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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Preller “does not disclose angled end segments on the flanges of its profile members”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the replicated figure 6 below Preller has a first and second angled end segments that extend from respective first and second flanges.
Applicant argues that Menchetti disclose a beam that is “a floor beam, a bridge beam, a trailer beam, or a gantry beam”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Menchetti discloses the structure member is used in a construction application and therefore encompasses horizontal or vertical beams. Additionally the labeling of the beam as a floor beam, a bridge beam, a trailer beam, or a gantry beam does not make it patentably distinct from the structure of Menchetti since the structure of Menchetti meets the structural limitations of the beam and the claim is absent any other structure that distinguishes a floor beam, a bridge beam, a trailer beam, or a gantry beam from the Z-shaped beam of Menchetti.
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.
Claim 25 is 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 25, the claim states “roll forming two ribs in the elongated central strut” it is unclear if the two ribs are intending to further define the at least one rib set forth in claim 17 or if the two ribs are in addition to the at least one rib of claim 17. For examination purposes the limitation is being interpreted as further defining the at least one rib to be two ribs.
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 35-36 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,
roll forming a first rib in the central strut [see replicated figure 6 below],
roll forming a first flange at a first acute angle to a first side of the central strut,
roll 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],
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 [see replicated figure 6 below]
thereby forming the support structure, wherein a shear center is disposed at a cross-sectionals centerpoint of a mass of the support 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] and wherein the acute Z-shaped beam is a floor beam, a bridge beam, a trailer beam, or a gantry beam [it is noted that the method of Preller yields the claimed structure of the support structure and therefore the support structure of Preller can be any of the claimed beams].
In reference to claim 27, Preller further discloses roll forming a second rib in the central strut, the first rib and second rib disposed between the substantially straight sections of the central strut.
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_image1.png
306
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 36, Preller discloses forming an attachment feature (threaded holes) defined in each of the first and second flanges [see col. 7 lines 27-29].
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.
1. Claim(s) 17, 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], a second angle between the second flange (18) and the central strut (12) is an acute angle [see col. 2 lines 33-35], a rib (30) is formed in the elongate central strut (12) [see figure 1; col. 2 lines 32-33], 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]. Menchetti discloses the Z-shaped beam is a structural member in a construction application which inherently encompasses a floor beam, bridge beam, trailer beam or gantry beam.
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 24, the cross-sectional centerpoint comprises a neutral axis and is oriented in an identical direction as an expected lateral load applied to the acute Z-shaped beam.
In reference to claims 26, 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 col. 2 lines 33-35], a first angled end segment (24) extending from the first flange (14), and a second angled end segment (28) extending from the second flange (18) [see figure 1; col. 2 lines 28-31]. Menchetti discloses the Z-shaped beam is a structural member is construction application which inherently encompasses a floor beam, bridge beam, trailer beam or gantry beam. 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 28, the combination further discloses a neutral axis of support structure is disposed at the cross-sectional centerpoint of the support structure and is oriented in an identical direction as an applied lateral load.
In reference to claim 29, wherein the deflection of the support structure only occurs in a direction of the applied lateral load.
2. Claim(s) 21-23 and 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 claims 21 and 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 claims 22 and 31, Belikoff et al further teaches the attachment feature comprises at least one opening (23, 24), as seen in figure 3.
In reference to claims 23 and 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].
3. Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menchetti and Lawler as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Preller.
In reference to claim 25, the combination of Menchetti and Lawler discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the at least one rib is two ribs roll formed in the central strut.
However, Preller teaches of roll forming a beam with the option of roll forming two ribs in a central strut such that the two ribs are disposed between substantially straight sections of the central strut [see replicated figure 6 above].
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 beam of Menchetti to have two ribs, as taught by Preller, in order to obtain a support beam with increased support in the central strut.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights