DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/521,100. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 4-17 are pending.
Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 4-17 are examined.
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) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowles (U.S. Patent 4,548,014) in view of Charest et al. (U.S. Patent 10,392,803).
Regarding claim 11, Knowles discloses a truss system (#10) comprising:
an upper angle assembly (#11);
a lower angle assembly (#12);
a plurality of web members (#20), each web member formed as a single unitary component (see figure 4, where element #20 is formed from a single piece of material) having:
an upper free end (#23) configured to attach to the upper angle assembly (see figure 2);
a lower free end (#22) configured to attach to the lower angle assembly at an offset position relative to the upper free end between the upper angle assembly and a lower angle assembly (see figures 1 and 2); and
an angled interconnecting web piece (#21) formed with and between the upper free end and the lower free end (see figure 4, where the angled interconnecting web piece is integrally formed with the upper and lower free ends).
However, Knowles does not disclose a plurality of interconnecting members where the upper and lower free ends comprise of first and second bolt holes for respective attachment to an angle assembly and an interconnecting member as defined. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Charest et al., that such truss assemblies can be constructed with upper #21 and lower #20 chords, where a plurality of web members #28 extend between the chords with an upper free end #26 and a lower free end #26 with an angled web piece #28 extending therebetween while a vertical, interconnecting member #28a extends between the upper free end and lower free end of adjacent web elements. See figures 1 and 3. Figure 3 of Charest et al. depicts the free ends #26 comprise of a first set of bolt holes to receive bolts #38, a second set of bolt holes to attach to the vertical interconnecting members #28a and a third set of bolt holes to attach to the angled web pieces #28. Figure 4 of Charest et al. depicts that such a web assembly can be serpentine shaped and thus used in place of the embodiment of figure 1, and vice versa, where the web members extend in a single or opposing directions with an angled interconnecting web piece extending between adjacent web members. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the web of the truss of Knowles to comprise of web members which comprise of upper and lower free ends with first and second sets of bolt holes which are configured to attach to a respective angle assembly and interconnecting members that extend between upper and lower free ends of adjacent web members, as taught in Charest et al., in order to make manufacture of such trusses easier without the need for welding skills or tools and to also increase the rigidity of the truss by including the vertical interconnecting members as needed.
Regarding claim 12, Knowles in view of Charest et al. render obvious each of the upper and lower free ends include an outward facing horizontal edge (figure 3 of Charest et al. disclose the top/bottom, horizontal outward facing edge of the upper and lower free ends comprise of three holes #38/39 of the first set of holes which are configured to engage a respective angle, where such features would be provided within Knowles as explained above) and an angled edge (the side edges of free ends #26 of Charest et al. are angled relative to the horizontal outward facing edge, where such features would be provided within Knowles as explained above) angled with respect to the outward facing horizontal edge (see figure 3 of Charest et al.).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/23/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 11,866,938 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Therefore, the Double Patenting rejections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-10, and 14-17 are allowed.
Claim 13 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “Charest requires an additional component, namely fixation plate 26, that is a separate component from linking struts 28” and thus does not disclose a web member formed as a single unitary component as presently defined in claim 11, Knowles already teaches that such web members can be integrally formed out of a single unitary component so that the free ends and the angled interconnecting web piece are formed out of a single piece of material. See figure 4 at #20. Such a construction of Knowles is not being modified by Charest et al., as Applicant argues, but instead the web members of Knowles are modified to include bolt holes, as taught in Charest et al., in substitution of the welding attachment method of Knowles in order to make attachment of the web members and angle assemblies easier without the need for special welding knowledge. Furthermore, Charest et al. teach that such webs of a truss system can comprise of a serpentine shape, as depicted in figure 4, or where such webs can extend at the same angle and an interconnecting member can extend vertically between adjacent angles in order to strengthen such an assembly. Thus, Knowles is also modified so as to change the V-shaped web members so as to be cut in half so that the web members only comprise of an angled interconnecting web piece extending between upper and lower free ends and comprise of interconnecting members extending between adjacent upper and lower free ends, where Charest et al. teach such an embodiment and web shape can be used in place of a serpentine shaped web. Knowles in view of Charest et al. is thus considered to meet each and every feature of the claimed invention as presently defined and thus is considered to render such features obvious.
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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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 V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635