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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 17-20, in the reply filed on September 30, 2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 17-36 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.
With regards to claim 17, the preamble of the claim sets forth the method results in the making of an acute Z-shaped beam, however upon completion of the method steps one skilled in the art obtains a preformed structure with a first acute angle and a second acute angle. It is unclear when the preformed structure is formed into the acute Z-shaped beam.
With regards to claim 26, the preamble of the claim sets forth the method is directed to forming a support structure, however upon completion of the providing and forming steps one skilled in the art obtains a central strut with a first rib, first flange at an acute angle and a second flange at a second acute angle to the central strut. It is unclear when the forming of the support structure is performed.
With regards to claim 28, the claim states “applying a lateral load to the support structure such that the cross-sectional centerpoint comprises a neutral axis and is oriented in an identical direction the applied lateral load” it is unclear how a lateral load is to be applied when the support structure has yet to be formed. Additionally it is unclear if the neutral axis is only present when the lateral load is applied.
The claim states “is oriented in an identical direction the applied lateral load”, there appears to be missing language rendering the meets and bounds of the claim indefinite. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Examiner notes that no art has been applied to claims 28-29 because “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art” [see MPEP 2173.06.II].
With regards to claim 34, the claim states “wherein the first rib, first flange and second flange are roll formed”, it is unclear if this limitation is intending to further define the forming step for each of the elements set forth in claim 26 to be roll forming or if the limitation is intending to set forth an additional step of roll forming each of the elements after the forming steps of claim 26. It is noted that should the limitation intend to recite an additional step, the limitation is couched in a narrative format which does not lend itself to a clear understanding of the essential steps of the method. For examination purposes the limitation is being interpreted as further defining the forming of claim 26 to be roll forming.
With regards to claim 35, the preamble of the claim sets forth the method is directed to forming a support structure, however upon completion of the providing and forming steps one skilled in the art obtains a central strut with a first rib, a second rib, first flange at an acute angle and a second flange at a second acute angle to the central strut. It is unclear when the forming of the support structure is performed.
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) 26, 27 and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Preller (US 4,433,565).
In reference to claim 26, Preller discloses a method of forming a support structure comprising the steps of
providing a central strut,
forming a first rib in the central strut [see replicated figure 13 below],
forming a first flange at a first acute angle to a first side of the central strut, and
forming a second flange at a second acute angle to a second side of the central strut [see col. 4 lines 35-36; col. 7 lines 58-63],
wherein a shear center is disposed at a cross-sectionals centerpoint of a mass of the structure [it is noted that the shear center appears to be a result of the forming steps, therefore since Preller discloses the claimed forming steps the shear center as recited would be present in the structure].
PNG
media_image1.png
425
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 27, Preller further discloses forming a second rib in the central strut, the first rib and the second rib disposed between substantially straight sections of the central strut, as seen in figure above.
In reference to claim 34, Preller further discloses the forming of the first rib, first flange, and second flange is by roll forming [see col. 4 lines 35-36].
In reference to claim 35, Preller discloses a method of forming a support structure comprising the step of
providing a central strut,
roll forming a first rib and a second rib in the central strut,
roll forming a first flange at a first acute angle to a first side of the central strut,
roll forming a first angled end segment extending from the first flange,
roll forming a second flange at a second acute angle to a second side of the central strut, and
roll forming a second angled end segment extending from the second flange [see replicated figure 6 below; see col. 4 lines 35-36; col. 7 lines 44-52],
wherein a neutral axis disposed at a cross-sectional centerpoint of a mass of the support structure and oriented in an identical direction as an expected lateral load [it is noted that the neutral axis location and orientation appear to be a result of the forming steps, therefore since Preller meets the claimed forming steps the location and orientation of the neutral axis as recited would be present in the structure]
PNG
media_image2.png
306
485
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
1. Claim(s) 17 and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belikoff et al (US 2010/0307991) in view of Lawler (US 3,475,937).
In reference to claim 17, Belikoff et al discloses a method of making an acute Z-shaped beam, the method comprising the steps of
providing a structure comprising an elongate central strut, a first flange coupled to an elongate first side of the central strut, and a second flange coupled to an elongate second side of the central strut,
wherein a first angle between the first flange and the central strut is formed such that the first angle is acute, and a second angle between the second flange and the central strut is formed such that the second angle is acute [see figure 3].
Belikoff et al further discloses the Z-shaped beam can be formed by a roll forming process [see paragraph 0036].
Belikoff et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a preformed structure having an central strut, first flange and second flange is provided prior to the roll forming of the first and second angles.
However, Lawler teaches of a method of manufacturing a Z-shaped beam where a preformed structure is provided having a central strut, a first flange coupled to a first side of the central strut and a second flange coupled to a second side of the central strut [see figure 9] and then further roll forming the preformed structure to form a first acute angle between the first flange and central strut and a second acute angle between the second flange and the central strut [see figure 10] in order to obtain an acute Z-shaped beam.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the acute Z-shaped beam of Belikoff et al by roll forming a Z-shaped preformed structure, as taught by Lawler, in order to control the degree of deformation to the first and second flanges in forming the acute angle therein.
In reference to claim 20, Belikoff et al further discloses the acute Z-shaped beam is a bridge beam (2), as seen in figure 1.
