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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0058514).
Regarding claim 1, Wu et al. discloses a wall capable of being a smart self-centered shear wall (SSCSW) system (Fig. 1) comprising a set of frame columns (1 and 2) joined to a set of frame beams (3 and 4) that define an area with at least three corners; a “shear wall” (45) mounted within the area; a gusset plate (33) affixed in each one of the at least three corners of the area; a connection plate (11) with at least three attachment points. Wu et al. disclose a set of connecting elements (12) each having a first end and a second end, the first end of each of the connecting element is attached to one of the gusset plates (33) in one of the at least three corners, and the second end is connected to one of the attachment points on the connection plate (11), but does not disclose the braces being a set of cables formed of shaped memory alloy material (SMA). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the clamed invention to have used connecting elements that were cables formed of shaped memory alloy material to provide the necessary strength and connection as an alternative and known connection means, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using one connecting element made of one material over another.
Regarding claim 2, Wu et al. discloses a set of vertical side stiffeners (5 and 6) but does not disclose a set of horizontal side stiffeners. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stiffeners located on both the vertical and horizontal beams as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 3, Wu et al. discloses each of the connection elements first ends are attached to a connector (13), the connector configured for attachment to one of the gusset plates (Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, Wu et al. discloses the SMA cables as set forth above but does not disclose wherein each of the SMA cable second ends are attached to an open jaw socket, the open jaw socket configured for attachment to the connection plate. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second ends of the SMA cable have an attachment feature such as jaw sockets that are known to cable endings and would be configured to attach to the connection plate.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Wu et al. discloses the system as set forth above with fastening means but does not disclose a first set of nuts and corresponding bolts having M5 threads to secure each of the connectors to the gusset plates. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nuts and corresponding bolts with M5 threads to fasten the connectors to the gusset plates as a known and alternative fastening method, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or predictable results from using known fasteners such as nuts and bolts to connect various parts.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Wu et al. discloses the system as set forth above with fastening means but does not disclose a second set of nuts and corresponding bolts with M10 threads to secure each of the open jaw sockets to the connection plate. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nuts and corresponding bolts with M10 threads to fasten the connectors to the gusset plates as a known and alternative fastening method, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or predictable results from using known fasteners such as nuts and bolts to connect various parts.
Regarding claim 9, Wu et al. discloses the set of connection devices that are arranged in an X shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Wu et al. discloses each of the connection devices are configured to deform and subsequently recover their initial shape.
Regarding claim 11, Wu et al. discloses each of the SMA cables as set forth above but does not disclose each are configured to recover their shape after experiencing deformation up to 14% of its original length. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cable that inherently has a degree of deformation where it could deform up to 14% of its original length.
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Wu et al. discloses the SMA cables as set forth above but does not disclose any or all the cables being pre-stressed. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cables that were prestressed to provide the additional and necessary strength that supported structure requires.
Regarding claims 13-14, Wu et al. discloses the SMA cables having first and second ends as set forth above being attached to the gusset plate or connection plate by a fastening means but does not disclose the first end or the second end of each of the cables being attached to the gusset plate by a pre-stressing nut. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a pre-stressing nut that would be suitable for a cable that may be pre-stressed as a known fastening means used in conjunction together.
Regarding claim 16, Wu et al. discloses the set of frame columns joined to the set of frame beams that are formed of steel (Para [0027]).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Wu et al. discloses the set of frame columns being joined to the set of frame beams as set forth above but does not disclose are formed of reinforced concrete containing SMA bars. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to have a building frame made from any known and suitable material for building construction including reinforced concrete containing SMA bars, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using a reinforced concrete material.
Regarding claim 19, Wu et al. discloses the area is rectilinear and at least three corners is four corners (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
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 JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights