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 .
The amendment filed on 26 February 2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 26 November 2025 has been considered. Claim(s) 14-16 and 19-24 is/are pending. Claim(s) 1-13, 17, and 18 has/have been canceled. Claim(s) 14-16 and 19-24 has/have been examined in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-16 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the disclosure as originally filed does not provide support for the support system having both at least one attachment point to secure the interlocking element to a truss and also a t-shaped cross-connector which secures the interlocking elements to the truss. The disclosure provides support for a cross-connector used to secure one interlocking element to another interlocking element.
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 14-16 and 19-24 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.
Regarding claim 14, line 17, the recitation “at least one of” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if applicant is claiming “at least one of an attachment point and at least one t-shaped cross-connector” or if Applicant is claiming “at least one of an attachment point and at least one t-shaped cross-connector”. Further, it is unclear how the system can have an attachment point and a cross-connector both performing the same function of securing an interlocking element to a truss. For purposes of examination, the claim has been interpreted as the first example, meaning the claim requires at least one attachment point or cross-connector but does not require both. Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14-16 and 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0090370 A1 to Cope in view of US 10,280,635 B1 to Apostolopoulos et al.
Regarding claim 14, Cope discloses a support system (Fig.6) for supporting a roof or a floor in a building (Fig.2) comprising: a plurality of interlocking elements (110, 120, Fig.6) each interlocking element comprising a first interlocking element end (one end with 195 attached in Fig.6) and a second interlocking element end (a second end with 195 attached, Fig.6); a female segment (114) having a first height and a first width (114, Fig.6), a female segment exterior surface (outer surface of 114), a female segment interior surface (surface inside of channel 114), and at least one female segment fastener slot (slots in 114, Fig.6 and 7), and a male segment (112) having a second height and a second width (112, Fig.6), a male segment exterior surface (outer surface of 112) and at least one male segment fastener slot (slots formed in 112, Fig. 6 and 7), wherein the female segment fastener slot aligns with the at least one male segment fastener slot when a portion of the male exterior surface of the male segment engages the female segment interior surface of the female segment (Fig. 6 and Fig.7, the slots are aligned to secure the segments together with one another); and at least one of an attachment point (195, Fig.6; different embodiments shown in Fig.3/4 and 5A/5B) couplable to at least one of the first interlocking element end (Fig.6) and the second interlocking element end (Fig.6) wherein the attachment point is operable to secure the first interlocking element end or the second interlocking element end to a truss (Fig.2), wherein the first height and the first width of the female segment are greater than the second height and the second width of the male segment so that the male segment is received in a telescoping manner within the female segment (Fig.6).
Further since the claim is interpreted as being “at least one of”, the claim can also be interpreted to have the t-shaped cross-connector which can be interpreted as the same structure of attachment point of Cope which provides the details of the T-shaped connector.
Cope discloses C-shaped cross-sectional shapes but does not disclose closed rectangular or square cross-sectional shapes.
Apostolopoulos et al. disclose telescopic support members (28, 30, Fig.3) having a square cross-sectional shape (Fig.3) and aligning holes (32, 34), the height and width of the male member being less than the height and width of the female member (Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the interlocking elements of Cope with a closed-square cross section as taught by Apostolopoulos so to form a support system which has superior strength and stability since a closed section square cross-section will provide greater stability in different directions, resisting torsional loads and resisting buckling. Square cross-sections can be manufactured in many ways, thereby increasing flexibility during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 15, Cope discloses wherein a length of at least one of the plurality of interlocking elements is slidably adjustable (slidable within one another, Fig.7).
Regarding claim 16, Cope and Apostolopoulos disclose wherein the male segment has a first cross-section length and width (112, See figure above) and the female segment has a second cross-section length and width (114, See figure above) greater than the first cross-section length and width (the male fits within the female, and therefore the length and width of the female segment is greater).
Regarding claim 19, Cope discloses wherein the attachment point comprises a horizontal member (156, Fig. 5A/5B) coupled to a vertical member (140, 154) wherein the attachment point is coupled to at least one of the first interlocking element end and the second interlocking element end (in the same manner as 195, Fig.6).
Regarding claim 20, Cope discloses wherein the vertical member of the attachment point is coupled to an angle member (202) having at least one fastener (204) wherein the fastener is tightenable against the at least one truss (Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 21, Cope discloses wherein the angle is a perpendicular angle (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 22, Cope discloses wherein the at least one fastener is at least one of a bolt and a nut (190; Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 23, Cope discloses wherein the plurality of interlocking elements are formed from heavy gauge steel or aluminum (Paragraph [0024]) but does not disclose the specific gauge of the material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the steel or aluminum material to be of specific gauge known to be “heavy gauge” so to effectively provide support to a roof or floor structure, thereby effectively reinforcing the floor or roof while preventing sagging. Heavy gauge steel is well known in the art to be considered in the 12 gauge and under range.
Regarding claim 24, Cope discloses wherein the cross-connector can be angled steel (Paragraph [0024]; the cross-connectors are part of the system 100; Cope discloses the system being made from gauge steel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Morey, Applicant simply states “nothing in Morey overcomes Cope’s failure”. Morey was used to teach the shape of the support members. The claims have been changed to read “closed cross-sectional shape”. Apostolopoulos has been used to replace Morey in view of the newly amended claims.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights