DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/795,893.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are examined.
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.
Claims 2-11 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.
Claim 2 defines “the plywood,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since “at least one plywood panel” has been previously defined and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know which of such panels of the at least one plywood panel is considered to comprise “the plywood.” Furthermore, the drawings and specification do not depict nor disclose a metal strap disposed centrally down a single one of the panels between the edges thereof and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether “the plywood” requires at least two panels and the second strap placed centrally between them or whether such limitations allow for use of a single plywood panel with a centrally positioned metal strap between its vertical edges. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, “the plywood” is considered to refer to “the at least one plywood panel” as a whole, where two panels can be used to meet such a limitation. Claim 4 includes similar limitations and is similarly rejected and interpreted. Claims 3 and 5-11 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 2 or 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Commins et al. (U.S. Patent 6,643,986).
Regarding claim 1, Commins et al. disclose a shear wall system (see figure 4) comprising:
a framed wall section including: a plurality of framing members including a first end post (the left vertical end post #2 of figure 4) and a second end post (the right vertical end post #2 of figure 4) and at least one vertical framing member (#11) disposed between the first end post and the second end post (see figure 4); a mudsill plate (the bottom horizontal plate #2 of figure 4) coupled to a bottom end of the plurality of framing members (see figure 4); and a double top plate (the two top horizontal plates #2 of figure 4) coupled to a top end of the plurality of framing members (see figure 4), the top end being opposite from the bottom end (see figure 4);
at least one plywood panel (#1) fastened to a first side of the framed wall section (see figure 4) with a first metal gauge strap (the left strap #21 of figure 4 is considered to attach the panel #1 to the wall, where such a strap is constructed from metal; see col. 8, ll. 4-6), the first metal gauge strap being disposed along a first edge of the plywood panel (see figure 4), the first metal gauge strap having a plurality of holes (the holes through which fasteners #7 extend through; see col. 8, ll. 22-26) and being secured to the plywood panel and a first portion of the framed wall section by a first plurality of nails (#7; see col. 8, ll.47-49) passing through the plurality of holes, the plywood panel and at least a portion of the framed wall section (see figures 3 and 4); and
a second plurality of nails securing a central portion of the plywood panel to the at least one vertical framing member, wherein the second plurality of nails are installed at about 6 inches on center (Col. 8, ll. 59-61 disclose the plywood #1 is to be field nailed to the portions of the frame not located at the perimeter of the panels #1 at 6 to 12 inches on center, where the only other location where the panels #1 are located over the frame #6 that is not the perimeter is at the location of the vertical posts #11. See also col. 11, ll. 56-58.).
Regarding claim 2, Commins et al. disclose a second metal gauge strap disposed vertically down a center portion of the plywood (see figure 4, where metal straps #21 extend in the central portion of the plywood assembly #1 so as to extend between two panels #1)
Regarding claim 4, Commins et al. disclose a ductile metal gauge strap disposed vertically down a center of the plywood (see figure 4, where metal straps #21 extend in the central portion of the plywood assembly #1 so as to extend between two panels #1, where col. 8, ll. 2-6 disclose such straps can be constructed from 20 gauge steel and thus are considered ductile).
Regarding claim 6, Commins et al. disclose the ductile metal gauge strap includes a plurality of cutouts (Col. 8, ll. 22-26 discloses openings can be provided within such straps #21/20 for such a plurality of nails, where half of such openings can be considered the plurality of openings for purposes of rejecting claim 1 and the other half of the openings can be considered a plurality of cutouts as broadly defined).
Regarding claim 12, Commins et al. disclose a second metal gauge strap (the strap #21 on the right side of the left panel #1 of figure 4) being disposed along a second edge of the plywood panel (see figure 4); a third metal gauge strap (the top strap #21 of figure 4) being disposed along a top edge of the plywood panel (see figure 4); and a fourth metal gauge strap (the bottom strap #21 of figure 4) disposed along a bottom edge of the plywood panel (see figure 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Commins et al., or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Commins et al.
