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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim is missing a period at the end. 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) 1-2, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowron, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0078321.
Regarding claim 1, Bowron discloses a corner connector comprising:(a) a body comprising a first portion and a second portion forming a 90 deg angle (see Fig. 1.3 reproduced below); (b) a first opening (21) in the first portion of the body configured for attaching the formwork connector to another formwork connector; and(c) a first prong extending from the first portion (see Fig. 3.1 reproduced below) configured to engage a side rail. The phrases “configured for attaching the formwork connector to another formwork connector” and “configured to engage a side rail” 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
582
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bowron discloses a corner connector further comprising a first prong opening (12) disposed through the first prong.
Regarding claim 5, Bowron discloses a corner connector further comprising a second prong extending from the first portion and a second fastener (see Fig. 1.3 reproduced above) configured to be inserted into a second prong opening to compress the side rail about the second prong. The phrase “configured to be inserted into a second prong opening to compress the side rail about the second prong” 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.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neri, U.S. Patent 4,691,970.
Regarding claim 13, Neri discloses a framing system comprising:(a) a first panel (33); (b) a plurality of side rails (3) disposed about the first panel; and(c) a plurality of corner connectors (4) connecting the plurality of side rails into a closed shape (see Fig. 1), each corner connector comprising:(i) a body (8) comprising a first portion (vertically oriented 21) and a second portion (adjacent vertically oriented 21; see Fig. 2) forming a 90 degree angle; (ii) at least one opening in the first portion (20); (iii) a first prong (10 extending from the first portion) extending from the first portion; and (iv) a second prong (10 extending from the second portion) extending from the second portion, wherein the plurality of corner connectors and plurality of side rails form a rigid body secured to the first panel (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Neri discloses a framing system further comprising at least one prong opening (24) in the first prong and at least one prong opening (24) in the second prong.
Regarding claim 16, Neri discloses a framing system further comprising plurality of fasteners configured to be inserted into each of the at least one prong openings wherein the plurality of fasteners are configured to compress the side rails about the prongs (screws; col. 3, lines 8-18). The phrases “configured to be inserted” and “configured to compress the side rails” 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(s) 13, 15-16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowron, U.S. Patent 10,870,980.
Regarding claim 13, Bowron discloses a framing system comprising:(a) a first panel (152); (b) a plurality of side rails (40) disposed about the first panel; and(c) a plurality of corner connectors (8) connecting the plurality of side rails into a closed shape (see figures), each corner connector comprising:(i) a body (10) comprising a first portion and a second portion forming a 90 degree angle (see Fig. 9 reproduced below); (ii) at least one opening in the first portion (SEE Fig. 9 below); (iii) a first prong (12) extending from the first portion; and (iv) a second prong (12) extending from the second portion, wherein the plurality of corner connectors and plurality of side rails form a rigid body secured to the first panel (as shown in Fig. 18).
PNG
media_image2.png
708
919
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Bowron discloses a framing system further comprising at least one prong opening (48) in the first prong and at least one prong opening (48) in the second prong.
Regarding claim 16, Bowron discloses a framing system further comprising plurality of fasteners (28) configured to be inserted into each of the at least one prong openings wherein the plurality of fasteners are configured to compress the side rails about the prongs. The phrases “configured to be inserted” and “configured to compress the side rails” 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 19, Bowron discloses a framing system wherein panels are configured to be stacked without the use of wailings (as the panels are flat, they may be stacked). The phrase “configured to be stacked without the use of wailings” 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.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowron, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0078321.
Regarding claim 3, Bowron discloses a corner connector further comprising a first fastener (paragraph 69) configured to be inserted into the first prong opening, but does not disclose wherein the first fastener is a lockbolt. 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 lockbolt depending on material availability and for a secure attachment. The phrase “configured to be inserted into the first prong opening” 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, Bowron discloses a corner connector wherein the first fastener is configured to compress the side rail about the first prong (paragraph 70). The phrase “configured to compress the side rail about the first prong” 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowron, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0078321 in view of Rogers, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0349195.
Regarding claim 6, Bowron discloses a corner connector but does not disclose wherein the body is comprised of zinc alloy and the side rail is comprises of aluminum. Rogers teaches the use of zinc in a corner connector (paragraph 67) as well as the use of aluminum for structural rail elements (paragraph 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such materials for protection against the elements and for a lightweight structure for ease of assembly, respectively, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 7-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podemski et al., U.S. Patent 9,549,482.
Regarding claim 7, Podemski discloses a structural assembly comprising:(a) a panel (124);(b) a first side rail (202) and a second side rail (202 at right angle to the first side rail) connected to the first panel; and(c) a corner connector (204) connecting the first side rail to the second side rail, the corner connector comprising:(i) a body comprising a first portion and a second portion forming a 90 deg angle (see Fig. 16C reproduced below);(ii) at least one opening in the first portion (see Fig. 16C reproduced below);(iii) a first prong (218) extending from the first portion; and(iv) a second prong (218, see below) extending from the second portion, wherein the first side rail is engaged with the first prong and the second side rail is engaged with the second prong via bolts (via wedge 208 and bolt 226), but does not specifically disclose the bolts are lockbolts. 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 lockbolt depending on material availability and for a secure attachment.
PNG
media_image3.png
445
623
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Podemski discloses a structural assembly wherein the first prong comprises one or more faces comprising a plurality of locking grooves and the second prong comprises one or more faces comprising a plurality of locking grooves (see Figs. 15; grooves at each side of each face).
Regarding claim 10, Podemski discloses a structural assembly configured to accept a bolt (226, see Fig. 14), but does not disclose it is further comprising a rectangular nut member configured to accept a bolt inserted through the at least one opening. 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 nut on the bolt to prevent the bolt from becoming loose. It would also have been obvious utilize a rectangular nut depending on material availability, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 11, Podemski discloses a structural assembly wherein the corner connector is comprised of a first material, the first side rail and second side rail are comprised of a second [material] (col. 11, line 67-col. 12, line 2), but does not specifically disclose the lockbolts are comprised of a third [material]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the lockbolts may be comprised of a third, different material such as titanium depending on material availability, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podemski et al., U.S. Patent 9,549,482 in view of Neri, U.S. Patent 4,691,970.
Regarding claim 9, Podemski discloses a structural assembly but does not disclose wherein the lockbolts are configured to compress the first and second side rail about the first and second prong, respectively. Neri teaches a similar assembly having pronged corner connectors (4) for joining hollow rail members (27), fasteners to be inserted through the outer surfaces of the rail members and into the prongs (at 24, 25). 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 lockbolt in a similar manner and protruding through the prong and rail surfaces to further secure the assembly. Upon tightening, the rail would compress about the prong. The phrase “configured to compress the first and second side rail about the first and second prong, respectively” 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podemski et al., U.S. Patent 9,549,482 in view of Rogers, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0349195.
Regarding claim 12, Podemski discloses a structural assembly, but does not disclose wherein the corner connector is comprised of a zinc alloy, the first side rail and second side rail are comprised of aluminum, and the lockbolts are comprised of steel. Rogers teaches the use of zinc in a corner connector (paragraph 67) as well as the use of aluminum for structural rail elements (paragraph 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such materials for protection against the elements and for a lightweight structure for ease of assembly, respectively, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416. It would also have been obvious to utilize steel bolts, as steel bolts are notoriously well known in the art and commonly used.
Claim(s) 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowron, U.S. Patent 10,870.980.
Regarding claim 14, Bowron discloses a framing system wherein the at least one opening secures the panel to a second panel having a corner connector via a bolt (see Fig. 17), but does not disclose the use of a rectangular nut member. 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 nut on the bolt to prevent the bolt from becoming loose. It would also have been obvious utilize a rectangular nut depending on material availability, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 17, Bowron discloses a framing system, but does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one fastener is a direct tension lockbolt. 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 direct tension lockbolt depending on material availability and for a secure attachment.
Claim(s) 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowron, U.S. Patent 10,870.980 in view of Rogers, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0349195.
Regarding claim 18, Bowron discloses a framing system but does not disclose wherein the plurality of corner connectors are comprised of a zinc alloy. Rogers teaches the use of zinc in a corner connector (paragraph 67) as well as the use of aluminum for structural rail elements (paragraph 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such materials for protection against the elements and for a lightweight structure for ease of assembly, respectively, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art as modified discloses a framing system wherein the plurality of side rails are comprised of a material other than zinc alloy (aluminum; Rogers paragraph 17).
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