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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 and 11-17 are pending and subject to examination in this Office action. Claim 10 has been canceled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one speed prong” of claim 1 must be shown (i.e., identified by element number) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “at least 1 inch” is recited. This phrase is indefinite because the recitation “at least” implies 1 inch or more, and no upper limit is set forth. Accordingly, clarification is requested.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Rempel (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0297721), in view of Summons (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0159892).
Regarding independent claim 1, Rempel describes a framing bracket (1722; Figs. 17 and 18), comprising:
a housing (Figs. 17 and 18) adapted to receive a piece of lumber, wherein the housing comprises sides which define an enclosed perimeter and opposing first and second openings (i.e., top and bottom rectangular openings 1724); and
at least two pairs of opposing fastening wings (1726 and 1728) extending from opposing pairs of sides at the second opening, wherein each fastening wing of a first pair of opposing fastening wings extend from a side of a first pair of opposing sides of the second opening at an angle (i.e., a 90º angle) to the side of the housing, and each fastening wing of a second pair of fastening wings extend from a side of a second pair of opposing sides of the second opening along a same plane as the side of the second pair of opposing sides (Figs. 17 and 18).
Rempel does not appear to expressly describe one or more of the first and second fastening wings comprise at least one speed prong. As evidenced by Summons, it was old and well-known in the bracket art to utilize fastening wings having at least one speed prong (82) located thereon (Fig. 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize fastening wings having at least one speed prong located thereon with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have bolstered the structural integrity of the bracket. Such combination of known prior art elements that merely yields predictable results would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16.
Accordingly, Rempel as modified by Summons results in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the first pair of opposing sides is perpendicular to the second pair of opposing sides (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 3, wherein each fastening wing of the first pair of opposing fastening wings is perpendicular to the side of the first pair of opposing sides from which each fastening wing extends (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the sides of the housing having a depth of at least 1 inch (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the first and second openings of the housing are adapted to receive lumber of a size selected from 2″×2″, 2″×3″, 2″×4″, 2″×6″ and 4″×4″ (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the first and second pairs of fastening wings are adapted to fasten the bracket to lumber of a size selected from 2″×2″, 2″×3″, 2″×4″, 2″×6″ and 4″×4″ (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 7, wherein at least one of the first or second pair of fastening wings extend from the side of the bracket along only a partial length of said side (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 8, wherein one or more of the first and second fastening wings comprise at least one pre-drilled hole (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 9, wherein one or more of the first and second fastening wings comprise at least one marking to indicate where to make a hole (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 11, comprising a viewing window (Rempel 1736) formed in one or both of the second pair of fastening wings.
Regarding claim 12, wherein one or more of the sides of the bracket comprise a hole to receive a nail or screw (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 13, wherein one or more of the sides of the bracket comprise a domed nailing guide that is offset from a center of the opposing side (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the bracket is integrally formed (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the framing bracket is made of galvanized steel (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 16, Rempel describes a blank for use to prepare the framing bracket (Rempel Figs. 17 and 18).
Regarding claim 17, for the reasons discussed above, Rempel as modified by Summons results in a method of attaching a stud to a base comprising placing the framing bracket on an end of a stud, positioning the stud with framing bracket on the base, fixing the framing bracket to the base and fastening the stud to the base (see e.g., Rempel Figs. 17 and 18; Summons Fig. 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11 November 2025 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
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.
Authorization for Email Communication – Received on 13 August 2025.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 EST.
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 on 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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635