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 18/709,802, filed 5/13/2024.
Claims 1-14 are pending and examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 4C and 8 have lines and reference numbers that are hard to read. The Figs. should be amended to darken and clarify the lines and numbers. 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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: in claim 2, “the vertical exterior facing surface” lacks proper antecedent in the specification(see para. [0011] for discussion of a “continuous planar surface” regarding the interior-facing surface only).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 5 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 2, line 1, “exterior facing” should be “exterior-facing”; in claim 3, line 2, “surface” should be “surfaces”; in claim 5, line 3, “surface” should be “surfaces” and in line 4, “interior and exterior” should be “interior-facing and exterior-facing”; in claim 13, line 3, “each cutout” should be “each of the cutouts”; and in claim 14 depends from itself and should be amended to depend from another claim. Claim 14 is considered to depend from claim 1 for examination purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 5-6 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.
In claim 2, “the exterior facing surface” has no antecedent basis. By changing the term to “the vertical interior-facing surface” it appears the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 5, it is not clear how the apertures do not penetrate through the side surface when in claim 1 the apertures are into and through the surfaces rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Also, it is not clear what is being referred to by “another side of the long vertical side surface” since no other side of the side surface is set forth rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In claim 6, line 1 “the distal ends of the singular body” has no antecedent basis and should be changed to “distal ends”.
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 1-14 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pues(10,612,235; cited on PTO 892).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Pues discloses a wall framing stud(see column 2 and lines 44-Fig. 2B), comprising:
an elongated singular body defining a vertical exterior-facing surface(see Figs. 5A and 5B), a vertical interior-facing surface opposite the vertical exterior-facing surface(see column 2, lines 44-46) and a long vertical side surface spanning between the vertical exterior-facing surface and the vertical interior-facing surface(see column 2, lines 47-49),
wherein a first set or series of vertically-elongated apertures(116, see Figs. 2A, 2B, 3A, 4A and 5A) are defined horizontally into and through and along the long vertical side surface of the elongated singular body along a midline of the long vertical side surface (see column 2, line 66 thru column 3, line 2 and Fig. 2A);
wherein a thermal bridge between the vertical exterior-facing surface and the vertical interior-facing surface is disrupted(see column 5, lines 48-51).
Pues discloses that “It will be readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that many modifications and equivalent arrangements can be made thereof without departing from the spirit and scope of the present disclosure, such scope to be accorded the broadest interpretation of the appended claims so as to encompass all equivalent structures and products” but lacks the stud specifically having two long vertical side surfaces each with two sets of apertures parallel and offset from one another.
Studs are well known in the construction art to comprise at least a web and two parallel flanges extending from the web. Therefore, the examiner takes official notice that it is known to use parallel flanges(herein termed long vertical side surfaces) to form a stud.
The examiner contends that the use of multiple sets of apertures in both the side surfaces of the stud would have been obvious, given the disclosure of Pues, for a skilled artisan to have provided to add an additional thermal bridge disruption and area for cables and wires to be routed, if desired, given the intended use of the stud and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 2, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claim 1, wherein the vertical exterior facing surface and the exterior facing surface are continuous planar surfaces(see column 2, lines 62-63 and Figs.).
Regarding claim 4, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claim 1, wherein a plurality of vertically spaced-apart cutouts(118, at least see Fig. 2B) are defined into the elongated singular body along the vertical exterior-facing surface(see column 5, lines 1-4), and wherein a ridge member(120) is defined between an adjacent pair of the vertically spaced-apart cutouts(see column 5, lines 4-5 and at least Fig. 3A), and the ridge member(120) including a distal portion spaced laterally from at least one of the first set of apertures(see Fig. 2B), wherein a thermal bridge pathway between the ridge member and the vertical interior- facing surface is disrupted(see column 5, lines 48-51, column 6, lines 47-53 and Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 5, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claim 1, but lacks at least one of the first or the second set of apertures formed not extending thru the long vertical side surfaces.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the depth of the apertures(see paras. [0014] and [0016]).
Therefore, the specific depth of the aperture is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the stud and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claim 4 wherein distal ends of the singular body are configured to not include the ridge member on the vertical exterior-facing surface(ends of the surface in Fig 4A do not have ridges, denoted as 120, therefore meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claim 1 wherein the vertical exterior-facing surface of the vertical wall framing stud is adapted to be secured or fastened to a wall board(see column 2, lines 55-57).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 14, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claims 1 and 7 further comprising spray foam insulation in and about the apertures in and around the wall framing stud(see column 5, lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 10, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claim 1 wherein each of the elongate apertures are configured from a series of closely spaced holes(spacing of apertures 116 are considered to be “close” meeting the claim limitation).
Applicant’s disclosure lends no specific criticality to the spacing of the apertures(para. [0017] mentions the spacing and the thermal bridge pathway disruption but does not mention any advantage to the spacing).
Therefore, the specific spacing of the aperture is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the stud and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claim 1 wherein the singular body is configured to be a component in at least one of a wall, floor or roof(see column 4, lines 46-51).
Regarding claim 12, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claim 1, wherein the elongated singular body comprises at least one of wood, wood composite, hemp composite, plastic or ceramic composite(see column 6, lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 13, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claim 4 wherein the vertical exterior-facing surface of the vertical wall framing stud is adapted to be secured or fastened to a wall board so that an air gap is formed between each cutout and an inside-facing surface of the wall board(see column 2, lines 55-58).
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