DETAILED ACTION
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the securing element ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner will assume the intent was “securing member”. An appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1- 2, 5, 6, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Grimm (DE 4101276)
In re Claims 1-2, 5 and 6, Grimm teaches a fastener (66) for securing to each other two profiled elements that are intersecting. These profiled elements intersect at the fastener, just and the applicants profile elements (18) intersect at their fastener(1) as is shown in Figure 3 of the instant application. The fastener comprises two half-fasteners (96,96) connected to each other by a connection of the fixed pivot type enabling one half-fastener to pivot with respect to the other about a pivot axis (134), each half-fastener including a securing member for securing a profile element that is inclined (can be angled by rotating about the rotation axis) with respect to the pivot axis. The inclination/angle of each securing member with respect to the pivot axis (134) is adjustable over a range between 0 and 90 degrees. The securing member is in the form of jaws delimited by two planar portions spaced apart. They are configured to hold the profiled element by attaching it into position (Annotated Figure 11)
PNG
media_image1.png
572
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claims 7 and 9 Grimm teaches a curved surface comprising first elastically flexed profiled elements (49a,49b) and second elastically flexed profiled elements 49a,49b) intersecting each other and are secured to each other by fasteners (66,79a). They appear to be curved indicating a degree of elastic flexibility. The profiled elements are strips appear to be strips with rectangular cross sections and a constant width. (Figure 20)
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm (DE 4101276) in view of Crooks (U.S. 4,182,086) or Niksic (U.S. 4,998,552) or Tripsianes (U.S. 6,276,095)
In re Claims 7,8, and 9 Grimm teaches a curved surface comprising first elastically flexed profiled elements (49a,49b) and second elastically flexed profiled elements 49a,49b) intersecting each other and are secured to each other by fasteners (66,79a). The profiled elements are strips appear to be strips with rectangular cross sections and a constant width. (Figure 20)
They appear to be curved indicating a degree of elastic flexibility. However, should the applicant disagree with this, the examiner notes that flexible curved frameworks made from intersecting profiles with some degree of elasticity are well known in the art. For example, Tripsianes teaches intersecting profiles (1-32) that flex elastically to form a curved framework. (Figures 1-5) Crooks also teaches a curved framework (12) made from intersecting profiles (18,20,22,24) that flex elastically. (Figures 1-3) Likewise, Niksic teaches intersecting profiles (15,26) that flex elastically to form a curved framework (10). (Figures 1-5)
It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention for the profile elements disclosed by Grim to have an elastic flexibility. This will allow them to support shifting and dynamic loads that may be applied to them.
Grim does not disclose hollow profile elements however such are well known in the art and the examiner takes official notice of them. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use hollow profile members in constructing a curved frame work in order to save on material costs and as a weight saving measure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a fastener for securing two profiled elements with the structural limitations of the two cheeks specified in these claims. There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant's invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued Grimm reference does not disclose a fastener that secures intersecting profile elements. The examiner first noted that the arguments are directed to the profile elements that have not even been positively. Furthermore, the Grimm profiled elements intersect at the fastener, just and the applicants profile elements (18) intersect at their fastener(1) as is shown in Figure 3 of the instant application. The applicant also argues that the Grimm reference does not teach securing elements that are inclined with respect to the pivot axis with an inclination that is intermediate between 0° and 90°. This argument has been addressed in the above rejection and annotation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633