Regarding claim 3, Commins et al. discloses a center post (the central post #2 of figure 4) disposed central and parallel to the first and second end posts (see figure 4), and wherein the at least one plywood panel includes two plywood panels (#1; see figure 4), the two plywood panels having corresponding adjacent edges disposed over the center post and wherein the second metal gauge strap spans across the adjacent edges of the two plywood panels (As depicted in figure 4, the metal strap can be considered formed by the back to back U-shaped channels #21 formed between adjacent plywood panels #1 at the central portion of the assembly so as to span across the adjacent edges of the two adjacent panels #1. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Commins et al. as comprising of a single second metal gauge strap that spans such a gap as defined, Commins et al. teach in col. 6, ll. 11-19 that such means for reducing bending can be a plurality of clips #17 or integrally formed as a single perimeter edging member #18 and where such a means for reducing bending can be a U-shaped channel #21 or a flat sheet #20 provided over the outer edge of the plywood panels as depicted in figure 12. Furthermore, the court in Howard v. Detroit Stove Works held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the second metal strap of Commins et al. to be a single piece of material that spans across both edges of the two adjacent plywood panels in order to further strengthen the area between panels and also since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).).
Regarding claim 5, Commins et al. disclose a center post (the central post #2 of figure 4) disposed central and parallel to the first and second end posts (see figure 4), and wherein the at least one plywood panel includes two plywood panels (#1; see figure 4), the two plywood panels having corresponding adjacent middle edges disposed over the center post and wherein the ductile metal gauge strap spans across the adjacent edges of the two plywood panels (As depicted in figure 4, the metal strap can be considered formed by the back to back U-shaped channels #21 formed between adjacent plywood panels #1 at the central portion of the assembly so as to span across the adjacent edges of the two adjacent panels #1. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Commins et al. as comprising of a single ductile metal gauge strap that spans the gap as defined, Commins et al. teach in col. 6, ll. 11-19 that such means for reducing bending can be a plurality of clips #17 or integrally formed as a single perimeter edging member #18 and where such a means for reducing bending can be a U-shaped channel #21 or a flat sheet #20 provided over the outer edge of the plywood panels as depicted in figure 12. Furthermore, the court in Howard v. Detroit Stove Works held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the second metal strap of Commins et al. to be a single piece of material that spans across both edges of the two adjacent plywood panels in order to further strengthen the area between panels and also since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).).
Regarding claim 14, Commins et al. disclose a shear wall system (see figure 4) comprising:
a framed wall section including: a plurality of framing members including: a first end post (the left vertical end post #2 of figure 4), a second end post (the right vertical end post #2 of figure 4), a center post (the middle post #2 of figure 4) disposed centrally between the first post and the second end post (see figure 4), at least one first vertical framing member (the left member #11 of figure 4) disposed between the first end post and the center post (see figure 4); at least one second vertical framing member (the right member #11 of figure 4) disposed between the second end post and the center post (see figure 4), a mudsill plate (the bottom horizontal plate #2 of figure 4) coupled to a bottom end of the plurality of framing members (see figure 4); and a double top plate (the two top horizontal plates #2 of figure 4) coupled to a top end of the plurality of framing members (see figure 4), the top end being opposite from the bottom end (see figure 4);
a first plywood panel (the left panel #1 of figure 4) disposed on a first side of the framed wall section (see figure 4), wherein the first plywood panel is secured to the first end post, the center post, the double top plate and the mudsill plate (see figure 4);
a second plywood panel (the right panel #1 of figure 4) disposed on the first side of the framed wall section (see figure 4) wherein the second plywood panel is secured to the second end post, the center post, the double top plate and the mudsill plate (see figure 4) and wherein the second plywood panel includes a second plywood panel middle edge disposed adjacent to a first plywood panel middle edge of the first plywood panel (the panel edges which are adjacent one another over the center post #2 of figure 4);
a ductile metal gauge strap (see figure 4, where metal straps #21 extend in the central portion of the plywood assembly #1 so as to extend between two panels #1, where col. 8, ll. 2-6 disclose such straps can be constructed from 20 gauge steel and thus are considered ductile) spanning across the adjacent first middle edge and second middle edge (As depicted in figure 4, the metal strap can be considered formed by the back to back U-shaped channels #21 formed between adjacent plywood panels #1 at the central portion of the assembly so as to span across the adjacent edges of the two adjacent panels #1. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Commins et al. as comprising of a single ductile metal gauge strap spanning the gap as defined, Commins et al. teach in col. 6, ll. 11-19 that such means for reducing bending can be a plurality of clips #17 or integrally formed as a single perimeter edging member #18 and where such a means for reducing bending can be a U-shaped channel #21 or a flat sheet #20 provided over the outer edge of the plywood panels as depicted in figure 12. Furthermore, the court in Howard v. Detroit Stove Works held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the second metal strap of Commins et al. to be a single piece of material that spans across both edges of the two adjacent plywood panels in order to further strengthen the area between panels and also since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).), the ductile metal gauge being secured to the first plywood panel, the second plywood panel and the center post by a first plurality of nails (#7; see figure 4);
a second plurality of nails securing a central portion of the first plywood panel to the at least one first vertical framing member, wherein the second plurality of nails are installed at about 6 inches on center (Col. 8, ll. 59-61 disclose the plywood #1 is to be field nailed to the portions of the frame not located at the perimeter of the panels #1 at 6 to 12 inches on center, where the only other location where the panels #1 are located over the frame #6 that is not the perimeter is at the location of the vertical posts #11. See also col. 11, ll. 56-58.); and
a third plurality of nails securing a central portion of the second plywood panel to the at least one second vertical framing member, wherein the third plurality of nails are installed at about 6 inches on center (Col. 8, ll. 59-61 disclose the plywood #1 is to be field nailed to the portions of the frame not located at the perimeter of the panels #1 at 6 to 12 inches on center, where the only other location where the panels #1 are located over the frame #6 that is not the perimeter is at the location of the vertical posts #11. See also col. 11, ll. 56-58.).
Regarding claim 15, Commins et al. disclose a method of constructing a shear wall comprising:
building a framed wall section (the frame of figure 4) including a plurality of vertical framing members (outer posts #2 of figure 4) and a center post (center post #2 of figure 4) disposed between and secured to a top plate (the top plate #2 of figure 4) and a bottom plate (the bottom plate #2 of figure 4);
securing a first plywood panel (the left panel #1 of figure 4) to a first side of the framed wall section (see figure 4);
securing a second plywood panel (the right panel #1 of figure 4) to a first side of the framed wall section (see figure 4); wherein the first plywood panel has a first middle edge (the right vertical edge of figure 4) and the second plywood panel has a second middle edge (the left edge of figure 4) disposed adjacent to the first middle edge (see figure 4); and
securing a ductile metal gauge strap (see figure 4, where metal straps #21 extend in the central portion of the plywood assembly #1 so as to extend between two panels #1, where col. 8, ll. 2-6 disclose such straps can be constructed from 20 gauge steel and thus are considered ductile) disposed along a length of the first middle edge and spanning across the first middle edge and second middle edge (As depicted in figure 4, the metal strap can be considered formed by the back to back U-shaped channels #21 formed between adjacent plywood panels #1 at the central portion of the assembly so as to span across the adjacent edges of the two adjacent panels #1. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Commins et al. as comprising of a single ductile metal gauge strap as defined, Commins et al. teach in col. 6, ll. 11-19 that such means for reducing bending can be a plurality of clips #17 or integrally formed as a single perimeter edging member #18 and where such a means for reducing bending can be a U-shaped channel #21 or a flat sheet #20 provided over the outer edge of the plywood panels as depicted in figure 12. Furthermore, the court in Howard v. Detroit Stove Works held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. 150 U.S. 164 (1993). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the second metal strap of Commins et al. to be a single piece of material that spans across both edges of the two adjacent plywood panels in order to further strengthen the area between panels and also since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).), wherein a first plurality of nails (#7; see figure 4) secure the ductile metal gauge strap through the first plywood panel and the second plywood panel and into the center post (see figure 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Commins et al. in view of Bodnar (U.S. Patent 4,793,113).
