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 ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/705,979, filed 4/29/2024.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-20 and 26-27 and the specification were amended, and claims 6, 10 and 21-25 were canceled in the preliminary amendment filed 1/24/2025.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-20 and 26-27 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/29/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 13, 15, 16, 24, and 25(see paras. [0087] and [0092] - [0095]). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because reference number 14 and 16 are disclosed as the holes in the beams yet Fig. 4 shows holes 14 on beam 8. Reference number 14 in Fig 4 should be changed to 16 and the holes in beam 3 should be denoted as reference number 14. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paras. [0076] and [0089] and [0094], 3 should be changed to 3A to 3F”; and in para. [0089], line 3, “mean” should be changed to “beam”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5, 7-9 and 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 2-5, 7-9 and 11-20, line 1, “A joint” should be changed to “The joint”; in claim 17, line 2, “are” should be changed to “is”. Appropriate correction is required.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, 15-19 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiller(7,080,492; cited on PTO 892) in view of Shelton(7,568,323; cited on PTO 892) and Keil(6,279,288).
Regarding claims 1-4, 17-18 and 26-27, Guiller discloses a joint system, method of forming a joint system and kit of parts for forming a joint(100, see Fig. 1a-c) for structural elements for a building construction(see Figs. 2-3), comprising :
a first beam provided(20, see Figs. 1A-C) to define a closed hollow cross-section,
a second beam provided(10, 11) having a hollow cross-section(see Figs. 1a-c), and
fasteners(30),
the first beam having at least two unitarily formed opposing extending portions(22, 23, see column 2, lines 18-20 and Fig. 1b) having a distance between them to accommodate, when in a jointed condition, and the second beam is located between the extending portions, the second beam therebetween(see Figs. 1a-c), the at least two unitarily formed opposing extending portions and the second beam each having a plurality of corresponding, when in a jointed condition, spaced apart holes(14a, 13b, 15a, 15b, 26) to receive the fasteners(30) therethrough(see Figs. 1a-c), with the fasteners located in the holes, such that when in a jointed and fastened condition the joint system provides a joint system that is moment, in plane, and out of plane, force resistant and wherein the extending portions(22, 23) are formed from two portions of the first beam(see Figs. 1a-c).
Guiller lacks the beams formed from at least two pieces of overlapping sheet steel.
Shelton discloses a hollow metal beam(see Figs. 5-7) for a joint system for structural elements for a building construction(see Fig. 1) with two pieces of overlapping sheet metal(see column 1, lines 10-11 and Fig. 1), wherein the closed hollow cross-section beam is formed from first and second open cross-sectional beams that are nested, one inside the other, the beam has two opposed vertical webs, and two opposed horizontal flanges connecting therebetween (see Figs. 5-7).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the beams of Guiller with the two piece beam construction of Shelton given that KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. __ (2006) has found that the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Keil discloses a joint having beams of cold rolled sheet steel(see column 1, lines 29-35).
It would also have been obvious for having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the beams of Guiller and Shelton of a structurally strong material, such as cold formed sheet steel as disclosed by Keil, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided the beams with sufficient strength to resist forces on the joint given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Guiller and Shelton and Keil disclose the joint system of claim 1 wherein the at least two unitarily formed opposing extending portions are cut into the at least two pieces of overlapping sheet steel prior to forming the first beam(the manner in which the extending portions and beam are made or cut is considered a product by process limitation and met by the Guiller beams).
Regarding claim 7 Guiller and Shelton and Keil disclose the joint system of claim 1 wherein the two opposing extending portions(22, 23) are parallel to each other(see Figs. 1a-c).
Regarding claim 8, Guiller and Shelton and Keil disclose the joint system of claim 1 wherein the two opposing extending portions(22, 23) each present planar inward facing surfaces that in part define a complimentary pocket(see Figs. 1a-c).
Regarding claim 9, Guiller and Shelton and Keil disclose the joint system of claim 1 wherein a substantial length of the first and/or second beam has an enclosed cross-section(see Figs. 1a-c).
Regarding claim 11, Guiller and Shelton and Keil disclose the joint system of claim 1 wherein the closed hollow cross-sectional beam is of rectangular or square cross-section(see Figs. 1a-c).
Regarding claim 15, Guiller and Shelton and Keil disclose the joint system of claims 1 wherein the spaced apart holes of the second beam(10, 11) are threaded and complimentary to, inward of an external surface of the second beam, to receive and engage the fasteners therein, but lacks the use of threaded connectors.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific sheet steel thickness(see para. [0087]).
Therefore, the specific threading, whether in the beam or an additional threaded connector is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 16, Guiller and Shelton and Keil disclose the joint system of claims 1 but lacks the specific sheet steel thickness.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific sheet steel thickness(see para. [0048]).
Therefore, the specific thickness of the sheet steel is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 19, Guiller and Shelton and Keil disclose the joint system of claim 1 but lack the specific parts of the beams making up the webs.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific parts of the beams that make up the webs and flanges(see para. [0085] and Figs. 3A-3F).
Therefore, the make up of the open beams is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiller and Shelton and Keil, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in of Chen(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2002/0100229; cited on PTO 892)
Regarding claim 12, Guiller and Shelton disclose the joint system of claim 1 but lack at least one of the at least two unitarily formed opposing extending portions(22, 23) including at least one reinforcing rib formed onto an exterior surface of the extending portion.
Chen discloses a joint with beams(see Fig. 1) and reinforcing ribs(4) on an exterior of one of the beams(see Fig. 1).
It would also have been obvious for having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the hollow beam of Guiller with at least one rib, such as disclosed by Chen, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided more reinforcement and strength to the beam and given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof. The specific location of the ribs is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guiller and Shelton and Keil, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in of Anderson(5,088,245; cited on PTO 892).
Guiller and Shelton disclose the joint system of claim 1 but lack the beam substantially closed off by a first blanking plate.
Anderson discloses a joint for structural elements having a hollow beam(40, see Figs. 1-2) having and a plate(the term “a first blanking plate” is given no structural or locational limitation and considered met by plate 60) closing off the beam(see Figs.).
It would also have been obvious for having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the hollow beam of Guiller with a plate, such as disclosed by Anderson, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have provided more reinforcement and strength to the beam and closed the hollow beam to have prevented any debris from entering the beam given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Prior Art
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 BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/
Prosecution Insights