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 8, 9, 13 and 15 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.
With respect to claims 8, 9, 13 and 15, the claims are indefinite because it is unclear what concentric and eccentric mean in the context of this application and the specification does not provide any clarification as to what it means for a member to be connected eccentrically or concentrically to the chords. For examining purposes, the examiner is reading the claims as best understood which is what is shown in figure 1.
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, 2, 5-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over diGirolamo et al. US 6,892,504 B1 (hereinafter ‘diGirolamo’).
In regard to claim 1, diGirolamo teaches a hybrid frame-wall system (10), comprising:
a plurality of primary vertical load bearing supports (16);
at least one pair of chords (100 at each end);
a lateral load resisting assembly including at least one pair of diagonal tension only bracing elements (140) and at least one pair of diagonal reinforcement bracing elements (22);
at least one top track (12) positioned along a top end of the plurality of primary vertical load bearing supports and the chords; and
at least one bottom track (14) positioned along a bottom end of the plurality of primary vertical load bearing supports and the chords;
wherein a wall assembly is formed collectively by the plurality of primary vertical load bearing supports, the at least one pair of chords, the at least one top and bottom tracks (see fig. 15).
Although diGirolamo does not explicitly disclose that elements 140 are tension only bracing elements, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily conclude that a thin metal strap extending diagonally like element 140 provides a tensile load path thus loaded in tension since its attached only at the ends and because DiGirolamo discloses that the straps increase the load capacity of the wall.
In regard to claim 2, diGirolamo teaches the claimed invention wherein the at least one pair of diagonal reinforcement bracing elements are installed within a plane of the wall assembly (see fig. 1).
In regard to claims 5 and 18, diGirolamo teaches the claimed invention wherein the at least one pair of reinforcement brace elements are prestressing strands (see col. 3, ln. 67 to col. 4, ln. 2).
In regard to claims 6 and 20, diGirolamo teaches the diagonal tension only bracing elements are straps of a metal construction (see col. 7, ln. 4) but does not explicitly recite they are cold formed steel (CFS) straps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide the straps of cold formed steel as this is the material commonly used for this type of construction as it provides substantial structural capacity while remaining lightweight.
In regard to claims 7 and 19, diGirolamo teaches the claimed invention wherein the at least one pair of chords are hollow structural members (see fig. 8 and col. 6, ln. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make it of steel so as to provide a high load capacity for the wall.
In regard to claims 8, 9, 13 and 15, diGirolamo teaches, as best understood, the claimed invention wherein each diagonal reinforcement bracing element is connected eccentrically to a corresponding chord and each diagonal tension only bracing element is connected concentrically to a corresponding chord (see figures 1, 9 and 13).
In regard to claim 10, diGirolamo teaches a hybrid frame-wall system (10), comprising:
a plurality of primary vertical load bearing supports (16), a pair of chords (100 at each end), a top track (12) and a bottom track; and
a lateral force resisting assembly integrated within the structural framework (see fig. 15), wherein the lateral force resisting assembly is configured to increase the lateral load resistance of the structure (col. 7, ln. 50);
wherein the lateral force resisting assembly includes the pair of chords, one or more pairs of prestressing strand braces (22 -see col. 4, ln. 9) and at least one pair of cold formed steel tension only bracing elements (140).
Although diGirolamo does not explicitly disclose that elements 140 are cold formed steel tension only bracing elements, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily conclude that a thin metal strap extending diagonally like element 140 provides a tensile load path thus loaded in tension since its attached only at the ends and because DiGirolamo discloses that the straps increase the load capacity of the wall.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide the straps of cold formed steel as this is the material commonly used for this type of construction as it provides substantial structural capacity while remaining lightweight.
In regard to claim 11, diGirolamo teaches the claimed invention wherein the one or more one pairs of prestressing strand braces are installed within a plane of the wall assembly (see fig. 1).
In regard to claims 12 and 14, diGirolamo teaches the claimed invention wherein each pair of prestressing strand braces is diagonally positioned in the wall system and in parallel position relative to one another (this is clearly shown in figs. 1 and 15).
In regard to claim 16, the examiner takes the position that the claimed method is necessitated by the wall system of diGirolamo because all the structural limitations are taught by diGirolamo as noted in the above rejection for claim 1, and because the vertical load bearing supports are positioned as claimed, and the diagonal tension only elements and the at least one pair of diagonal reinforcement bracing elements are connected as claimed.
Claims 3, 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over diGirolamo in view of Park Jung Ja KR 102294580 B1 (hereinafter ‘Park’) -Reference and machine translation provided by Applicant.
In regard to claims 3, 4 and 17, diGirolamo does not explicitly teach two pairs (a plurality) of diagonal reinforcement bracing elements, which are installed within a plane of the wall assembly.
Park teaches a frame wall system comprising a lateral load resisting assembly comprising three pairs (including two) of diagonal reinforcement bracing elements (20 -see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide three (and two) pairs of diagonal reinforcement bracing elements in the wall of diGirolamo, as taught by Park, so as to provide for a more stable shear wall (see Park [0040]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 5PM.
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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights