DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-32 are cancelled.
Claims 33-59 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bushings of claim 37-38 must be shown (and labeled) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claims 33-59 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.
Re claim 33, claim 33 recites, “the system” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the stud wall restraint system” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 33 recites, “the connectors” in line 7, “the connectors” in line 9, “the connectors” in line 11, “the flanges” in line 12, “the stud wall” in line 13, “the longitudinal slots” in line 16, “the studs” in line 18, “the slots” in line 18, “the stud wall” in line 19, “the studs” in line 20 and “the…stud wall” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors,” “the intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors,” “the intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors,” “the side flanges,” “a stud wall,” “the intermittent elongate longitudinal slots,” “the plurality of spaced-apart studs,” “the elongate slots,” “a stud wall,” “the plurality of spaced-apart studs,” and “a…stud wall” and will be interpreted as such
Re claims 34-59, claims 34-59 each recite, “the system” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the stud wall restraint system” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 34, claim 34 recites, “the traversal slots” in line 1 and “the flanges” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the pairs of transversal slots” and “the side flanges” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 35, claim 35 recites, “the traversal slots” in line 2, “the slots” in line 2 and “the connectors” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the pairs of transversal slots,” “the elongate slots” and “the intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 36, claim 36 recites, “each connector” in line 2 and again in line 2. It is unclear if this language refers to the intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors of claim 33 or different connectors. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 37, claim 37 recites, “the longitudinal slots” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the intermittent elongate longitudinal slots” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 37 recites, “a support structure” in line 2. “A support structure” is previously introduced in claim 33, from which claim 37 depends. As such, it is unclear if this language refers to the same support structure as claim 33, or is in addition to the support structure of claim 33. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the support structure” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 39, claim 39 recites, “each connector” in line 1. It is unclear if this language refers to the intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors of claim 33 or different connectors. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 39 recites, “the flanges” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the side flanges” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 40, claim 40 recites, “each fold out connector” in line 1. It is unclear if this language refers to the intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors of claim 33 or different connectors. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 40 recites, “the traversal slots” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the pairs of transversal slots” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 41, claim 41 recites, “the traversal slots” in line 1, “the flanges” in line 1-2 and “each pair” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the pairs of transversal slots,” “the side flanges” and “each of the pairs of transversal slots” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 42, claim 42 recites, “the connectors” in line 1 and “the flanges” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors” and “the side flanges” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 43, claim 43 recites, “the web” in line 2, “the channel” in line 3, “the longitudinal slots” in line 3, “the channel” in line 4, “the floor structure” in line 5, “the suds” in line 7 and “the connectors” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “a web,” “the further channel,” “intermittent elongate longitudinal slots” “the plurality of spaced-apart studs” and “intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors” and will be interpreted as such. It is noted that the features of the further channel such as the web and slots are not introduced with respect to the further channel, and only have been with respect to the header channel. As such, each recitation thereof lacks proper antecedent basis. The same applies to claims 44-45 as well.
Re claim 44, claim 44 recites, “the connectors” in line 1, “the studs” in line 2, “the channel” in line 3 and “the stud wall” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors,” “the plurality of spaced-apart studs,” “the further channel,” and “a stud wall” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 45, claim 45 recites, “the transversal slots” in line 1, “the flanges” in line 2, and “the studs” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “pairs of transversal slots,” “side flanges,” and “the plurality of spaced-apart studs” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 46, claim 46 recites, “the stud wall” in line 1 and “the longitudinal slots” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “a stud wall” and “the intermittent elongate longitudinal slots” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 47, claim 47 recites, “the stud wall” in line 1 and “the longitudinal slots” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “a stud wall” and “the intermittent elongate longitudinal slots” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 48, claim 48 recites, “the stud wall” in line 1 and “the flanges” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “a stud wall” and “the side flanges” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 49, claim 49 recites, “the connectors” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 52, claim 52 recites, “the slots” in line 1 and “the flanges” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the intermittent elongate longitudinal slots” and “the side flanges” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 53, claim 53 recites, “the longitudinal slots” in line 2 and “the peripheral flange” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the intermittent elongate longitudinal slots” and “the raised peripheral flange” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 53 recites, “a support structure” in line 2. “A support structure” is previously introduced in claim 33, from which claim 53 ultimately depends. As such, it is unclear if this language refers to the same support structure as claim 33, or is in addition to the support structure of claim 33. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the support structure” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 54, claim 54 recites, “the stud wall” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “a stud wall” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 54 recites, “a plurality of spaced-apart studs” in line 2. “A plurality of spaced-apart studs” is previously introduced in claim 33, from which claim 53 ultimately depends. As such, it is unclear if this language refers to the same support structure as claim 33, or is in addition to the support structure of claim 33. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the plurality of spaced-apart studs” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 55, claim 5 recites, “the connectors” in line 1 and “the stud wall” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors” and “a stud wall” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 56, claim 56 recites, “the stud wall” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “a stud wall” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 56 recites, “a plurality of spaced-apart studs” in line 2. “A plurality of spaced-apart studs” is previously introduced in claim 33, from which claim 53 ultimately depends. As such, it is unclear if this language refers to the same support structure as claim 33, or is in addition to the support structure of claim 33. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the plurality of spaced-apart studs” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 57, claim 57 recites, “the flanges” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the side flanges” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 58, claim 58 recites, “the flanges” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the side flanges” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 59, claim 59 recites, “the notches” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the stress relief notches” and will be interpreted as such.
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) 33-35, 39-46, 54-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn (US 6,843,035) in view of Pilz et al (“Pilz”) (US 2009/0178363) and DiGirolamo et al (“DiGirolamo”) (US 2002/0062617).
Re claim 33, Glynn discloses a stud wall restraint system (Fig. 2, Fig. 7) for in-plane building movement isolation (Fig. 2 and Fig. 7 are capable of use for in-plane building movement isolation, as this is a statement of intended use), the system (Fig.2, Fig. 7) comprising:
a channel (26) having side flanges (30) and a web (28) therebetween (Fig. 7) wherein:
the web (28) comprises intermittent integrally formed fold out connectors (32); and
further comprising the stud wall (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of spaced-apart studs (24) and wherein the channel (26) is installed as a head channel (26, Fig. 2) wherein the web (28) thereof is horizontal (Fig. 2, Fig. 7) and wherein:
webs (38) of the studs (24) are engaged to (34) respective connectors (32);
but fails to disclose the web comprises intermittent elongate longitudinal slots orientated along a longitudinal axis of the channel, the connectors comprise elongate slots which are aligned parallel with the longitudinal axis of the channel when the connectors are not folded out and orientated transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis of the channel when the connectors are folded out, the flanges comprise transversal slots which are orientated transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis of the channel, the head channel is secured under a support structure using the longitudinal slots to allow horizontal in-plane movement between the channel and the support structure, webs of the studs are engaged using the slots of respective connectors to allow vertical in-plane movement between the channel and the stud wall, and wherein flanges of the studs are engaged using respective pairs of transversal slots to allow vertical in-plane movement between the channel and stud wall.
However, Pilz discloses the web (22) comprises intermittent elongate longitudinal slots (38) orientated along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 2) of the channel (10), the flanges (24) comprise transversal slots (26) which are orientated transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2) of the channel (10), the head channel (10) is secured under a support structure ([0029]) using the longitudinal slots (38) to allow horizontal in-plane movement between ([0029]) the channel (10) and the support structure ([0029]), and wherein flanges (of 12, see Fig. 1) of the studs (12) are engaged using respective pairs of transversal slots (26, [0024]) to allow vertical in-plane movement ([0024]) between the channel (10) and stud wall (of 12, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stud wall restraint system of Glynn with the web comprises intermittent elongate longitudinal slots orientated along a longitudinal axis of the channel, the flanges comprise transversal slots which are orientated transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis of the channel, the head channel is secured under a support structure using the longitudinal slots to allow horizontal in-plane movement between the channel and the support structure, and wherein flanges of the studs are engaged using respective pairs of transversal slots to allow vertical in-plane movement between the channel and stud wall as disclosed by Pilz in order to allow for movement of the wall studs relative to the channel during an earthquake or other event where movement of studs or the channel is desired ([0009]).
In addition, DiGirolamo discloses the connectors (10) comprise elongate slots (20/26) which are aligned parallel with the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1) of the channel (32) when the connectors (10) are not folded out (per Glynn) and orientated transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1) of the channel (32) when the connectors (10) are folded out (per Glynn), and webs (of 30) of the studs (30) are engaged using the slots (26) of respective connectors (10) to allow vertical in-plane movement (via 26) between the channel (32) and the stud wall (30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stud wall restraint system of Glynn with the connectors comprise elongate slots which are aligned parallel with the longitudinal axis of the channel when the connectors are not folded out and orientated transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis of the channel when the connectors are folded out, and webs of the studs are engaged using the slots of respective connectors to allow vertical in-plane movement between the channel and the stud wall as disclosed by DiGirolamo in order to allow for movement between the building components ([0007]) to prevent damage, injury, and/or death during seismic vibration ([0003]).
Additionally, the language “when” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Re claim 34, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, Pilz discloses wherein the transversal slots (26) of the flanges (24) comprise intermittent collocating pairs (any two of 26) of transversal slots (26).
Re claim 35, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, wherein, when the channel (26) is installed (Fig. 2), the longitudinal slots (Pilz: 38) run horizontally (Pilz: 38) and the slots (DiGirolamo: 20) of the connectors (DiGirolamo: 10) run vertically (DiGirolamo: Fig. 1).
Additionally, the language “when” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Re claim 39, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, wherein each connector (32) does not extend beyond the flanges (30) when folded out (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 7).
Re claim 40, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, wherein each fold out connector (32) is adjacent to a respective pair of the transversal slots (Pilz: 26, as Pilz discloses 26 along the entire length of 10, elements 26 would thus be adjacent to 32 of Glynn).
Re claim 41, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 40, wherein the transversal slots (Pilz: 26) of the flanges (Pilz: 24) comprise intermittent collocating pairs of transversal slots (Pilz: two of 26) and wherein each pair (Pilz: two of 26) is located either side of a base edge (due to being on the flanges) of a respective connector (Glynn: 32) along the longitudinal axis of the channel (as Pilz discloses 26 along the entire length of 10, elements 26 would thus be along to 26 of Glynn).
Re claim 42, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, but fails to disclose wherein the connectors extend beyond the flanges when folded out.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Glynn wherein the connectors extend beyond the flanges when folded out in order to increase the size of the connectors, providing a strong connection to the studs due to a larger abutment thereto. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 43, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, wherein a further channel (22) is installed as a base channel (22) wherein the web (28) thereof is horizontal (Fig. 2) and webs (38) of the studs (24) are engaged using the connectors (32) of the base channel (22),
but fails to disclose wherein: the channel is secured on a floor structure using the longitudinal slots of the base channel to allow horizontal in-plane movement between the channel and the floor structure.
However, Pilz discloses wherein: the channel (Glynn: 22) is secured on a floor structure (any structure therebelow) using the longitudinal slots (38) of the base channel (10) to allow horizontal in-plane movement ([0029]) between the channel (10) and the floor structure (any structure therebelow).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stud wall restraint system of Glynn wherein: the channel is secured on a floor structure using the longitudinal slots of the base channel to allow horizontal in-plane movement between the channel and the floor structure as disclosed by Pilz in order to allow for movement of the wall studs relative to the channel during an earthquake or other event where movement of studs or the channel is desired ([0009]).
Re claim 44, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 43, wherein the connectors (32) further comprise a plurality of fixation apertures (34, being at least one 34 on each 32, thus being a plurality) and wherein the webs (38) of the studs (24) are engaged using the fixation apertures (354) to prevent movement between the channel (22) and the stud wall (Fig. 2).
Re claim 45, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 43, Pilz discloses wherein the transversal slots (26) of the flanges (24) comprise intermittent collocating pairs (any two of 26) of transversal slots (26) and wherein flanges (of 12) of the studs (12) are engaged (Fig. 1) using respective pairs of transversal slots (26).
Re claim 46, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the stud wall (Fig.2 ) is a full-height stud wall (Fig. 2, any height being “full-height” without a point of reference) and wherein the channel (26) is secured against the support structure (Pilz: [0029]) using the longitudinal slots (Pilz: 38, [0029]).
Re claim 54, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, further comprising the stud wall (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of spaced-apart studs (24) and wherein the channel (26) is installed to form a header-to-jamb (26 to 24) or a sill-to-jamb connection (22 to 24) wherein the channel (26) is installed horizontally with respect to (Fig. 2) a jamb stud (24) and the channel terminates at a base (of 32) of a folded out connector (32) which is secured to a web (38) of the jamb stud (24).
Re claim 55, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 54, wherein the connectors (32) further comprise a plurality of fixation apertures (34, being at least one 34 on each 32, thus being a plurality) and wherein the webs (38) of the jamb stud (24) is secured to the folded out connector (32) using the fixation apertures (354) to prevent movement between the channel (22) and the stud wall (Fig. 2).
Re claim 56, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, further comprising the stud wall (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of spaced-apart studs (24) and wherein the channel (26) is installed to form a header-to-cripple stud (26 to 24, as no language defines what constitutes a “cripple” stud) or a sill-to- cripple stud connection (22 to 24, as no language defines what constitutes a “cripple” stud) wherein a cripple stud (24) meets the web (28) of the channel (22/26) and is secured thereto using a folded out connector (32) of the channel (22/26).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn (US 6,843,035) in view of Pilz et al (“Pilz”) (US 2009/0178363), DiGirolamo et al (“DiGirolamo”) (US 2002/0062617) and Rosenberg (US 2008/0053035).
Re claim 36, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, but fails to disclose wherein stress-relief perforations form a line of weakness along a base of each connector so that each connector may be folded out by hand.
However, Rosenberg discloses wherein stress-relief perforations (at 110; [0126]) form a line of weakness ([0136]) along a base (110) of each connector (104) so that each connector may be folded out by hand (104 is capable of folding by hand, per [0136]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stud wall restraint system of Glynn wherein stress-relief perforations form a line of weakness along a base of each connector so that each connector may be folded out by hand as disclosed by Rosenberg in order to provide easy bending of the connector ([0136]).
Additionally, the language “may be” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Claim(s) 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn (US 6,843,035) in view of Pilz et al (“Pilz”) (US 2009/0178363), DiGirolamo et al (“DiGirolamo”) (US 2002/0062617) and Ralph et al (“Ralph”) (US 2018/0066425).
Re claim 37, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, Pilz discloses further comprising fasteners (44) securing the channel (10) to a support structure ([0029]) using the longitudinal slots (38), but fails to disclose wherein bushings prevent compression of the web by the fasteners.
However, Ralph discloses wherein bushings ([0040]) prevent compression of the web (Pilz: 22) by the fasteners (Pilz: 44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stud wall restraint system of Glynn wherein bushings prevent compression of the web by the fasteners as disclosed by Ralph in order to reduce friction and/or wear between the parts, as bushings are extremely well-known and common in the art.
Re claim 38, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 37, but fails to disclose wherein the bushings are non-metallic.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stud wall restraint system of Glynn wherein the bushings are non-metallic (such as polyurethane or rubber, very common materials for bushings) in order to utilize a material which provides vibration damping and is low-friction, each being very well-known benefits of polyurethane/rubber bushings.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn (US 6,843,035) in view of Pilz et al (“Pilz”) (US 2009/0178363), DiGirolamo et al (“DiGirolamo”) (US 2002/0062617) and Beck et al (“Beck”) (US 2006/0016139).
Re claim 47, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, wherein the stud wall (Fig. 2) is a partial height stud wall (Fig. 2, as any height is partial height without a point of reference), but fails to disclose wherein the channel is secured to the support structure via plenum bracing using the longitudinal slots.
However, Beck discloses wherein the channel (Fig. 58, 10292) is secured to the support structure (10250) via plenum bracing (10298) using the longitudinal slots (at 10298 and 10292).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stud wall restraint system of Glynn wherein the channel is secured to the support structure via plenum bracing using the longitudinal slots as disclosed by Beck in order to provide for a suspended ceiling ([0200]).
Claim(s) 48-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn (US 6,843,035) in view of Pilz et al (“Pilz”) (US 2009/0178363), DiGirolamo et al (“DiGirolamo”) (US 2002/0062617) and Watson et al (“Watson”) (US 2006/0053732).
Re claim 48, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, further comprising the stud wall (Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of spaced-apart studs (24) and wherein the channel (26) is installed as a head channel (26) wherein at least one connector (32) is bent outwardly away from (Fig. 7) the flanges (30) but fails to disclose secured against a plenum bracing strut.
However, Watson discloses securement against a plenum bracing strut (300; [0002] and [0037] disclosing suspending ceilings).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stud wall restraint system of Glynn with securement against a plenum bracing strut as disclosed by Watson in order to provide for a suspended ceiling ([0002], [0037]).
Re claim 49, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 48, wherein the connectors (32) further comprise a plurality of fixation apertures (34) and wherein at least one connector (32) is secured against the plenum bracing strut (Watson: 300, as modified) using the fixation apertures (34) to prevent movement between the channel (26) and the plenum bracing strut (Watson: 300, as modified).
Re claim 50, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 48, Watson discloses wherein the plenum bracing strut (300) is vertical (Fig. 3B).
Re claim 51, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 48, Watson discloses wherein the plenum bracing strut (300) is diagonal (Fig. 3B).
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn (US 6,843,035) in view of Pilz et al (“Pilz”) (US 2009/0178363), DiGirolamo et al (“DiGirolamo”) (US 2002/0062617) and Edmondson (US 2006/0048470).
Re claim 52, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, but fails to disclose wherein the slots are reinforced with a raised peripheral flange extending in between the flanges.
However, Edmondson discloses wherein the slots (Fig. 27 18) are reinforced with a raised peripheral flange (Fig. 27) extending in between the flanges (14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stud wall restraint system of Glynn wherein the slots are reinforced with a raised peripheral flange extending in between the flanges as disclosed by Edmondson in order to strengthen the channel by reducing the susceptibility to shear buckling ([0013]).
Claim(s) 57-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glynn (US 6,843,035) in view of Pilz et al (“Pilz”) (US 2009/0178363), DiGirolamo et al (“DiGirolamo”) (US 2002/0062617) and LeBlang (US 2019/0242111).
Re claim 57, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, but fails to disclose wherein the flanges comprise intermittent stress relief notches.
However, LeBlang discloses wherein the flanges (Fig. 10, 302) comprise intermittent stress relief notches (126f, 126fn).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stud wall restraint system of Glynn wherein the flanges comprise intermittent stress relief notches as disclosed by LeBlang in order to provide locations for insertion of additional structural elements, ([0088]).
Re claim 58, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 33, but fails to disclose wherein the flanges comprise intermittent pairs of stress relief notches collocating along a longitudinal axis of the channel.
However, LeBlang discloses wherein the flanges (Fig. 10, 302) comprise intermittent pairs of stress relief notches (126f, 126fn) collocating along a longitudinal axis of the channel (302).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stud wall restraint system of Glynn wherein the flanges comprise intermittent pairs of stress relief notches collocating along a longitudinal axis of the channel as disclosed by LeBlang in order to provide locations for insertion of additional structural elements, ([0088]).
Re claim 59, Glynn as modified discloses the system as claimed in claim 57, LeBlang discloses wherein the notches (126f, 126fn) narrow towards (Fig. 10) the web (302a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 53 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.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635