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. 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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 12 , 14 are 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. Claim 12 recites the limitation " the arms " in the last line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 depends from claim 10, claim 11 introduces the “arms”. 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 - 8 , 15-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Maziarz US 9,062,453 . Maziarz discloses a control joint system comprising: A flexible plastic/polymer rail (2) having a vertical portion (19/37) and opposing foot portions (13, 31). The foot portions (31) including a plurality of holes (63) configured to receive nails for attachment to a substrate (11). The rail (2) having a U-shaped recess (59) in a top surface (27, 43) thereof. Figs. 2-4. Wherein the width of the recess (59) is at least (1/4”) and is configured to receive a caulk bead (6) forming a top surface of the control joint. Col. 2, ln. 41-Col. 3, ln. 55. With respect to claim 20 Maziarz discloses a method comprising the steps of: Providing a flexible plastic/polymer rail (2) having a vertical portion (19/37) and opposing foot portions (13, 31). The foot portions (31) including a plurality of holes (63) configured to receive nails for attachment to a substrate (11). The rail (2) having a U-shaped recess (59) in a top surface (27, 43) thereof. Figs. 2-4. Placing the rail on a substrate ; Nailing the rail to said substrate (11). Administering a cementitious material (4, 5) to the substrate to substantially encapsulate the sides of the rail. See Fig. 1. 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. The factual inquiries 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. Claim (s) 9 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maziarz US 9,062,453 . in view of Carter et al. US 5,956,912 Maziarz discloses a control joint system comprising: A flexible plastic/polymer rail (2) having a vertical portion (19/37) and opposing foot portions (13, 31). The foot portions (31) including a plurality of holes (63) configured to receive nails for attachment to a substrate (11). The rail (2) having a U-shaped recess (59) in a top surface (27, 43) thereof. Figs. 2-4. What Maziarz does not disclose is a rail height of at least 4”. However, Carter et al. teaches a control joint for concrete walls and floors, the joint member having a vertical web portion (16) extending between 1½”-12” in height for most concrete applications. See Fig. 1; Col. 3, ln. 45-Col. 4. ln. 15. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rail Maziarz at least 4” high in order to accommodate different thicknesses . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11, 13, 19 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. Claims 12, 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 8 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6986 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm . 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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272- 0547 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need help from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RAYMOND W ADDIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 3/10/2026