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 final office action in response to the amendment filed 6/1/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11 and 13-14 are amended. Applicant’s amendment sot h specification have not been entered as the entirety of the paragraph to be amended was not included with the amendment as required by MPEP 608.01.
Claims 1-14 are pending and examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 2, line 1, “exterior facing” should be “exterior-facing”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim 5 is 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 5, it is not clear how the side surfaces have apertures, and the apertures not extending thru the surfaces. The term aperture is defined as a “hole” considered to extend thru a surface and not a “cutout” or “groove” or “channel” in a surface not extending therethrough.
In claim 5, line 5, “the second set of apertures” has no antecedent basis.
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), as evidenced by LeBlang(6,401,417; 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; the disruption is considered both directions given that nothing structurally prevents this disruption) and the thermal bridging insulation is considered to be enhanced by the apertures/disruption.
Regarding claim 5, Pues discloses a wall framing stud, comprising:
an elongated singular body defining a vertical exterior-facing surface, a vertical interior-facing surface opposite the vertical exterior-facing surface and long vertical side surfaces spanning between the vertical exterior-facing surface and the vertical interior-facing surface(see column 2, lines 44-46), wherein at least one of a first or a second set of elongate apertures along the long vertical side surfaces of the elongated singular body are formed as vertically-aligned depth-defined apertures that do not penetrate through to another side of the long vertical side surfaces(see column 5, lines 56-65).
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 surfaces of studs is well known in the construction art(as evidenced by LeBlang, see 36 is Fig.1) and would have been obvious, given the disclosure of Pues, for a skilled artisan to have duplicated the apertures 118 of Pues, whether the apertures extend thru the surfaces or are grooves in the surfaces, and thereby provided apertures in both side surfaces of Pues to add an additional thermal bridge disruption and areas for cables and wires to be routed, if desired, given the intended use of the stud and design requirements thereof, such as new building codes. The specific relationship between and location of the apertures, and specific depth of the apertures, are considered features best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the stud and specific design requirements thereof, such as thermal bridge and insulation requirements and placement of wiring(if the aperture extends thru the surface).
Regarding claim 2, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claim 1, wherein the vertical exterior-facing surface and the interior-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 6, Pues discloses the wall framing stud of claim 4 wherein distal ends of the elongated 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 located 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 each of elongate apertures are configured to be spaced no less than one and one-half inch longitudinally from each other to maintain structural integrity(the ridges are 2 inches and therefore the spacing is at least 2 inches meeting the claim limitation, see column 5, lines 56-62 and Fig. 3A).
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).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous drawing objection and claim objections, and the 112 rejections and rejections of claims 5 and 11 as unpatentable in view of Pues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Pues reference and a first and second series of apertures have been carefully considered but not deemed persuasive. The Pues reference discloses a stud having apertures to disrupt a thermal bridge between the vertical exterior-facing surface and the vertical interior-facing surface(see column 5, lines 48-51), as discussed in the above rejection. The examiner agrees that the Pues reference does not disclose a second set of offset apertures but contends that it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan, when considering thermal bridging and wiring concerns and insulative requirements, to have duplicated the apertures of Pues in order to have enhanced the properties of the single series of apertures. In In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that the “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. The examiner argues that no unexpected result was found and that the advantages of the first series of apertures is considered to be duplicated resulting in a predictable enhanced thermal disruption to the stud, and further areas to receive wiring given the intended use of the stud and design requirements thereof. Applicant’s argument that the structural integrity of the stud may be compromised by the additional series of apertures is not persuasive. The use of plural series of apertures in a stud is considered well known in the construction art as evidenced by LeBlang and it is considered well within the purview of a skilled artisan to have provided the additional series of apertures, duplicated the apertures, in the Pues stud to enhance the properties of the first series of apertures while not reducing the structural integrity of the stud. Regarding the specific placement of the series, the examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would best determine the placement of the apertures through routine design experimentation.
Applicant’s argument regarding the drawing and claim objections and 112 rejections are moot given that the objection/rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument regarding the specification objection is not persuasive as the objection has been maintained as the amendment has not included the full paragraph as required by MPEP 608.01.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 2-4, 6-10 and 12-14 have been discussed above.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 5 is not persuasive and a new ground of rejection has been made in light of the amendments. The examiner argues that, as like the fully penetrating apertures, the addition of a second series of apertures would have been obvious for a skilled artisan given the intended use of the stud and design requirements thereof.
Applicant’s argument regarding the longitudinal spacing of the apertures a discussed above and disclosed by Pues.
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 BETH A. AUBREY(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. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights