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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s filing of 4/23/26 has been entered.
It is noted that applicant has not traversed the Official Notice in the manner required by MPEP 2144.03(C). Accordingly, “the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420.”
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the elements identified by the examiner are not the recited first elongate structure beam because “multiple individual gusset plates is not a beam […]”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
A “beam” is defined as “any of various relatively long pieces of metal, wood, stone, etc., manufactured or shaped especially for use as rigid members or parts of structures or machines” (see https://www.dictionary.com/browse/beam). The components identified by the examiner including “structures 27 and 31, seen in Fig 3-4” broadly and reasonably read on “any of various relatively long pieces of metal […] for use as rigid members or parts of structures or machines”.
The examiner acknowledges that applicant attempts to differentiate from the examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation in new dependent claim 19, which requires that the elements be “unitary”. However, unitary is defined as, “Of or relating to a unit” or “Based on or characterized by one or more units” (see https://www.thefreedictionary.com/unitary). Although the examiner acknowledges that the unitary beam as identified in Houghton may have multiple sub-elements, collectively the sub-elements ‘relate to a unit’ and by definition may be “characterized by one or more units” as is permitted by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. The examiner notes that a recitation that the beams are formed as a single-piece would preclude this broad, but reasonable interpretation.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s. However examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01 subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
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(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Houghton (US 20170314254 A).
Regarding claim 1, Houghton teaches a terminus-supported structure comprising:
a first elongate structural beam (Fig 15, beam structure shown, including structures 27 and 31, seen in Fig 3-4) having a first channel (Fig 3, opening occupied by 20) formed therethrough substantially orthogonally to a long axis of said first elongate structural beam (Fig 3, axis defined by 17);
a second elongate structural beam having at least an insertion segment thereof that is sized and shaped for passage through and substantial occlusion of said first channel of said first elongate structural beam (Fig 3, beam 20); and
wherein the respective, juxtaposed surfaces of said first and said second elongate structural beams (Fig 4, surfaces of 23a and 20 facing one another), adjacent to the juxtaposition of said first channel and outer surfaces of said insertion segment of said second elongate structural beam are at least partially joined by welding (Para 0088, Fig 4-5, welds 29b).
Regarding claim 2, Houghton teaches wherein said first elongate structural beam is of a hollow, conduit design (see Fig 6, hollow as seen), having at least first and second opposing conduit walls, and said first channel comprises complimentarily positioned openings through said first and second opposing conduit walls (Fig 6, top and bottom walls defined by plates 27).
Regarding claim 3, Houghton teaches wherein said second elongate structural beam is of a hollow, conduit design (Fig 3, hollow conduit 20, as seen).
Regarding claim 4, Houghton teaches wherein the first and second elongate structural beams comprise rectangular steel tubes (Fig 3, first beam is rectangular made be 27 and 23; Fig 3, second beam 20 is rectangular as seen. Para 0002-0003, 0091, steel).
Regarding claim 6, Houghton teaches a support structure, comprising:
a plurality of beams defining the support structure (Fig 1, plurality of beams, seen);
a plurality of joints at intersection points of the plurality of beams within the support structure (Fig 11, joints, as seen);
wherein the plurality of joints further comprises:
a first beam of the plurality of beams(Fig 15, beam structure shown, including structures 27 and 31, seen in Fig 3-4) having a first channel laterally defined therein (Fig 3, opening occupied by 20);
a second beam of the plurality of beams inserted through the first channel of the first beam (Fig 3, beam 20), wherein exterior surfaces of the second beam are connected to edges of the first channel (Fig 4, surfaces of 23a and 20 facing one another; connected to the edge at 29b).
Regarding claim 7, Houghton teaches wherein the plurality of beams comprise rectangular steel tubes (Fig 3, first beam is rectangular made be 27 and 23, tube by virtue of accommodating 20; Fig 3, second beam 20 is rectangular as seen. Para 0002-0003, 0091, steel).
Regarding claim 8, Houghton teaches wherein the first channel is defined by a first opening in a first side of the first beam and a second opening in a second opposing side of the first beam (Fig 6, top and bottom walls defined by plates 27, with openings to accommodate 20).
Regarding claim 9, Houghton teaches wherein the exterior surfaces of the second beam are welded to the edges of the first channel (Para 0088, Fig 4-5, welds 29b).
Regarding claim 11, Houghton teaches wherein the first channel is substantially orthogonal to a long axis of the first beam (Fig 3, axis defined by 17; opening defined by 20 is orthogonal, as seen).
Regarding claim 12, Houghton teaches a joint for a support structure, comprising:
a first beam (Fig 15, beam structure shown, including structures 27 and 31, seen in Fig 3-4) having a first channel laterally defined therein (Fig 3, opening occupied by 20);
a second beam inserted through the first channel of the first beam (Fig 3, beam 20), wherein exterior surfaces of the second beam are connected to edges of the first channel (Fig 4, surfaces of 23a and 20 facing one another; connected to the edge at 29b).
Regarding claim 13, Houghton teaches wherein the first beam and the second beam comprise rectangular steel tubes (Fig 3, first beam is rectangular made be 27 and 23, tube by virtue of accommodating 20; Fig 3, second beam 20 is rectangular as seen. Para 0002-0003, 0091, steel).
Regarding claim 14, Houghton teaches wherein the first beam and the second beam comprise rectangular tubes having a first and second opposing sides and a third and fourth opposing sides (Fig 3, each tube has a top/bottom and left/right side).
Regarding claim 15, Houghton teaches wherein the first channel is defined by a first opening in the first side of the first beam and a second opening in the second opposing side of the first beam (Fig 6, top and bottom walls defined by plates 27, with openings to accommodate 20).
Regarding claim 16, Houghton teaches wherein the exterior surfaces of the second beam are welded to the edges of the first channel (Para 0088, Fig 4-5, welds 29b).
Regarding claim 18, Houghton teaches wherein the first channel is substantially orthogonal to a long axis of the first beam (Fig 3, axis defined by 17; opening defined by 20 is orthogonal, as seen).
Regarding claim 19, Houghton wherein the first channel comprises a first opening defined in a first side of a unitary structure of the first elongate structural beam (Fig 3, the top side opening occupied by 20, the elements identified as the first beam in the parent claim may be broadly construed as “unitary” as discussed in the response to argument) and a second opening defined in a second side of a unitary structure of the first elongate structural beam (Fig 3, the bottom side opening occupied by 20, the elements identified as the first beam in the parent claim may be broadly construed as “unitary” as discussed in the response to argument).
Regarding claim 20, Houghton wherein the first elongate structural beam comprise a tubular rectangular member through which the first channel is defined (Fig 3, first beam is rectangular made be 27 and 23, tube by virtue of accommodating 20; please note the use of the open ended transitional phrase “comprise”).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houghton (US 20170314254 A13), in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Regarding claim 5, Houghton is silent on wherein the terminus supported structure comprises a bridge.
AAPA teaches that frame and joint structures are known in the art to be used in bridges.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Houghton by having joint and frame structure used in a bridge as admitted by applicant because Houghton teaches the general applicability of his joint and frame and it is known that bridges are one such structure in which the joint and frame would be usable.
Regarding claim 10, Houghton is silent on wherein the support structure comprises a bridge.
AAPA teaches that frame and joint structures are known in the art to be used in bridges.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Houghton by having joint and frame structure used in a bridge as admitted by applicant because Houghton teaches the general applicability of his joint and frame and it is known that bridges are one such structure in which the joint and frame would be usable.
Regarding claim 17, Houghton is silent on wherein the support structure comprises a bridge.
AAPA teaches that frame and joint structures are known in the art to be used in bridges.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Houghton by having joint and frame structure used in a bridge as admitted by applicant because Houghton teaches the general applicability of his joint and frame and it is known that bridges are one such structure in which the joint and frame would be usable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights