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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,286,784 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with minor differences in wording/phraseology, and thus the claims of the instant application are encompassed by or made obvious by the claims of the reference patent.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Application No. 18,403,065 (‘reference Application’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with minor differences in wording/phraseology, and thus the claims of the instant application are encompassed by or made obvious by the claims of the reference patent.
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 5, 11-13 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the flange" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noll (US Patent No. 5,681,021).
For claim 1, Noll discloses a beam support structure (fig. 8, 12) that is comprised of: a first bracket (upper 10) for supporting a first beam; a second bracket (lower 10) for supporting a second beam; each of said first and second brackets having a flat surface (fig. 1, 10 has flat surfaces) to receive an edge of a corresponding beam; and an arm (44, 48) having respective ends that connect between the first and second brackets; said arm being secured between the first and second brackets, while allowing multiple different secured positions between the first and second brackets (opening 40 allows section 52 to be adjustable when connected since no friction fit is disclosed).
For claim 2, Noll discloses that each bracket is U-shaped including a base wall that defines the flat surface (fig. 1, parts of base wall are flat).
For claim 3, Noll discloses that each U-shaped bracket also includes opposed side walls (18, 20).
For claim 4, Noll discloses a flange (24) supported from the base wall of each bracket (flange contains opening 26).
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) 5-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noll (US Patent No. 5,681,021) in view of Lethin (US2016/0040430).
For claim 5, Noll does not disclose a first fastener for securing one end of the arm to the flange of the first bracket and a second fastener for securing an opposite end of the arm to the flange of the second bracket.
Lethin discloses a beam support structure (fig. 2, 200) having a fastener (fig. 3, 304) for securing one end of an arm of the structure to the flange of a bracket (300).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the flange of Noll and provide a first and second fastener for securing the ends of the arm to the flange of the brackets as made obvious by Lethin to provide a stronger connection between the arm and the flanges of the beam support structure to increase the efficiency and strength of the beam support structure.
For claim 6, the combination discloses that each fastener is comprised of a nut (Lethin fig. 3, 304).
For claim 7, the combination discloses that the modified one end of the arm has a flat surface that can rest against the base wall (Lethin see fig. 8A, when 802 is fully inserted into 812).
For claim 8, the combination discloses that the one end of the arm (Lethin fig. 8C, 802) is received inside the flange (812) and it would be obvious to make the connection a snug fit so that the arm end also rests against the flange to increase the load bearing capacity of the beam support structure.
For claim 10, the combination discloses that the opposite end of the arm is configured to enable rotation between the one end of the arm and the second bracket to provide relative positioning between respective beams that are being supported (the arms can rotate relative to the bracket because the arms are in a circular opening).
For claim 11, the combination discloses that each bracket includes one or more holes (Noll fig. 1, 28) in the side walls for accommodating nails or screws for securing each bracket to a respective beam.
For claim 12, the combination discloses that the modified flange appears to be disposed at a center area of the base wall (Lethin fig. 7A) and it would be obvious to place the flange in the center to as a matter of design choice for ease of assembly.
For claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to dispose the flange at a side edge of the base wall since this merely involves a change of position of an already disclosed element as a matter of design choice and to accommodate other structural elements in the assembly.
For claim 14, Noll discloses a beam support structure (fig. 8) that is comprised of a first bracket (upper 10) for supporting a first beam or post; a second bracket (lower 10) for supporting a second beam; each of said first and second brackets being of U-shape (fig. 2) including a base wall and a pair of side walls (18, 20) that extend orthogonal to the base wall, and an arm (44) having respective ends that connect between the respective flanges of the first and second brackets; said arm being secured between the first and second brackets, while allowing multiple different secured positions between the first and second brackets (opening 40 allows section 52 to be adjustable when connected since no friction fit is disclosed).
Noll does not disclose a support flange that extends parallel to the pair of side walls.
Lethin discloses a beam support structure (fig. 2, 200) having a support flange (fig. 3, 304) that extends parallel to the pair of side walls of the bracket (300).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the beam support structure of Noll and add a flange that extends parallel to the pair of side walls of the bracket as made obvious by Lethin to provide a strong connection between the arm and the bracket.
For claim 15, the combination discloses a first fastener (Lethin fig. 3, 304) for securing one end of the arm to the flange of the first bracket and a second fastener (304) for securing an opposite end of the arm to the flange of the second bracket.
For claim 16, the combination discloses that each fastener is comprised of a nut (Lethin fig. 3, 304).
For claim 17, the combination discloses that the modified one end of the arm has a flat surface that can rest against the base wall (Lethin see fig. 8A, when 802 is fully inserted into 812).
For claim 18, the combination discloses that the one end of the arm (Lethin fig. 8C, 802) is received inside the flange (812) and it would be obvious to make the connection a snug fit so that the arm end also rests against the flange to increase the load bearing capacity of the beam support structure.
For claim 19, Noll discloses a beam support structure that is comprised of a first bracket for supporting a first beam or post; a second bracket for supporting a second beam; each of said first and second brackets being of U-shape including a base wall and a pair of side walls that extend orthogonal to the base wall; a support flange, an arm having respective ends that connect between the respective flanges of the first and second brackets.
Noll does not disclose that the support flange extends parallel to the pair of sidewalls, the pair of side walls extending in an opposite direction to the flange for both brackets, said arm secured between the first and second brackets by respective fasteners, wherein the one end of the arm has a flat surface that rests against the base wall, and wherein the one end of the arm also rests against the flange.
Lethin discloses a beam support structure (fig. 2, 200) with a support flange that extends parallel to the pair of side walls of the bracket, the pair of sidewalls extending in an opposite direction to the flange, the arm secured to the brackets by a fastener (fig. 3, 304), and the obviousness of making the flat surface of the cylindrical arm rest against the base wall (see fig. 8A, when 802 is fully inserted into 812) and wherein the end of the arm also rests against the flange (when the connection is a snug fit so that the arm end also rests against the flange to increase the load bearing capacity of the beam support structure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the beam support structure of Noll so that the support flange extends parallel to the pair of sidewalls, the pair of side walls extending in an opposite direction to the flange for both brackets, said arm secured between the first and second brackets by respective fasteners, wherein the one end of the arm has a flat surface that rests against the base wall, and wherein the one end of the arm also rests against the flange as made obvious by Lethin to provide a strong connection between the arm and the brackets of the structure to increase the load-bearing capabilities of the structure.
For claim 20, it would be obvious to make the flat surface of the combination engage a major section of a width of the bracket since this merely involves increasing the diameter of the arm and the flange to increase the strength of the beam support structure.
Claim(s) 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noll (US Patent No. 5,681,021) in view of Schneider (US Patent No. 0942592).
For claim 9, Noll does not disclose that the sidewalls have respective facing surfaces that are grooved to enhance gripping with the beam.
Schneider discloses the obviousness of grooving a sidewall of the bracket (figs. 2-4) of a beam support structure to enhance grip.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to groove the sidewall of Noll as made obvious by Schneider to increase the efficiency of the beam support structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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 and after filing a proper Terminal Disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record neither anticipates or makes obvious a beam support structure having all the limitations set forth in claim 19 and further requiring that the flat surface engages a major section of a width of the bracket, and wherein the connection between the bracket and arm is by means of a ratchet arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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 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.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633