DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 03/06/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 11, and 12 have been amended and claim(s) 9 and 10 has/have been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-8 and 11-12 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, at line 24, the recitation “in said in said”, is understood to mean -- in said --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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) 2-5 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonyan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,870,698) in view of Navarre (U.S. Patent No. 3,744,199).
Regarding claim 1, Tonyan et al. teaches a staggered stud wall system (figures 3 and 3A), comprising: a top track (30) having a main top web (figure 3) and depending inner and outer flanges (figure 3); a bottom track (16) having a main bottom web (figure 3) and vertically projecting inner and outer flanges (figure 3); a first plurality of studs (32 outer) having a main stud web (figure 3A) and at least one stud flange (figure 3A) secured to the inner flanges of said top and bottom tracks (figure 3A); a second plurality of studs (32 inner) having a main stud web (figure 3A) and at least one stud flange (figure 3A) secured to said outer flanges of said top and bottom tracks (figure 3A); said main top web and said main bottom web having a width greater than a width of said main stud web of said first and second plurality of studs (figure 3A); a first plurality of wallboard panels (4) secured to said first plurality of studs (figure 3A), forming an interior wall surface (figure 3A); a second plurality of wallboard panels (6) secured to said second plurality of studs (figure 3A), forming an exterior wall surface (figure 3A); insulation being inserted in an interior space (cavity wall…filled with insulation; col. 1, lines 25-30) defined between inner edges of said first and second plurality of studs and said corresponding inner and outer flanges of said top and bottom tracks (it is understood that an amount of insulation filled in the cavity would be defined between inner edges of said first and second plurality of studs and said corresponding inner and outer flanges of said top and bottom tracks); stud bracing (via screws and fasteners 38) being installed (figures 3 and 3A) to prevent movement of inner edges of said first and said second plurality of studs relative to said top track and said bottom track (it is understood that the fasteners would prevent movement of inner edges of said first and said second plurality of studs relative to said top track and said bottom track).
Tonyan et al. does not specifically disclose said stud bracing includes providing the top and bottom tracks with vertically inwardly projecting tabs, and upper and lower edges of said main stud webs of said first and second pluralities of studs are provided with recesses that matingly accommodate the vertically inwardly projecting tabs.
Navarre discloses a wall panel assembly (abstract) including providing the [top and] bottom track (100) with vertically inwardly projecting tabs (190, 192), and [upper and] lower edges of said main stud webs of said first and second pluralities of studs are provided with recesses (194) that matingly accommodate the vertically inwardly projecting tabs (figure 13).
Therefore, from the teaching of Navarre, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wall stud assembly of Tonyan et al. to include providing the top and bottom tracks with vertically inwardly projecting tabs, and upper and lower edges of said main stud webs of said first and second pluralities of studs are provided with recesses that matingly accommodate the vertically inwardly projecting tabs, as taught by Navarre, in order to quickly stabilize, align, and uniformly space adjacent stud members to facilitate assembly. It further would have been obvious to provide the tabs and recesses on both top and bottom tracks and upper and lower track edges, respectively, as merely duplicating a known structural feature to provide the same function on both sides would have been a routine and predictable modification.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonyan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,870,698), in view of Navarre (U.S. Patent No. 3,744,199), and in view of Daudet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0104490).
Regarding claim 2, Tonyan et al. as modified, does not specifically disclose said bracing includes openings in said main stud web of said first and second plurality of studs, and at least one strut generally horizontally positioned to connect openings of adjacent studs.
Daudet et al. discloses a bracing (building connection between studs; abstract) such that said bracing includes openings (66) in said main stud web of said first and second plurality of studs (figure 2; in the combination, it is understood that the studs of Tonyan et al would have the openings pf Daudet et al.), and at least one strut (11) generally horizontally positioned (figure 2) to connect openings of adjacent studs (abstract).
Therefore, from the teaching of Daudet et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified wall stud assembly of Tonyan et al. such that said bracing includes openings in said main stud web of said first and second plurality of studs, and at least one strut generally horizontally positioned to connect openings of adjacent studs, as taught by Daudet et al., in order to quickly stabilize, align, and uniformly space adjacent stud members with a less amount of material, fasteners and tooling.
Regarding claim 3, Daudet et al. in the combination discloses said openings in said main stud webs are off-center on each said stud (since the studs of Tonyan et al. are offset, in the combination, the openings of Daudet et al. applied thereto would be off-center in the webs of Tonyan et al.), so that upon assembly, openings of the first and second plurality of studs are in registry with each other (figure 3A of Tonyan et al. and figure 1 of Daudet et al. for reference).
Regarding claim 4, Daudet et al. in the combination discloses said openings are non-circular (figure 2) and said at least one strut is provided with complementary clips or collars (connector 19) configured for matingly engaging said openings (figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Daudet et al. in the combination discloses said clips are rotatable relative to said at least one strut (figures 3A-3C), and are rotatable between an unlocked (figure 3A) and locked position (figure 3C).
