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 .
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 8 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 clam 8, antecedent basis for a closest point on the first flange member and a closest point on the second flange member have previously been established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 USC as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16-18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burgess, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0237920.
Regarding claim 1, Burgess discloses a structural member comprising: a first and second flange members (14, 16, respectively), each having a front surface (portion abutting 44, see Fig. 3) facing each other and a back surface (opposing flange surface) non-facing each other; wherein the first flange member and second flange member are aligned alongside each other spaced at a distance X measured between a closest point on the first flange member and a closest point on the second flange member (the uniform distance between the flange members, see Fig. 2); and a plurality of discrete web members (18a, 18b), the plurality of discrete web members comprising at least two web members spaced apart from one another along a longitudinal direction of the first and second flange members (as shown in Fig. 9), each having plate portion (104) with a length (longitudinal direction), a width (height of the plate), a first edge region (106), a second edge region (other of 106), a third edge region distal portion of 102) and a fourth edge region (distal end of opposing 102), the first edge region and the second edge region lying across the width of the plate portion (see Fig. 3), the third edge region and the fourth edge region across the length of the plate portion (in the same manner as the present invention, see Fig. 2), the width of the plate portion defining the spacing between the first flange member and the second flange member (see Fig. 2), wherein each of the plurality of discrete web members is physically coupled to the first and second flange members by attaching to either the front surface or the back surface of each flange member (front surface, see Fig. 3), and the plurality of discrete web members are bent so that that the plate portion lies at an angle ranging between 90 and 110 degrees with the first flange member and second flange member (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein the web members are bent along an attachment line between the flange members and web members (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein the attachment line lies along a centerline of each of the first and second flange members (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein the lightweight construction element is I-shaped or U-shaped (I-shaped, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein prior to bending of the plurality of web members, the width of the plate portion is equal to or greater than distance X measured between a closest point on the first flange member and a closest point on the second flange member (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 10, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein the closest points for measuring distance X there between the flange members lie at respective edges of the first and second flange members at respective centerlines of the first and second flange members (the closest points lie on the entirety of the surfaces including the edge) or at respective points lying between the respective edges and the respective centerlines of the first and second flange members.
Regarding claim 12, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein the lightweight construction element comprises plastic, polymer, cardboard, wood, steel or other metals (paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 14, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein the lightweight construction element is manufactured in whole or in parts (inherently).
Regarding claim 16, Burgess discloses a structural member comprising the steps of: placing the first and second flange members alongside each other spaced at the distance X measured between the closest points on each flange member (as shown in Fig. 2); placing the plurality of discrete web members comprising at least two web members spaced apart from one another along a longitudinal direction of the first and second flange members spaced at a predetermined distance either on the front surface or back surface of the flange members respectively with their first and second edge regions respectively on the first and second flange members (as shown in Fig. 9); and coupling the plurality of web members to the flange members along a predetermined attachment line (see Fig. 3, generally).
Regarding claim 17, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein the web members are planar web members and require bending of the web members along the attachment line at an angle ranging between 90 - 110 degrees (see Fig. 3, generally).
Regarding claim 18, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein the plurality of web members are pre-formed and the first and second edge regions are at an angle ranging from 90 to 110 degrees to the plate portion (see Fig. 3, generally).
Regarding claim 20, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein the coupling is done by screwing, riveting, bolting, nailing, welding, clinching or crimping (as shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 21, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein the coupling is done on the front surface or back surface of the flange members (see Fig. 3, generally).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 11, 15, 19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0237920.
Regarding claim 2, Burgess discloses a structural member but does not specifically disclose wherein the web members are spaced at a distance of 50 to 300 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the web members at a distance of 50 to 300 mm depending on the design loads and the strength required.
Regarding claim 11, Burgess discloses a structural member but does not specifically disclose wherein the web members are spaced such that length of the web member is not equal to the length of the flange members. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the web members at a distance of according to a spacing required by the design loads and the strength required, including such that a that length of the web member is not equal to the length of the flange members.
Regarding claim 15, Burgess discloses a structural member but does not specifically disclose wherein the lightweight construction element is a drywall stud. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, depending on the structure and design loads, the truss may be oriented vertically and drywall may be attached if drywall is a user’s choice of cladding.
Regarding claim 19, Burgess discloses a structural member but does not specifically disclose wherein the predetermined distance ranges between 50 - 300 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the web members at a distance of 50 to 300 mm depending on the design loads and the strength required.
Regarding claim 22, Burgess discloses a structural member wherein the attachment line lies along a centerline of each of the first and second flange members (see Fig. 3, generally) or along the edges of the first and second flange members, respectively lying closest to each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 06/30/2026 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.
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 GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights