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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-16, 21, drawn to a frame system, classified in E04F 13/0885.
II. Claims 17-20, drawn to a method for installing masonry units, classified in E04G 21/22.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the method as claimed can be performed utilizing a frame apparatus without the support panel, spacer members, and engagement members as claimed in the frame system.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The limitations toward the structure claimed in the apparatus claims requires a search in different areas than the structure and method steps of the process claims.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Frederick Colen on 12.22.2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of the frame/frame system, claims 1-16, 21. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim 8 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.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear how a second spacer meets a first spacer at substantially a midpoint in the present invention. The examiner will examine as best understood as illustrated in the drawings, with a second spacer member of an adjacent frame configured to meet a first spacer of the frame at substantially a midpoint. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scott, U.S. Patent 6,059,257.
Regarding claim 1, Scott discloses a bracket comprising: a support panel (174) having a front surface (as shown in Fig. 8) and a back surface (surface opposite the front surface), the front surface of the support panel configured to abut a first face of each of the masonry units (188, surface adjacent the panel as shown in Fig. 9); first spacer members (pair of longitudinal sidewalls 176) extending transversely from the front surface of the support panel; second spacer members (pair of transversely extending sidewalls 176) extending transversely from the front surface of the support panel; engagement members (62) extending from at least one of the following: the front surface of the support panel, the first spacer members, the second spacer members, or any combination thereof (see Fig. 9, generally), wherein the engagement members are releasably engageable with a second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and a third face (one of longitudinal edge surfaces, see Fig. 9) of each of the masonry units (when unit 174 is removed). The phrases “configured to abut a first face of each of the masonry units” and “releasably engageable with a second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and a third face of each of the masonry units” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Scott discloses a bracket wherein the engagement members are manually disengageable with the second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units after a fourth face of each of the masonry units is set in a bonding material applied on the substrate (after the concrete has been set; col. 7, lines 61-65), the fourth face of each of the masonry units being opposite from the first face of each of the masonry units (see Fig. 9, surface of 188 opposite the panel/bracket). The phrase “manually disengageable with the second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units after a fourth face of each of the masonry units is set in a bonding material applied on the substrate” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Scott discloses a bracket wherein the engagement members are manually disengageable with the second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units by applying a force to the frame in a direction away from the bonding material and the substrate (after the concrete has been set; col. 7, lines 61-65). The phrase “manually disengageable with the second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units by applying a force to the frame in a direction away from the bonding material and the substrate” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Scott discloses a bracket wherein the engagement members being releasably engageable with the second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units allows removal of the frame from each of the masonry units that is set in a bonding material applied on the substrate (after the concrete has been set; col. 7, lines 61-65). The phrase “allows removal of the frame from each of the masonry units that is set in a bonding material applied on the substrate” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Scott discloses a bracket wherein the support panel defines apertures (178) extending through the support panel from the front surface of the support panel to the back surface of the support panel.
Regarding claim 6, Scott discloses a bracket wherein the apertures of the support panel are configured to allow air to pass therethrough upon removal of the frame from each of the masonry units that is set in the bonding material applied on the substrate (as it is an open space, air can pass). The phrase “configured to allow air to pass therethrough upon removal of the frame from each of the masonry units that is set in the bonding material applied on the substrate” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Scott discloses a bracket wherein at least one of the second spacer members meets at least one of the first spacer members at substantially a middle point of a length of the at least one of the first spacer members (see Fig. 4), as best understood in light of the specification.
Regarding claim 10, Scott discloses a bracket wherein the first spacer members, the second spacer members, and the engagement members each extend a distance from the front surface of the support panel, and wherein each of the distance is only a portion of a thickness of each of the second face, the third face, a fifth face, and a sixth face of each of the masonry units (see for example the block as shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Scott discloses a bracket wherein the first spacer members, the second spacer members, and the engagement members, each extending the distance from the front surface of the support panel that is only a portion of the thickness of each of the second, third, fifth, and sixth face of each of the masonry units, expose a second portion of the thickness of each of the second, third, fifth, and sixth face of each of the of the masonry units and expose the entire surface area of the fourth face of each of the masonry units (portions of the block extending outside of the bracket as shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Scott discloses a bracket wherein the engagement members are configured to engage the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units, the third face of each of the masonry units being opposite from the second face of each of the masonry units (two opposite edges, see Fig. 9, generally). The phrase “configured to engage the second face and the third face of each of the masonry units” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Scott discloses a bracket wherein two of the first spacer members meet two of the second spacer members to form a recess (cavity within the frame members, see Fig. 2), and wherein the recess is configured to receive one of the masonry units (see Fig. 9). The phrase “configured to receive one of the masonry units” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Scott discloses a bracket wherein each of the masonry units comprises a thin brick (col. 4, lines 17-19) and the substrate comprises at least one of the following: a wall, a floor, a ceiling, an archway, or any combination thereof (wall, title).
Regarding claim 15, Scott discloses a bracket wherein the first spacer members are longitudinal spacer members, the longitudinal spacer members being substantially parallel or substantially linear with one another, and wherein the second spacer members are vertical spacer members, the vertical spacer members being substantially parallel or substantially linear with one another and substantially perpendicular with the longitudinal spacer members (see Fig. 8, generally).
Regarding claim 16, Scott discloses a bracket further comprising: at least one connector (170) configured to unite the frame to a second frame. The phrase “configured to unite the frame to a second frame” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 21, Scott discloses a bracket system comprising: a first frame (108); a second frame (110); each of the first frame and the second frame comprising: a support panel (60) having a front surface (as shown in Fig. 2) and a back surface (surface opposite of that shown in Fig. 2), the front surface of the support panel configured to abut a first face of each of the masonry units (thin brick, col. 4 lines 17-32; 188, for example); first spacer members (80, 92) extending transversely from the front surface of the support panel; second spacer members (86, 98) extending transversely from the front surface of the support panel; engagement members (62) extending from at least one of the following: the front surface of the support panel, the first spacer members, the second spacer members, or any combination thereof (see Fig. 2, generally), wherein the engagement members are releasably engageable with a second face (face adjacent bracket, see Fig. 9 for example) of each of the masonry units or the second face and a third face of each of the masonry units; and at least one connector (104) uniting the first frame and the second frame. The phrases “configured to abut a first face of each of the masonry units” and “releasably engageable with a second face of each of the masonry units or the second face and a third face of each of the masonry units” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, U.S. Patent 6,059,257 in view of Calmes, U.S. Patent 8,888,067.
Regarding claim 7, Scott discloses a bracket but does not specifically disclose a surface treatment configured to resist bonding to a bonding material applied on the substrate. Calmes teaches a release agent is known in the art of constructing decorative concrete walls (col. 11, lines 32-37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a release agent to resist bonding to the thin brick elements for ease of assembly in producing a wall.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, U.S. Patent 6,059,257 in view of Hunsaker, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0107531.
Regarding claim 9, Scott discloses a bracket but does not specifically disclose wherein the first face of each of the masonry units is an ornamental face. Hunsaker teaches a decorative brick (colored, paragraph 48). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the bracket with an outer ornamental face according to the aesthetic appearance desired by a sure, and since it would be an obvious matter of design choice as it would not effect the operability of the bracket.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633