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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed 09 SEP. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of “Applicant elects to continue the prosecution of Species A, encompassing Claims 1-16. Applicant makes this election with traverse” in the reply filed on 09 SEP. 25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “since both Species A and B direct to an expansion joint with a cover plate, it cannot be reasonably alleged to cause a serious burden for searching and examination”. This is not found persuasive because at least the embodiment of FIG. 1 is distinct from the embodiment of FIG. 11 because the embodiment of FIG. 1 comprises a cover plate which extends between two parallel substrates while the embodiment of FIG. 11 comprises a cover plate which extends between two juxtaposed substrates.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09 SEP. 25.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01 DEC. 23 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities:
The drawings fail to show the following as described in the specification:
“A bolt 11, 9, passes through the hole in the magnet 7 and connects to a turn bar 8. The bolt head 11 can be manipulated to rotate the turn bar 8 such that it can be moved to a position parallel to the slot in the stiffening bar 4 rear, and can then be rotated to engage with the flanges forming the channel.” [0030]; this is confusing;
FIG. 1: proximate “opposing substrates 1A” and “bent return shape 3A“ on the left side of the figure, the illustrated “bungee cord 14” appears to connect to a missing element which would be a companion to “cable mount 2” shown on the right side, proximate “frame 1 and substrate” and “screws 13” as disclosed;
FIG(s) 1: reference character(s) "7" and “9” has/have been used to designate “magnet 7” proximate characters “1”, “5”, and “8” on the right side;
FIG. 1, 7: reference character “2” has been used to designate “mount 2” in each of the figures but these element appear to function differently;
FIG(s) 2-4: the plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line (see 37 CFR 1.84 (h));
FIG. 3: it is unclear which elements separate “adhesive 5”. “magnet 7” and “mount 10”;
FIG(s) 6-7 vs FIG. 8-9: reference characters must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet (see 37 CFR 1.84 (p));
FIG. 9: reference character “15” appears to mistakenly designate “mount 10“;
FIG. 9: reference character “11” appears to mistakenly designate “screws 13 and 15“ compared to FIGs. 1 and 4;
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 16 ln 1-2: after “attached to at least one” the recitation of “of the one or more stiffening bars” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear because no stiffening bars have been heretofore introduced (see Cl. 11). For examination purposes, this will be treated as introducing the reinforcing bars and should be amended as such.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gebhardt et al. US 10858826 B2 (Gebhardt) .
As per claim 11 Gebhardt teaches an expansion joint system comprising:
a cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) magnetically connectable to a base frame (studs 128, FIG. 1) on opposing substrates;
one or more magnets (magnetic blocks 136, FIG. 1) connected to the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) wherein the magnets (magnetic blocks 136, FIG. 1) are selected to provide a secure connection between the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) and the base frame (studs 128, FIG. 1),
the magnets (magnetic blocks 136, FIG. 1) allowing for sliding (see “As the gap 102... closes... pushing the cover pan 108 outwardly” 6:41) movement across the surface of the base frame (studs 128, FIG. 1) to accommodate small movements of the substrates without applying strain to the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1); and
the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) comprising two lifting ramps (brackets 150, angled surfaces 152 FIG. 1) connected to a rear face of the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1),
the lifting ramps (brackets 150, angled surfaces 152 FIG. 1) being angled to allow the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) to be urged away from the opposing substrates in response to movement of the substrates contacting one or both of the two lifting ramps (brackets 150, angled surfaces 152 FIG. 1),
the lifting ramps (brackets 150, angled surfaces 152 FIG. 1) operable to prevent damage to the joint and substrates during seismic events or other conditions.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-8 and 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt in view of GOTO HIDEO JP 2000001917 A (Goto; see “WALL PANEL DEVICE” Foreign Image and Text translation, attached).
