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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claim 3 is not consistent with the other claims. It is suggested to use the same language and recite “The bracing system according to claim 2 wherein…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
In regard to claim 1, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear between what is the brace attached to, or to what exactly is the brace attached to.
Further, it is unclear how many braces are being claimed as the claim initially recites “a metal wall brace” but then it recites a brace for each stud in the double stud wall.
For examining purposes, it is assumed there is a plurality of braces and that each brace is attached between a first stud on one side of the wall and a nearest stud on the opposite side.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boatwright US 2021/0115656 A1 (hereinafter ‘Boatwright’).
In regard to claim 1, Boatwright teaches a bracing system for on offset double stud wall (see fig. 2) comprising:
a metal (see [0103]) wall brace (502, shown in fig. 2 as element 122) having each end with a system (504, 506) to attach the brace to two sides of each stud (as seen in fig. 2. Note that flanges 504 and 506 attach to one side of the stud while the tube portion 502 attaches to another side); and
the brace attached between a first stud on one side of the double stud wall with the nearest stud on the opposite side of the double stud wall (see fig. 2) wherein there is a brace attached to at least two sides of every stud in the double stud wall (see [0071] -Note that Boatwright discloses the figures are exemplary and that the brace 502 may be used to fasten any two of the studs, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a brace attached between every two studs so as to create the super strong structure desired by Boatwright (see [0067]).
In regard to claim 2, Boatwright teaches the claimed invention wherein each brace is galvanized metal (see [0067]). Boatwright, however, does not explicitly recite a 22 gauge galvanized metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a 22 gauge as a matter of routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05) so as to maintain the lightweight objective of Boatwright. In the instant case, gauge differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that such gauge is critical.
In regard to claim 3, Boatwright teaches the claimed invention wherein each brace has a center ridge (See fig. 5 -Note that, per broadest reasonable interpretation, the central tube is a ridge because it is located at a different plane that the flanges).
In regard to claim 4, Boatwright teaches the claimed invention wherein each end of the brace can be attached to one side of the stud and an adjacent side of the stud (see figures 2 and 5 showing the flanges attach to one side while the edge of the tube can be attached to an adjacent side).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boatwright in view of Teodorovich et al. US 2022/0282477 A1 (hereinafter ‘Teo’) and in further view of Renke et al US 2017/0268232 A1 (hereinafter ‘Renke’).
In regard to claim 5, Boatwright teaches its structure is insulated (see [0067]) but its silent on the type of insulation and on the finishing details of the walls such as plaster.
Teo teaches that insulation materials such as hemp are typically used for a wall system (see [0013]).
Renke teaches a wall system that is finished with lime plaster (see [0123]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide hemp insulation as taught by Teo and lime plaster as taught by Renke in the wall system of Boatwright so as to provide the desired insulation and aesthetic appearance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 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 E Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633