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
Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on 11/03/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are not mutually exclusive and are not separate species. This is found persuasive therefore the restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1, 9-12 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Commins et al. US 2001/0002529 A1 (hereinafter ‘Commins’).
In regard to claims 1, 11, Commins teaches a shearwall (9), comprising:
a central panel (49);
edge sections (42 on side edges, and 17, 18 on top and bottom edges) at edges of the central panel (see fig. 8), the edge sections and central panel including a base section adjacent a lower portion of the shearwall (see fig. 8, the base section is considered the lower half of the side edges and panel); and
internal stiffeners (32) mounted within and coupled to the edge sections (see fig. 10), the internal stiffeners configured to increase a section modulus of the shearwall and control buckling of the shearwall at the edge sections. It is noted that installing of the stiffeners provides an additional thickness to the edge sections thus increasing the moment of inertia which in turn increases its section modulus. It is well known in the art that a larger moment of inertia results in a larger section modulus section modulus which dictates the resistance to buckling of a given cross section. Furthermore, the structure of Commins is substantially identical to that of the claim, therefore the claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01).
In regard to claim 9, Commins teaches the claimed invention wherein the edge sections and internal stiffeners include openings (36, 38) configured to receive bearing plate washers and nuts to affix the shearwall to a foundation (see figs. 6 and 7).
In regard to claim 10, Commins teaches the claimed invention further comprising a pair of bearing plate washers and nuts (see nuts 33 and 30 and accompanying plates, fig. 7B) fitting within openings in an edge section (18) and internal stiffener and configured to receive an anchor bolt to affix the shearwall to a foundation (as shown in fig. 10).
In regard to claim 12, Commins teaches the claimed invention wherein the stiffeners comprise one or more slot (see slot 38, fig. 6), having a pair of ends comprising rotational yield points (see fig. 6) note that the slot is oriented so as to allow for sliding, hence having rotational yield points (see [0046]).
In regard to claim 18, Commins teaches the claimed invention wherein slot (see slot 38) has a constant gap width along a length of the slot (see fig. 6).
Alternatively,
Claim 11, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Pryor US 2002/0066245 A1 (hereinafter ‘Pryor’).
In regard to claim 11, Pryor teaches a shearwall (fig. 1), comprising:
a central panel (21);
edge sections (35) at edges of the central panel (see fig. 1), the edge sections and central panel including a base section adjacent a lower portion of the shearwall (see fig. 1, the base section is considered the lower half of the side edges and panel); and
internal stiffeners (8) mounted within and coupled to the edge sections (see fig. 2), the internal stiffeners configured to increase a section modulus of the shearwall and control buckling of the shearwall at the edge sections. It is noted that installing of the stiffeners provides an additional thickness to the edge sections thus increasing the moment of inertia which in turn increases its section modulus. It is well known in the art that a larger moment of inertia results in a larger section modulus section modulus which dictates the resistance to buckling of a given cross section. Furthermore, the structure of Pryor is substantially identical to that of the claim, therefore the claimed properties and functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01).
In regard to claim 25, Pryor teaches the claimed invention further comprising first and second reinforcement plates (1 and 1’) positioned in the edge sections to resist torsional loads on the shear wall (note that this is a functional limitation which the plates of Pryor are capable of performing per MPEP 2114 as the plate provides increased section modulus thus adding resistance to torsional loads).
In regard to claim 27, Pryor teaches the claimed invention further comprising a pair of chords (39) affixed to exterior surfaces of the edge sections to resist torsional loads on the shear wall (note that this is a functional limitation which the chords of Pryor are capable of performing per MPEP 2114 as the plate provides increased section modulus thus adding resistance to torsional loads).
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 20, 21, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Commins.
In regard to claims 20, 21, 24, Commins teaches that its sections can be connected via conventional methods such as nails, welds, bolts, etc. (see [0034-0036]) but does not explicitly recite that the stiffeners are connected to the edge sections by welds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to connect the stiffeners to the edge sections by welds so as to provide the same connecting means throughout the entire assembly and thus simplify the installation process. Note that it would have been obvious to provide them as a plurality of welds formed in slits because doing so involves mere duplication of parts and it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Commins in view of Pryor.
In regard to claim 22, Commins does not explicitly teach a baseplate at the bottom of the base section.
Pryor teaches a shearwall assembly comprising a baseplate (16) at the bottom of the base section (see fig. 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a base plate in the wall of Commins, as taught by Pryor, so as to provide further restrain against shear forces (see Pryor [0069]).
Claim 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor in view of Marshall et al. US 2021/0180315 A1 (hereinafter ‘Marshall’).
In regard to claim 26, Pryor does not explicitly teach a torsion strap affixed across a width of the shearwall to resist torsion loads.
Marshall teaches a wall construction comprising horizontal struts (114) affixed across a width of the wall (see fig. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide horizontal struts, as taught by Marshall, in the wall assembly of Pryor so as to make the wall system stronger and more stable (see Marshall [0038]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 13-17, 19, 23 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 2, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a shearwall comprising a central panel and edge sections with stiffeners are recited in claim 1, wherein the stiffeners comprise one or more slots configured to widen or narrow upon lateral loads on the shearwall.
With respect to claim 13, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a shearwall comprising a central panel and edge sections with stiffeners are recited in claim 12, wherein the slots comprise a tab extending transversely across a section of the slot.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a shearwall comprising a central panel and edge sections with stiffeners are recited in claim 12, wherein the slots has a variable gap width along its length.
With respect to claim 23, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a shearwall comprising a central panel and edge sections with stiffeners are recited in claim 22, comprising one or more welds between the internal stiffeners and a baseplate.
Claims 28-30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 28, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a shearwall comprising a central panel and edge sections at the edges of the central panel, the edge sections having internal stiffeners coupled within the edge sections and configured to increase the section modulus of the shearwall. The shearwall further comprising one or more slots, each slot having a pair of rotational yield points and a tab extending transversely across a section of at least one of the slots.
Note that, per Applicant’s disclosure, the rotational yield points refer to the end side portions of the slots (see [0054]).
Further, the Examiner would like to point out that is has been held that the phrase "configured to" has a narrower meaning than merely "capable of". See In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375,1381 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (the phrase "adapted to" construed narrowly to mean "configured to," as opposed to "capable of' or "having the capacity to," citing Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335,1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376,1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (construing "memory ... configured to" as "memory that must perform the recited function"); Boston Sci. Corp. v. Cordis Corp., 2006 WF 3782840 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("A widely accepted dictionary definition of the word 'configure' means '[t]o design, arrange, set up, or shape with a view to specific applications or uses.' American Heritage Dictionary 386 (4th ed. 2000).").
Thus, Applicant's specification supports a narrower meaning for "configured to" than "capable of" and makes clear that, at least in the independent claims, under broadest reasonable interpretation "configured to" means more than merely "capable of".
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 5PM.
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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633