CLAIMS PRESENTED BELOW IN HIERARCHICAL ORDER
As per claim 1 Gebhardt teaches an expansion joint system comprising:
a cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) magnetically connectable to a base frame (studs 128, FIG. 1) on opposing substrates;
one or more magnets (magnetic blocks 136, FIG. 1) connected to the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) wherein the magnets (magnetic blocks 136, FIG. 1) are selected to provide a secure connection between the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) and the base frame (studs 128, FIG. 1),
the magnets (magnetic blocks 136, FIG. 1) allowing for sliding (see “As the gap 102... closes... pushing the cover pan 108 outwardly” 6:41) movement across the surface of the base frame (studs 128, FIG. 1) to accommodate small movements of the substrates without applying strain to the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1);
the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) having a bent return shape (see bent shape and space at side sections 112, 112 FIG. 1) at each lengthwise end,
the bent return shape (see bent shape and space at side sections 112, 112 FIG. 1) forming a channel;
one or more stiffening bars (see unidentified angle bracket —or “stiffening bar” as broadly claimed— connected to tether 154, lower side of plate 120, middle of FIG. 1; compare to “pan bracket 256” FIG. 3) positioned along the length of the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1), but fails to explicitly disclose:
stiffening bars being connected to the cover plate by being held in place within the channel.
Goto teaches a reinforcing expansion element within an expansion joint cover plate capable of use with the assembly of Gebhardt, specifically:
stiffening bars (expansion ring 6, bar members 24, FIG. 1, 5) being connected to the cover plate by being held in place within the channel (see “at least two expansion rings 6 with both ends fitted to the movable fixtures 4 of a pair of fixtures 5” abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Gebhardt by including the expansion rings as stiffening bars as taught by Goto in order to reinforce the cover during displacement of the supporting structural members in order to minimize displacement of the cover.
As per claim 2 Gebhardt in view of Goto teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Gebhardt further discloses the one or more magnets (magnetic blocks 136, FIG. 1) are each connected to the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) via the one or more stiffening bars connected to the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1; see FIG. 1: the members of Goto would be necessarily connected within the above identified side sections and be thus “attached” to the panel 107).
As per claim 4 Gebhardt in view of Goto teaches the limitations according to claim 2 and Goto further discloses wherein the one or more stiffening bars (expansion ring 6, bar members 24, FIG. 1, 5) each having a housing (fixtures 5, FIG. 3) in which the one or more magnets are removably held. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Gebhardt in view of Goto by including the fixtures of Goto to secure the expansion ring within the side sections in order to mount the panel alongside the expansion ring.
As per claim 3 Gebhardt in view of Goto teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Goto further discloses the one or more stiffening bars (expansion ring 6, bar members 24, FIG. 1, 5) are each held in place within the channel by friction (see FIG. 1), adhesive, or a two-sided adhesive tape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Gebhardt in view of Goto by including the fixtures of Goto to secure the expansion ring against dislocation.
As per claim 5 Gebhardt in view of Goto teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Gebhardt further discloses wherein the magnets (magnetic blocks 136, FIG. 1) are selected based a weight of the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1), to ensure a secure magnetic connection (see “utilizes magnet elements to secure a panel” 2:65) between the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) and the base frame (studs 128, FIG. 1).
As per claim 6 Gebhardt in view of Goto teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Goto further discloses wherein the one or more stiffening bars (expansion ring 6, bar members 24, FIG. 1, 5) are configured to allow connectors, including screws, bolts, and other mechanical connectors, to engage with the one or more stiffening bars (expansion ring 6, bar members 24, FIG. 1, 5) without passing through a front side of the cover plate (see 6, 25, behind panel 7, 9 without passing through). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Gebhardt in view of Goto by including the fixtures of Goto to secure the expansion ring without compromising the front panels.
As per claim 7 Gebhardt in view of Goto teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Gebhardt further discloses further comprising two lifting ramps (brackets 150, angled surfaces 152 FIG. 1) connected to the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1).
As per claim 8 Gebhardt in view of Goto teaches the limitations according to claim 7 Gebhardt further discloses the two lifting ramps (brackets 150, angled surfaces 152 FIG. 1) are connected to the one or more stiffening bars (expansion ring 6, bar members 24, FIG. 1, 5),
the two lifting ramps (brackets 150, angled surfaces 152 FIG. 1) being angled to allow the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) to be urged away from the opposing substrates in response to movement of the opposing substrates against one or both of the two lifting ramps (brackets 150, angled surfaces 152 FIG. 1).
Regarding the requirement of the lifting ramps to be connected to the stiffening bars (expansion ring 6, bar members 24, FIG. 1, 5), the assembly of Gebhardt in view of Shreiner would have the ramps as part of an integral expansion assembly, inside of the bars which would necessarily be “attached” to the ramps.
As per claim 12 and 14 Gebhardt teaches the limitations according to claim 11 but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 12) wherein the cover plate comprises one or more stiffening bars positioned along the length of the cover plate; and
(Cl. 14) wherein the one or more magnets are each connected to the cover plate via the one or more stiffening bars.
Goto teaches a reinforcing expansion element within an expansion joint cover plate capable of use with the assembly of Gebhardt, specifically:
(Cl. 12) wherein the cover plate comprises one or more stiffening bars (expansion ring 6, bar members 24, FIG. 1, 5) positioned along the length of the cover plate (see panels 9, 7, FIG. 1, 2); and
(Cl. 14) wherein the one or more magnets (see elastic mounting brackets 19, FIG. 4; these are recognized as functionally equivalent to the claimed magnets as they bound the cover and stiffening members) are each connected to the cover plate via the one or more stiffening bars (see elements connected as claimed, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Gebhardt by including the expansion rings as stiffening bars as taught by Goto in order to reinforce the cover during displacement of the supporting structural members in order to minimize displacement of the cover. Regarding the required magnets being connected to the cover plate, as modified by claim 11 the assembly of Gebhardt in view of Goto would have the stiffening bars as part of an integral expansion assembly, the of which the bracket would necessarily be “attached” to the stiffening bars.
As per claim 13 Gebhardt teaches the limitations according to claim 12 and Gebhardt further discloses the two lifting ramps (brackets 150, angled surfaces 152 FIG. 1) are connected to the cover plate (panel 107, FIG. 1) by being attached to the one or more stiffening bars (see FIG. 1; the members of Goto would be connected within the side sections and thus attached to the brackets 150 and angled surfaces 152).
Claim 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt in view of Goto as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Shreiner et al. US 5666775 A (Shreiner).
As per claim 9 Gebhardt in view of Goto teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Gebhardt further discloses a tether attached by a bracket (see unidentified angle bracket connected to tether 154, lower side of plate 120, middle of FIG. 1; compare to “pan bracket 256” FIG. 3) but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising a bungee cord connected to the cover plate by the bracket.
Shreiner teaches such an elastic member incorporated with a joint cover assembly capable of use with the assembly of Gebhardt, specifically:
further comprising a bungee cord (covered elastic cord 536, FIG. 10) connected to the cover plate by the bracket (see brackets at S-hooks, FIG. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Gebhardt by including the elastic cord as taught by Shreiner in order to bias the cover plate towards the opening.
As per claim 10 Gebhardt in view of Goto and Shreiner teaches the limitations according to claim 9 and Goto further discloses wherein the bracket (see brackets at S-hooks, FIG. 10) is attached to at least one of the one or more stiffening bars. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Gebhardt in view of Goto and Shreiner by including the expansion rings as stiffening bars as taught by Goto in order to reinforce the cover during displacement of the supporting structural members in order to minimize displacement of the cover. Regarding the required bracket being attached to the stiffening members, as modified in claim 9, the assembly of Gebhardt in view of Goto and Shreiner would have the bracket as part of an integral expansion assembly, inside of which the bracket would necessarily be “attached” to the stiffening bars.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt in view of Shreiner.
As per claim 15 the primary reference of Gebhardt teaches the limitations according to claim 11, but fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising a bungee cord connected to the cover plate by a bracket.
Shreiner teaches such an elastic member incorporated with a joint cover assembly capable of use with the assembly of Gebhardt, specifically:
further comprising a bungee cord (covered elastic cord 536, FIG. 10) connected to the cover plate by a bracket (see brackets at S-hooks, FIG. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Gebhardt by including the elastic cord as taught by Shreiner in order to bias the cover plate towards the opening.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt in view of Shreiner as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Goto.
As per claim 16 Gebhardt in view of Shreiner teaches the limitations according to claim 15 but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the bracket is attached to at least one of [[the]] one or more stiffening bars.
Goto teaches a reinforcing expansion element within an expansion joint cover plate capable of use with the assembly of Gebhardt, specifically:
wherein the bracket is attached to at least one [[of the]] one or more stiffening bars (expansion ring 6, bar members 24, FIG. 1, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Gebhardt in view of Shreiner by including the expansion rings as stiffening bars as taught by Goto in order to reinforce the cover during displacement of the supporting structural members in order to minimize displacement of the cover. Regarding the required bracket being attached to the stiffening members, as modified in claim 15, the assembly of Gebhardt in view of Shreiner would have the bracket as part of an integral expansion assembly, inside of which the bracket would necessarily be “attached” to the stiffening bars.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JJS/
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635