Regarding claim 12, Tonyan et al. teaches a staggered stud wall system (figures 3 and 3A), comprising: a top track (30) having a main top web (figure 3) and depending inner and outer flanges (figure 3); a bottom track (16) having a main bottom web (figure 3) and vertically projecting inner and outer flanges (figure 3); a first plurality of studs (32 outer) having a main stud web (figure 3A) and at least one stud flange (figure 3A) secured to the inner flanges of said top and bottom tracks (figure 3A); a second plurality of studs (32 inner) having a main stud web (figure 3A) and at least one stud flange (figure 3A) secured to said outer flanges of said top and bottom tracks (figure 3A); said main top web and said main bottom web having a width greater than a width of said main stud web of said first and second plurality of studs (figure 3A); a first plurality of wallboard panels (4) secured to said first plurality of studs (figure 3A), forming an interior wall surface (figure 3A); a second plurality of wallboard panels (6) secured to said second plurality of studs (figure 3A), forming an exterior wall surface (figure 3A); insulation being inserted in an interior space (cavity wall…filled with insulation; col. 1, lines 25-30) defined between inner edges of said first and second plurality of studs and said corresponding inner and outer flanges of said top and bottom tracks (it is understood that an amount of insulation filled in the cavity would be defined between inner edges of said first and second plurality of studs and said corresponding inner and outer flanges of said top and bottom tracks); and stud bracing (via screws and fasteners 38) being installed (figures 3 and 3A) to prevent movement of inner edges of said first and said second plurality of studs relative to said top track and said bottom track (it is understood that the fasteners would prevent movement of inner edges of said first and said second plurality of studs relative to said top track and said bottom track).
Tonyan et al. does not specifically disclose said stud bracing taking the form of at least one of horizontal struts engaging openings in said main stud webs of said first and second pluralities of studs.
Daudet et al. discloses a bracing (building connection between studs; abstract) such that said bracing takes the form of horizontal struts (11) engaging openings in said main stud webs (figure 1) of said first and second pluralities of studs (abstract).
Therefore, from the teaching of Daudet et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wall stud assembly of Tonyan et al. such that said bracing takes the form of horizontal struts engaging openings in said main stud webs of said first and second pluralities of studs, as taught by Daudet et al., in order to quickly stabilize, align, and uniformly space adjacent stud members with a less amount of material, fasteners and tooling.
In addition, Tonyan et al. does not specifically disclose tabs projecting vertically inwardly from said main top web and said main bottom web for engaging complementary recesses in upper and lower edges of said first and second plurality of studs that matingly accommodate said vertically inwardly projecting tabs, said tabs being wedge-shaped and said recesses in said in said studs being complementarily wedge-shaped.
Navarre discloses a wall panel assembly (abstract) including tabs (190, 192) projecting vertically inwardly from [said main top web and] said main bottom web (figure 13) for engaging complementary recesses in [upper and] lower edges of said first and second plurality of studs that matingly accommodate said vertically inwardly projecting tabs (figure 13), said tabs being wedge-shaped (the wedge-shape limitation is met since, the sides of the slot 194 converge and the tabs are wedged into the slot; figure 13) and said recesses in said in said studs being complementarily wedge-shaped (figure 13).
Therefore, from the teaching of Navarre, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wall stud assembly of Tonyan et al. to include tabs projecting vertically inwardly from said main top web and said main bottom web for engaging complementary recesses in upper and lower edges of said first and second plurality of studs that matingly accommodate said vertically inwardly projecting tabs, said tabs being wedge-shaped and said recesses in said in said studs being complementarily wedge-shaped, as taught by Navarre, in order to quickly stabilize, align, and uniformly space adjacent stud members to facilitate assembly. It further would have been obvious to provide the tabs and recesses on both top and bottom tracks and upper and lower track edges, respectively, as merely duplicating a known structural feature to provide the same function on both sides would have been a routine and predictable modification.
Claim(s) 6-8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonyan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,870,698), in view of Navarre (U.S. Patent No. 3,744,199), in view of Daudet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0104490), and further in view of Collins et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,694,695).
Regarding claim 6, Tonyan et al. as modified does not specifically disclose said at least one strut is a plurality of struts configured for telescopingly engaging each other.
Collins et al. discloses a strut (a wall stud spacer; abstract) whereby at least one strut is a plurality of struts (40) configured for telescopingly engaging each other (figure 8).
Therefore, from the teaching of Collins et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified wall stud assembly of Tonyan et al. such that the at least one strut is a plurality of struts configured for telescopingly engaging each other, as taught by Collins et al., in order to provide consecutive stud securement for wall assemblies that are longer than a single strut, for improved product variability and usability in the field.
Regarding claim 7, Collins et al. in the combination discloses fasteners (flaps 46 and abutments 48) for securing adjacent struts together in a determined telescoping arrangement (it is understood that the flaps 46 and abutments 48 are capable of functioning as fasteners and would secure adjacent struts together in a determined telescoping arrangement).
Regarding claim 8, Daudet et al. in the combination discloses each said at least one strut is “u”-shaped (figure 2).
Claim(s) 11, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonyan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,870,698), in view of Navarre (U.S. Patent No. 3,744,199), and in view of Bae (KR 20200124992 A) with Derwent translation.
Regarding claim 11, Tonyan et al. as modified does not specifically disclose said first plurality of wallboard panels is conventional paper-faced gypsum wallboard, and said second plurality of wallboard panels is cement board.
Bae discloses a wall structure (abstract) wherein said first plurality of wallboard panels (40) is conventional paper-faced gypsum wallboard (gypsum board; lines 34-38), and said second plurality of wallboard panels (50) is cement board (cement board; lines 34-38).
Therefore, from the teaching of Bae, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wall stud assembly of Tonyan et al. such said first plurality of wallboard panels is conventional paper-faced gypsum wallboard, and said second plurality of wallboard panels is cement board, as taught by Bae, in order to allow the inner and outer wall panels to provide different environmental and functional capabilities such as moisture, impact, acoustic, and fire resistance, based on the design requirements of the structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
New reference(s) Navarre (U.S. Patent No. 3,744,199) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s amendment regarding claims 1 and 12 overcome the previous rejection, and the argument that in previous reference Sobel, there is no engagement between upper and lower edges of the strut and upper and lower tracks as not recited, was found persuasive. The Sobel reference has been withdrawn, and the new amendments are overcome in view of reference Navarre.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633