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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because, at line 3, “frame, comprising” should be --frame, the building system comprising-- because the claimed system comprises the wallboard, bracket, and fastener.
Claim 8 is objected to because “said bracket secures said first panel edge to said second panel edge independently of…” should be “said bracket securing said first panel edge to said second panel edge secures the edges independently of…” because independent claim 1 already recites the bracket securing the panel edges.
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 1-2, 8-10, and 13 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.
Claims 1 and 9 recite that the bracket includes a base wall separating a pair of parallel arms each of said first attachment location and said second attachment location being defined by said base wall and the same said parallel arms, which is confusing. What is meant by the limitation “same” said arms? In addition, are the “said parallel arms” the same arms as the previously recited “pair of” parallel arms. It is assumed the claim recites a base wall separating two pairs of parallel arms, said first attachment location defined by said base wall and one of the two pair pairs of parallel arms and said second attachment location defined by said base wall and the other of the two pairs of parallel arms. In other words, the claim necessarily must be interpreted as reciting two pairs of parallel arms (first set of parallel arms a1/a2 and second set of parallel arms a3/a4, which makes a pair of parallel arms). This is because each of said and second attachment locations are defined by the base wall “parallel arms” as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
287
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2
Claims 1-2, 8-10, and 13 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt (10,415,243).
1. Schmidt, fig. 2a, teaches a building system for attaching adjacent wallboard panels, col. 2, line 25 and col. 1, lines 35-38, together during building construction involving attachment of wallboard panels to members of a building frame, comprising:
a first wallboard panel having a first panel edge;
second wallboard panel having a second panel edge, said second panel edge being adjacent said first panel edge;
a bracket 1 defining a first attachment location (the panel is seated between the bracket flanges) for said first panel edge, and a second panel attachment location (the panel is seated between the bracket flanges) for said second panel edge so that second panel edge is held adjacent said first panel edge; and
at least one first fastener 45 securing said first panel edge in said first attachment location, and
at least one second fastener 45 securing said second panel edge in said second attachment location.
Finally, the bracket includes a base wall 4 separating, as best understood, two pairs of parallel arms (wall 4 separates arm pair 25/26 and arm pair 27/28 because wall 4 is essentially between them), said first attachment location defined by said base wall and one of the two pair pairs of parallel arms (arm 25 and arm 26) and said second attachment location defined by said base wall and the other of the two pairs of parallel arms (arm 7 and arm 28).
2. Schmidt teaches the building system of claim 1, Schmidt further teaching said bracket is "H"- shaped when viewed from above, fig. 2a.
8. Schmidt teaches the building system of claim 1, Schmidt further teaching said bracket secures said first panel edge to said second panel edge independently of attachment of said panels to the building frame.
9. Schmidt, fig. 2a, teaches a bracket 1 for attaching adjacent wallboard panels, col. 2, line 25 and col. 1, lines 35-38, together during building construction involving attachment of wallboard panels to members of a building frame, the system including a first wallboard panel having a first panel edge, a second wallboard panel having a second panel edge, the second panel edge being adjacent the first panel edge, said bracket comprising:
a first attachment location (the panel is seated between the bracket flanges) configured for accommodating the first panel edge, and a second panel attachment location (the panel is seated between the bracket flanges) configured for accommodating the second panel edge so that second panel edge is held adjacent the first panel edge; and each said attachment location being configured for accommodating at least one first fastener 45 securing the first panel edge in said first attachment location, and at least one second fastener 45 securing the second panel edge in said second attachment location.
Finally, the bracket includes a base wall 4 separating, as best understood, two pairs of parallel arms (wall 4 separates arm pair 25/26 and arm pair 27/28 because wall 4 is essentially between them), said first attachment location defined by said base wall and one of the two pair pairs of parallel arms (arm 25 and arm 26) and said second attachment location defined by said base wall and the other of the two pairs of parallel arms (arm 7 and arm 28).
10. Schmidt teaches the bracket of claim 9, Schmidt further teaching said bracket is "H"- shaped when viewed from above, fig. 2a.
13. Schmidt teaches the bracket of claim 9, Schmidt further teaching said bracket is constructed and arranged to secure said first panel edge to said second panel edge independently of attachment of said panels to the building frame (the bracket is strictly for panel-to-panel attachment).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 7 - is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeks in view of Kenny (6,923,611).
7. Leeks does not expressly teach said fastener has a self-drilling tip. Kenny, fig. 9, teaches a fastener attaching a panel 72 to sheet metal 4 has a self-drilling tip 20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the fastener to have a self-drilling tip to securely clamp the panel and bracket together, col. 2, lines 20-21, and to allow the fastener to drill/penetrate the metal flange portion(s) in locations other than just at openings 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies, “support for the adjacent panels when a stud is not nearby to supply structural support for the wall against twisting forces”, are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies, similar “parallel arms engage each associated wallboard panel edge”, are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Applicant admits the modifying reference, Kenny, teaches a “self-drilling fastener of the type usable in the presently recited structure”, Kenny providing a state-of-the-art example of a screw that drills a metal flange in locations where no opening exists, which is what Applicant’s self-drilling screw 42 does. In other words, Examiner is clearly not using knowledge gleaned solely from the applicant’s disclosure to justify combining Kenny into Leek.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
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 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights