bearing plate and the wood beam, the bottom end portion being operably attached to the second bearing plate to transfer tension forces from the rod post to the wood beam.
Regarding claim 144, Phillips discloses the building wall as in claim 143, wherein:
a) the second opening(in 32) and the third openings(in 29) are threaded; and
b) the bottom end portion is threaded to the first bearing plate and the second bearing plate(see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 147, Phillips discloses the building wall as in claim 143, wherein the bottom end portion includes a shoulder(considered one of the threads) bearing on the first bearing plate.
Regarding claim 148, Phillips discloses the building wall as in claim 176, wherein:
a) the wood beam(22) includes a first opening(for receiving 28);
b) a second bearing plate(29) is disposed on a bottom surface of the wood beam(see Figs. 2 and 4), the second bearing plate includes a second opening(see Fig. 2 and 4);
c) the bottom end portion includes a shoulder(considered threads) bearing on the wood beam;
d) the bottom end portion extends through the first opening and the second opening(see Figs. 2 and 4); and
e) the second opening is threaded to the bottom end portion to bear on a bottom surface of the wood beam(see Fig. 2 and 4).
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.
Claims 142 and 146 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips.
Regarding claim 142, Mueller discloses the building wall as in claim 176 wherein the first bearing plate is attached to the wood beam but lacks the specific attachment.
The specific attachment of the beam and plate is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the attachment and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 146, Phillips discloses the building as in claim 143, but lacks the bearing plates welded to the rod portion.
The use of welds to further secure the plates and beam is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the beam and design requirements of the wall.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous rejections.
After further careful consideration of the amendment to claim 164, the previous restriction requirement is being withdrawn. Any continuing application filed with the subject matter of the instant application could be subject to a double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 134, 164-171 and 174 are allowed.
Claim 140 and 145 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.
Claims 172-173 and 175 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. A final determination will be made when the 112 rejections have been overcome.
Prior art of record shows a wall with studs and a rod on a foundation but none with a wood or steel beam foundation with the rod bearing on top of the beam to transfer compression forces from the rod to the beam, as in claims 135 and 164, or the combination and interrelation of a wood beam, first and second bearing plates, and first and second nuts, as in claim 145, nor any motivation to do so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 134 and 164 have been considered but are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 176 have been considered but are moot because the previous rejection has been withdrawn and a new ground of rejection made.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the depend claims has been discussed above.
The examiner officially withdraws the previous restriction requirement and allows the previously canceled claims reentered into the application if so desired by applicant. As noted and reiterated here, any continuing application with the subject matter of the instant application could be subject to a double patenting rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. AUBREY(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. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/