Regarding claim 7, Commins et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the plurality of cutouts have a substantially triangular shape. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bodnar, that such U-shaped channel elements of a wall frame can comprise of a web #28/30 and two flange portions #24/26, where the web #28/30 can comprise of alternating triangular cutouts #46 in order to reduce the transfer of heat and sound through such a metal element. See col. 1, ll. 27-33. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the ductile metal gauge strap of Commins, such as the U-shaped or integral I-shaped straps as explained above, to comprise of a web with a plurality of cutouts with a substantially triangular shape, as taught in Bodnar, in order to decrease the costs of construction of such elements by using less material but also reducing the heat transfer of such an element through the system.
Regarding claim 8, when Commins et al. is modified in view of Bodnar as explained above in the rejection of claim 7, such triangular cutouts of Commins et al. in view of Bodnar would comprise of alternating orientations of triangle cutouts to form a plurality of diagonal web sections #38 between such triangular cutouts as depicted in figure 2 of Bodnar.
Regarding claim 9, though Commins et al. in view of Bodnar do not specifically disclose the plurality of diagonal web sections have a width of between 0.2 inches and 0.6 inches, such dimensions are considered to relate to the thickness of such metal sections extending between one side of the strap and the other and thus would considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to balance the costs of constructing such a strap with the strength needed. The court in In re Aller held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art could use routine experimentation in order to provide the proper balance between cost, strength, and heat transfer through such a strap and it would have been obvious to have constructed the diagonal web sections of Commins et al. in view of Bodnar to have a width between 0.2 and 0.6 inches in order to provide such an appropriate balance between cost and strength and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, when Commins et al. is modified in view of Bodnar as explained above in the rejection of claim 7, such a prior art strap would comprise of a plurality of triangular cutouts that are disposed offset and alternating across a width of the ductile metal gauge strap as depicted in figure 2 of Bodnar.
Regarding claim 11, when Commins et al. is modified in view of Bodnar as explained above in the rejection of claim 7, because the maximum width of the triangular cutouts of Bodnar extend to about or over 50% of the total width of the web, there is at least one portion of the triangular cutout that has a width that is equal to 50% of the total width of the strap as defined, where such features would be provided within Commins et al. as explained above. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the prior art of record to meet such limitations as explained above, such a dimension for the width of the cutouts is considered to relate to the amount of material used to construct such metal sections and thus would be constructed in a manner to balance the costs of constructing such a strap with the strength needed. The court in In re Aller held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art could use routine experimentation in order to provide the proper balance between cost, strength, and heat transfer through such a strap of the prior art and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the cutouts of the straps of Commins et al. in view of Bodnar to have a width equal to 50 percent of a width of the strap in order to provide such an appropriate balance between cost and strength and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Commins et al. in view of Pryor (U.S. Publication 2006/0037256).
Regarding claim 10, Commins et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the plurality of cutouts are disposed offset and alternating across a width of the ductile metal gauge strap. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Pryor, that such shear wall plates #39 can be constructed with apertures/cutouts for receiving nails #15, where the nails are alternated on left and right sides of the plate #39 along the length of the plates. See figure 2D. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the cutouts of the metal straps of Commins et al. to comprise of cutouts that alternate across the width of the strap, as taught in Pryor, in order to increase the strength of the connection of the plywood panels to the framing of the wall by increasing the number of connections between such elements.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Commins et al. in view of Rhodebeck et al. (U.S. Publication 2003/0230042).
Regarding claim 13, Commins et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the first strap has a width of between 1.5 and 3 inches. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Rhodebeck et al., that the U-shaped edge straps #33 can comprise of legs #60 and #61 that comprise of a height/width of about 1.25 to 2.5 inches. See paragraph 49. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the width of the first trap of Commins to be between about 1.5 and 3 inches, such as 1.25 to 2.5 inches as taught in Rhodebeck et al., in order to properly cover and abut studs of common widths and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635