In reference to claim 21, Belikoff et al further discloses forming an attachment feature (23, 24) defined in each of the first and second flanges [see figure 3].
In reference to claim 22, the attachment feature comprises at least one opening (23, 24), as seen in figure 3.
In reference to claim 23, the attachment feature is coupleable to a solar panel [it is noted that the limitation only requires the capability of being coupled to a solar panel, therefore the openings of Belikoff et al are capable of such a function].
In reference to claim 24, the cross-sectional centerpoint comprises a neutral axis and is oriented in an identical direction as an expected lateral load applied to the structure.
2. Claim(s) 17-20, 24, 26 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menchetti (US 5,079,884) in view of Lawler (US 3,475,937).
In reference to claim 17, Menchetti discloses an acute Z-shaped beam, the acute Z-shaped beam has an elongated central strut (12), a first flange (14) coupled to an elongate first side of the central strut, and a second flange (18) coupled to an elongate second side of the central strut [see col. 2 lines 23-31; figure 1], wherein a first angle between the first flange (14) and the central strut (12) is an acute angle [see col. 2 lines 33-35], and a second angle between the second flange (18) and the central strut (12) is an acute angle [see col. 2 lines 33-35].
Menchetti discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein how the Z-shaped beam is formed.
However, Lawler teaches it is well known to form Z-shaped beams by roll forming [see col. 1 lines 21-25; col. 4 lines 34-38].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the acute Z-shaped beam of Menchetti by a roll forming process, as taught by Lawler, since it is well established in the art that roll forming processes are used to form various shaped beams such as Z-shaped beams.
Additionally the combination of Menchetti and Lawler discloses a shear center is disposed at a cross sectional centerpoint of a mass of the structure [it is noted that given the roll forming results in the claimed acute Z-shaped beam it would inherently result in the shear center being disposed at a cross sectional centerpoint].
In reference to claim 18, Menchetti further discloses a rib (30) is formed in the elongate central strut (12) [see figure 1; col. 2 lines 32-33]. Thus the combination further discloses roll forming a rib in the elongate central strut.
In reference to claim 19, Menchetti further discloses a first angled end segment (24) extending from the first flange (14) is formed, and a second angled end segment (28) extending from the second flange (18) is formed [see figure 1; col. 2 lines 28-31]. Thus the combination discloses roll forming a first angled end segment extending from the first flange, and roll forming a second angled end segment extending from the second flange.
In reference to claim 20, Menchetti further discloses the acute Z-shaped beam is a bridge beam.
In reference to claim 24, the cross-sectional centerpoint comprises a neutral axis and is oriented in an identical direction as an expected lateral load applied to the structure.
In reference to claims 26 and 34, Menchetti discloses a support structure comprising of a central strut (12), a first rib (30) in the central strut (12), a first flange (14) at a first acute angle to a first side of the central strut, and a second flange (18) at a second acute angle to a second side of the central strut (12) [see figure 1; col. 2 lines 23-35].
Menchetti discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein how the Z-shaped beam is formed.
However, Lawler teaches it is well known to form Z-shaped beams by roll forming [see col. 1 lines 21-25; col. 4 lines 34-38].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the acute Z-shaped beam of Menchetti by a roll forming process, as taught by Lawler, since it is well established in the art that roll forming processes are used to form various shaped beams such as Z-shaped beams.
Additionally the combination of Menchetti and Lawler discloses a shear center is disposed at a cross sectional centerpoint of a mass of the structure [it is noted that given the roll forming results in the claimed acute Z-shaped beam it would inherently result in the shear center being disposed at a cross sectional centerpoint].
In reference to claim 33, Menchetti further discloses a first angled end segment (24) extending from the first flange (14) is formed in the support structure, and a second angled end segment (28) extending from the second flange (18) is formed [see figure `; col. 2 lines 28-31]. Thus the combination discloses roll forming a first angled end segment extending from the first flange, and roll forming a second angled end segment extending from the second flange.
3. Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menchetti and Lawler as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Belikoff et al (US 2010/0307991).
In reference to claim 30, the combination of Menchetti and Lawler discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein an attachment feature is defined in each of the first and second flanges.
However, Belikoff et al teaches of a support structure wherein an attachment feature (23, 24) are formed in first (21) and second (22) flanges of the support structure to facilitate attachment of the support structure to another element or structure [see figure 3; paragraph 0038].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support structure of Menchetti to include attachments features within the first and second flanges, for the purpose of facilitating attachment of the structure to another structure.
In reference to claim 31, Belikoff et al further teaches the attachment feature comprises at least one opening (23, 24), as seen in figure 3.
In reference to claim 32, the attachment feature is coupleable to a solar panel [it is noted that the limitation only requires the capability of being coupled to a solar panel, therefore the openings of Belikoff et al are capable of such a function].
4. Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preller.
In reference to claim 36, Preller further discloses the possibility of forming an attachment feature within each of a first and second flange for the purpose of allowing a connection to another structure [see col. 7 lines 27-29].
Preller fails to disclose the attachment feature within the embodiment of figure 8, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teaching of forming an attachment feature in the flanges from the embodiment of figure 2 and apply it to the embodiment of figure 6 for the purpose of allowing a simple connection between two separate structures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm EST.
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 Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. 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 would like assistance 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.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725