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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed 27 MAR. 2024, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/22/24, 6/11/24, 8/1/24, 8/7/24, 8/30/24, 11/27/24, 12/24/24, 1/29/25, 6/17/25, 7/21/25, 8/13/25, 8/19/25, 10/15/25, 11/6/25, and 12/9/25 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Due to the large submission, although the Examiner has identified the statement as having been considered and placed the statement in the file, Applicant is encouraged to identify any particularly relevant references and their relation to the instant invention for specific consideration.
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 1-5 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brady US 9032681 B1.
As per claim 1 Brady teaches a connection assembly mechanism (device, embodiment 60, FIG. 4) comprising:
a first member (track 6, FIG. 4) configured for flush mounting with a lateral surface of a first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4), the first member (track 6, FIG. 4) having opposing first and second surfaces (inward, or as shown rightward facing “first” surface of web 11 and outward, or as shown leftward facing “second” surface of web 11, FIG. 4);
a plurality of connectors (flanges 8, 14, 62, 62, lip 64 FIG. 4) having opposing first and second ends, each first end coupled to the first surface of the first member (track 6, FIG. 4), each second end extending from the first surface of the first member (track 6, FIG. 4), wherein each second end is configured for embedding within the first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4); and
a second member (plate 4, FIG. 4) extending from the second surface of the first member (track 6, FIG. 4) and having opposing top and bottom surfaces , wherein the top surface is configured to support a second structure (see top edge of plate 4, FIG. 4; this is recognized as configured to support —or “capable” of supporting— a second structure, as broadly claimed), thereby coupling the first and second structures.
As per claim 2 Brady teaches the connection assembly mechanism (device, embodiment 60, FIG. 4) of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of connectors (flanges 8, 14, 62, 62, lip 64 FIG. 4) includes an aperture (see aperture at attachment device 52. FIG. 4).
As per claim 3 Brady teaches the connection assembly mechanism (device, embodiment 60, FIG. 4) of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of connectors (flanges 8, 14, 62, 62, lip 64 FIG. 4) comprises at least partially overlapping segments (see “partially overlapping” areas proximate web 66, FIG. 4) of first and second connector elements (flange 8, 62, 64, and flange 14, 62, 62, 64 64 FIG. 4).
As per claim 5 Brady teaches the connection assembly mechanism (device, embodiment 60, FIG. 4) of claim 3, wherein the overlapping segments of the first and the second connector elements are inverted with respect to each other (see “inverted” FIG. 4), and wherein each of the plurality of connectors (flanges 8, 14, 62, 62, lip 64 FIG. 4) is embedded (see “embedded” FIG. 4) within the first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4) during casting.
As per claim 4 Brady teaches the connection assembly mechanism (device, embodiment 60, FIG. 4) of claim 1, wherein a first segment of each of the plurality of connectors (flanges 8, 14, 62, 62, lip 64 FIG. 4) has a rounded corner,
a second segment of each of the plurality of connectors (flanges 8, 14, 62, 62, lip 64 FIG. 4) is U-shaped (see general “U-shaped” section defined as extending away from web 11 towards slab 44, FIG. 4), or both.
As per claim 9 Brady teaches the connection assembly mechanism (device, embodiment 60, FIG. 4) of claim 1, wherein the first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4) corresponds to a beam structure (see web 66, FIG. 4; this is recognized as teaching the slab 44 “corresponds” to a beam shaped structure because they extend essentially parallel into the depth dimension of FIG. 4).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6-8, and 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Hatzinikolas US 8490341 B2.
As per claim 6 the primary reference of Brady teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising a plurality of support members coupled to the bottom surface of the second member and the second surface of the first member,
wherein the plurality of support members is configured for supporting the second member.
Hatzinikolas teaches an upright member —a first structure— coupled by a support assembly to a transversely extending second structure, specifically:
a plurality of support members (bolt 52, bolt 58, proximal diagonal member, right side, distal diagonal member, right side, FIG. 1a) coupled to the bottom surface of the second member (joist 32, FIG. 1a; see also “floors or ceilings 29… horizontal supporting platforms” 9:19) and the second surface of the first member,
wherein the plurality of support members (bolt 52, bolt 58, proximal diagonal member, right side, distal diagonal member, right side, FIG. 1a) is configured for supporting the second member (joist 32, FIG. 1a; see also “floors or ceilings 29… horizontal supporting platforms” 9:19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Brady by substituting the support assembly as taught by Hatzinikolas configured for supporting a second strucure in order to provide an open space extending from the lateral surface of the first structure.
As per claim 7-8 Brady in view of Hatzinikolas teaches the limitations according to claim 6, and Hatzinikolas further discloses (Cl. 7) wherein a bottom surface of the second structure is coupled (see bolt 58, FIG. 1a) to the top surface of the second member (joist 32, FIG. 1a) along the lateral surface of the first structure in accordance with a lateral orientation (see “in accordance” as broadly claimed, FIG. 1a); and
(Cl. 8) wherein a bottom surface of the second structure is coupled (see bolt 58, FIG. 1a) to the top surface of the second member (joist 32, FIG. 1a) along the lateral surface of the first structure in accordance with a transverse orientation (see “in accordance” as broadly claimed, FIG. 1a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Brady in view of Hatzinikolas by coupling the transversely extending support assembly as taught by Hatzinikolas in order to provide an open space extending from the lateral surface of the first structure.
Regarding the limitations of “along the lateral surface of the first structure in accordance with a lateral orientation” and “along the lateral surface of the first structure in accordance with a transverse orientation”, the structures of the attachment plate of Brady, having been modified by the substitution of the support assembly of Hatzinikolas, clearly extending away from the first structure taught by Brady, and this “away” direction is clearly capable of meeting the broadly claimed “lateral” —relating to the side— orientation or “transverse” —action crosswise— orientation.
As per claim 10 the primary reference of Brady teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the second structure corresponds to a slab structure.
Hatzinikolas teaches an upright member —a first structure— coupled by a support assembly to a transversely extending second structure, specifically:
wherein the second structure corresponds to a slab structure (“floors or ceilings 29… horizontal supporting platforms” 9:19; this is recognized as a slab structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Brady by substituting the horizontal supporting platforms as taught by Hatzinikolas in order to provide an open space extending from the lateral surface of the first structure.
As per claim 11 the primary reference of Brady teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Brady further discloses the first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4) corresponds to a precast concrete structure that extends in a horizontal direction, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the second structure corresponds to a precast concrete structure that extends in a horizontal direction.
Hatzinikolas teaches an upright member —a first structure— coupled by a support assembly to a transversely extending second structure, specifically:
wherein the second structure (“floors or ceilings 29… horizontal supporting platforms” 9:19; this is recognized as a slab structure) corresponds to a precast concrete structure that extends in a horizontal direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Brady by substituting the horizontal supporting platforms as taught by Hatzinikolas in order to provide an open space extending from the lateral surface of the first structure.
Claim 12-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Studebaker et al. US 9243404 B2 (Studebaker).
As per claim 12 the primary reference of Brady teaches a connection method (“Building Construction System” title), comprising:
flush-mounting a first member (track 6, FIG. 4) with a lateral surface of a first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4), the first member (track 6, FIG. 4) having opposing first and second surfaces (inward, or as shown rightward facing “first” surface of web 11 and outward, or as shown leftward facing “second” surface of web 11, FIG. 4),
wherein a plurality of connectors (flanges 8, 14, 62, 62, lip 64 FIG. 4) has opposing first and second ends, each first end is coupled to the first surface (inward, or as shown rightward facing “first” surface of web 11, FIG. 4) of the first member (track 6, FIG. 4), and each second end extends from the first surface (inward, or as shown rightward facing “first” surface of web 11, FIG. 4) of the first member (track 6, FIG. 4),
wherein each second end (leftmost extension of flanges 8 and 14, FIG. 4) is configured for embedding within the first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4), and
wherein a second member (plate 4, FIG. 4) extends from the second surface (outward, or as shown leftward facing “second” surface of web 11, FIG. 4) of the first member (track 6, FIG. 4) and has opposing top and bottom surfaces (see top and bottom edge of plate 4, FIG. 4), wherein the top surface is configured to support a second structure (see top edge of plate 4, FIG. 4; this is recognized as configured to support —or “capable” of supporting— a second structure, as broadly claimed), thereby coupling (see “attachment member 48”, FIG. 4) the first and second structures;
coupling the first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4) and the second structure (stud 46, FIG. 4) based on a support provided (see FIG. 4; the above identified “top surface” provides at least some support) by the top surface of the second member (plate 4, FIG. 4) to the second structure (stud 46, FIG. 4), but fails to explicitly disclose:
applying a screed on top surfaces of the first structure and the second structure together.
Studebaker teaches opposing slabs castable together, specifically:
applying a screed on top surfaces of the first structure and the second structure (joists 1010a and 1010b, FIG. 10) together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Brady by including the second slab opposite the slab as taught by Studebaker in order to provide an open space extending from the lateral surface of the first structure
As per claim 13 Brady in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 12 and Brady further discloses comprising determining a quantity,
a type, and a size of a connection assembly mechanism (device, embodiment 60, FIG. 4) for coupling the first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4) with one or more second structures based on a first plurality of parameters (see “by steel framing” 5:64; this is recognized as teaching the material specifications “correspond to” tensile strength and hardness) associated with the connection assembly mechanism (device, embodiment 60, FIG. 4) and a second plurality of parameters (see “allows for adjustably connecting building components” 1:57; this is recognized as “location” as broadly claimed) associated with at least one of the first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4) and the second structure (stud 46, FIG. 4).
As per claim 14 Brady in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 13 and Brady further discloses the first plurality of parameters (see “by steel framing” 5:64; this is recognized as teaching the material specifications “correspond to” tensile strength and hardness) includes material specifications (see “steel framing” 5:64) of the connection assembly mechanism (device, embodiment 60, FIG. 4).
As per claim 15 Brady in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 14 and Brady further discloses the material specifications (see “steel framing” 5:64) of the connection assembly mechanism (device, embodiment 60, FIG. 4) correspond to at least tensile strength and hardness (see “by steel framing” 5:64; this is recognized as teaching the material specifications “correspond to” tensile strength and hardness as steel is well-known to provide these characteristics) of the connection assembly mechanism (device, embodiment 60, FIG. 4).
As per claim 16 Brady in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 13 and Brady further discloses wherein the second plurality of parameters (see “allows for adjustably connecting building components” 1:57; this is recognized as “location” as broadly claimed) includes at least one of a location, an orientation, a weight, and an installation level (see slots 2, FIG. 4; these are recognized to allow for level to be included in installation parameters) of at least one of the first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4) and the second structure (stud 46, FIG. 4).
Claim 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady in view of Studebaker as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hatzinikolas.
As per claim 17 Brady in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 12 but the combination and but fails to explicitly disclose:
comprising coupling a plurality of support members to the bottom surface of the second member and the second surface of the first member, wherein the plurality of support members is configured for supporting the second member.
Hatzinikolas teaches an upright member —a first structure— coupled by a support assembly to a transversely extending second structure, specifically:
comprising coupling a plurality of support members (bolt 52, bolt 58, proximal diagonal member, right side, distal diagonal member, right side, FIG. 1a) to the bottom surface of the second member (joist 32, FIG. 1a; see also “floors or ceilings 29… horizontal supporting platforms” 9:19) and the second surface of the first member, wherein the plurality of support members (bolt 52, bolt 58, proximal diagonal member, right side, distal diagonal member, right side, FIG. 1a) is configured for supporting the second member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Brady in view of Studebaker by substituting the support assembly as taught by Hatzinikolas configured for supporting a second strucure in order to provide an open space extending from the lateral surface of the first structure.
As per claim 18-19 Brady in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 12, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 18) further comprising coupling a bottom surface of the second structure to the top surface of the second member along the lateral surface of the first structure in accordance with a lateral orientation; and
(Cl. 19) further comprising coupling a bottom surface of the second structure to the top surface of the second member along the lateral surface of the first structure in accordance with a transverse orientation.
Hatzinikolas teaches an upright member —a first structure— coupled by a support assembly to a transversely extending second structure, specifically:
(Cl. 18) further comprising coupling (see bolt 58, FIG. 1a) a bottom surface of the second structure (joist 32, FIG. 1a; see also “floors or ceilings 29… horizontal supporting platforms” 9:19) to the top surface of the second member (joist 32, FIG. 1a) along the lateral surface of the first structure in accordance with a lateral orientation; and
(Cl. 19) further comprising coupling (see bolt 58, FIG. 1a) a bottom surface of the second structure (joist 32, FIG. 1a; see also “floors or ceilings 29… horizontal supporting platforms” 9:19) to the top surface of the second member along the lateral surface of the first structure (slab 44 FIG. 4) in accordance with a transverse orientation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Brady in view of Studebaker by coupling a transversely extending support assembly as taught by Hatzinikolas in order to provide an open space extending from the lateral surface of the first structure.
Regarding the limitations of “along the lateral surface of the first structure in accordance with a lateral orientation” and “along the lateral surface of the first structure in accordance with a transverse orientation”, the structures of the attachment plate of Brady and Studebaker, having been modified by the substitution of the support assembly of Hatzinikolas, clearly extending away from the first structure taught by Brady, and this “away” direction is clearly capable of meeting the broadly claimed “lateral” —relating to the side— orientation or “transverse” —action crosswise— orientation.
As per claim 20 Brady in view of Studebaker teaches the limitations according to claim 12, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein a bottom surface of the second structure is coupled to the top surface of the second member at a construction site.
Hatzinikolas teaches an upright member —a first structure— coupled by a support assembly to a transversely extending second structure, specifically:
wherein a bottom surface of the second structure (joist 32, FIG. 1a; see also “floors or ceilings 29… horizontal supporting platforms” 9:19) is coupled to the top surface of the second member (joist 32, FIG. 1a) at a construction site (see “flanged end 56 may have suitable bores for mechanical retainers in the form of threaded fasteners such as may be identified as bolts 58” 10:38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Brady in view of Studebaker by coupling a transversely extending support assembly as taught by Hatzinikolas in order to provide an open space extending from the lateral surface of the first structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-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 D 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635