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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the web flange of the upper extension member must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. Para. 110 discloses a web flange 166, but such is not shown in the drawings. No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 10 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “flange” in claim 10 is used by the claim to mean wall or section connected at both edges, while the accepted meaning is “a projecting edge on an object”, Collins.com. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Elements 122-126 are disclosed as flanges, but they are clearly not projecting edges.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-15, 18-20 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (6,170,217) in view of Stal (9,290,940)).
1.Meyer teaches a cold-formed beam comprising:
an upper member (the upper chord, fig. 2);
a lower member (the lower chord, fig. 2); and
a web (the beam web between the top and bottom chords) between the upper member and the lower member;
wherein the upper member, the lower member, and the web of at least a portion of the cold-formed beam are formed from a single sheet (col. 2, lines 33-36). Meyer does not teach the upper member comprises an upper extension member on at least one end, wherein the upper extension member extends past the web, the upper extension member, like all the other members formed from the single sheet. Stal, figs. 2,7, teaches an upper member 20 comprises an upper extension member (the part that extends to the left, fig. 7) on at least one end, wherein the upper extension member extends past the web, fig. 2.7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Meyer upper member to comprise an upper extension member on at least one end, wherein the upper extension member extends past the web by extending the Meyer upper member further out just as taught by Stal (to allow the joist to be positioned on an I-beam, fig. 2), the Meyer in view of Stal upper extension member, like all the other Meyer members formed from the single sheet because the modification is to extend the Meyer upper member further out just as the Stal upper member is extended, the Meyer in view of Stal upper extension member being a single sheet with the upper member.
2.Meyer in view of Stal teaches the beam of claim 1, Meyer in view of Stal further teaching the single sheet is rolled to form the upper member, the upper extension member, the lower member, and the web (col. 2, lines 33-36).
3. Meyer in view of Stal teaches the beam of claim 1, Meyer further teaching the upper member comprises an upper web flange 240 that extends over at least a portion of the web.
4.Meyer in view of Stal teaches the beam of claim 3, Meyer further teaching the lower member comprises a lower web flange 240 that extends over at least a portion of the web.
5.Meyer in view of Stal teaches the beam of claim 4, Meyer further teaching the upper web flange is operatively coupled to the web and the lower web flange is operatively coupled to the web through the use of a plurality of beam connectors 230.
6.Meyer in view of Stal teaches the beam of claim 5, Meyer further teaching the plurality of beam connectors comprise: an interference connector (“clench press”) formed by deforming a portion of the upper web flange and the web, and a portion of the lower web flange and the web, col. 5, lines 32-34.
7.Meyer in view of Stal teaches the beam of claim 5, Meyer further teaching the plurality of beam connectors comprise: welding (“welding”) the upper web flange to the web and the lower web flange to the web, or assembling fasteners (“screws”) through the upper web flange and the web and the lower web flange and the web, col. 5, lines 32-34).
8. While fig. 1 clearly shows beam connectors 230 are formed between a range of 2 inches to 24 inches along the length of the beam, the written description does not expressly disclose such spacing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for beam connectors 230 to be formed between a range of 2 inches to 24 inches along the length of the beam for strength.
11. Meyer in view of Stal teaches the beam of claim 1, Meyer further teaching the web comprises: a plurality of stamped apertures extending through the web, col. 4, lines 17-23.
12. Meyer in view of Stal teaches the beam of claim 11, Stal further teaches stamped apertures comprise circular apertures, col. 9, lines 4-12. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the stamped apertures to comprise circular apertures for strength.
13. Meyer in view of Stal teaches the beam of claim 11, Stal further teaches stamped apertures comprise triangle apertures, col. 9, lines 4-12. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the stamped apertures to comprise circular apertures for strength.
14. Meyer in view of Stal teaches the beam of claim 1, Meyer further teaching the plurality of stamped aperture comprise polygonal apertures (four sided apertures).
15. Meyer in view Stal teaches the beam of claim 11, Meyer further teaching at least a portion of the web around the plurality of stamped apertures comprise at least one embossment 220, fig. 1.
18. Meyer teaches a structural system, the system comprising:
support members 610;
cold formed beams, the cold-formed beams comprising:
an upper member (the upper chord, fig. 2);
a lower member (the lower chord, fig. 2); and
a web (the beam web between the top and bottom chords) between the upper member and the lower member; wherein the upper member, the lower member, and the web are formed from forming a sheet, col. 2, lines 33-36; wherein ends of the plurality of cold formed beams are operatively coupled to two of the plurality of support members, fig. 6. Meyer does not teach at least one of the plurality of cold formed beams comprises an upper extension member on at least one end of the upper member, wherein the upper extension member extends past the web; wherein the upper member, the upper extension member, the lower member, and the web of at least a portion of the at least one of the plurality of cold formed beams are formed from a single sheet.
Stal, figs. 2,7, teaches an upper member 20 comprises an upper extension member (the part that extends to the left, fig. 7) on at least one end, wherein the upper extension member extends past the web, fig. 2.7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Meyer upper member to comprise an upper extension member on at least one end, wherein the upper extension member extends past the web by extending the Meyer upper member further out just as taught by Stal (to allow the joist to be positioned on an I-beam, fig. 2), the Meyer in view of Stal upper extension member, like all the other Meyer members formed from the single sheet because the modification is to extend the Meyer upper member further out just as the Stal upper member is extended, the Meyer in view of Stal upper extension member being a single sheet with the upper member.
19.Meyer teaches the structural system of claim 18, Meyer in view of Stal further teaching the sheet is a single sheet that is rolled to form the upper member, upper extension, the lower member, and the web, col. 2, lines 33-36.
20. Meyer teaches a method of forming a cold formed beam, the method comprising:
rolling a steel sheet to form an upper member, a lower member, and a web between the upper member and the lower member, col. 2, lines 33-36; stamping the web to form web apertures, col. 4, lines 17-23; and forming beam connectors, col. 5, lines 32-34, between an upper flange and the web and a lower flange and the web.
Meyer does not teach rolling the sheet to also form an upper extension member. Stal teaches an upper extension member 20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to roll an upper extension member from the sheet to allow the beam to rest on a beam or wall, the upper extension member being an extension of the upper member, and thus rolled from the sheet.
Claims 9-10 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Stal and in further view of Walker (2002/0020138).
9.The Meyer upper and lower members do not comprise a square or rectangular member, although Applicant discloses that the shape can be other than just rectangular or square, para. 84. In any case, Walker teaches that upper and lower members can comprise square, rectangular member, and “any similar geometric shape which would present a double wall for a fastening means”, para. 31. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Meyer upper and lower members to comprise a square or rectangular member to improve the “securing means”, para. 9.
10. Meyer in view of Stal and in further view of Walker teaches the beam of claim 9, Meyer in view of Walker further teaching the square member or the rectangular member (a Meyer in view of Stal and Walker beam in which the Meyer upper and lower members are square or rectangular) comprises: a first leg extending from the web; a second leg extending from the first flange; a third leg extending from the second leg; and a fourth leg extending from the third leg; wherein a web flange (240 of Meyer/226 of Walker) extends from the fourth leg over at least a portion of the web.
Claim 16 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Stal and in further view of Lam (2014/0230343).
Meyer in view of Stal teaches the beam of claim 1, Meyer further teaching a web flange 210/240. Meyer in view of Stal does not teach a radius web transition between the Meyer web and web flange of the Meyer in view of Stal upper extension member. Lam teaches a radius web “transition 22” between a web and web flange 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a radius web transition to be between the web and the Meyer web flange of the upper extension member to reinforce the connection at the web.
Claim 17 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Stal, in further view of Lam and in yet further view of Strickland (11,459,755).
Meyer in view of Stal and in further view of Lam does not teach a seat support operatively coupled to the upper extension member. Strickland teaches a seat support 42 operatively coupled to an upper extension member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operatively couple a seat support to the upper extension member to be better secure the beam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference (see new reference Stal) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights