DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 8/23/2024. Claims 1-12 are pending and are under consideration.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 1/7/2025 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/23/2024 are objected to for the following informalities:
Figures 1-18D, the poor line quality and shading renders part or all of the drawing illegible when reproduced. 37 CFR 1.84(l) (m) and (p)(1). 37 CFR 1.84(l) recites, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.” Applicant is requested to submit replacement sheets that are higher definition, crisper black lines.
Figures 16A-16B, the drawings do not have any reference characters. Applicant is requested to submit replacement drawings that each have at least one reference character pointing to an element or feature of the invention that is described in the specification.
Figures 18E-18F, the drawings appear to be photographs. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto-radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. See 37 CFR 1.84 MPEP 608.02. Applicant is required to submit replacement drawings in the form of black lines on a white background.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because of the following inconsistences:
reference character “105” has been used to designate both “receiving bore” and “fastener bore”;
reference character “109” has been used to designate both “truncated tips” and “double-legs”;
reference character “113” has been used to designate “panel”, “retaining means” and “fastener head”; and
reference character “116” has been used to designate “central portion”, and “hollow opening”.
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. 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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, “each leg in said plurality of legs” is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the plurality of legs” or equivalent.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 1, “the configuration” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to describe a shape of the load plate? See also claims 2-4, 7 and 9.
Claim 10, “each corner of said drywall panel” is indefinite because the claims do not previously require more than one corner. This rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining each of the drywall panels as having a plurality of corners. See also claim 11.
Claim 11, “an adhesive” is indefinite because claim 10 previously recites an adhesive and it is unclear whether the adhesive is intended to be the same or different than the previously recited adhesive. As currently recited, the claim requires two adhesives. If the adhesive is the same adhesive as recited in claim 10, this rejection can be overcome by reciting, “said adhesive” or equivalent. See also claim 12.
Claim 12, “providing a second drywall panel” is indefinite because claim 11 previously recites a second drywall panel. Does applicant intend for the limitation to require a third drywall panel?
Claim 12, “a first mending plate” is indefinite because claim 9 previously recites a plurality of mending plates. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to one of the previously recited plurality of mending plates? If so, this rejection can be overcome by reciting, “a first mending plate of the plurality of mending plates” or equivalent.
Claim 12, “said mending plate” is indefinite because the claims previously recites a plurality of mending plates and a first mending plate. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the first mending plate? If so, this rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the first mending plate” or equivalent.
The remainder of claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base claim.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chong (US 20130034383).
Claim 1, Chong provides a reinforcing bracket comprising:
a load plate 220 in the configuration of a polygonal prism (Fig. 5A), said load plate comprising a top side (top side of 220) and an opposing bottom side (bottom side of 220);
a plurality of fastener bores 238 extending through said load plate from said top side to said opposing bottom side (Fig. 5A); and
a plurality of legs (230, 232) extending downward from an outside surface of said load plate (Fig. 5A).
Claim 2, Chong further provides wherein said load plate is generally in the configuration of a triangular prism having truncated tips (Fig. 5A).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (US 20130034383) in view of Hikai et al. (US 7797902) (‘Hikai’).
Claim 3, Chong teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as above. Chong does not teach wherein said load plate is generally in the configuration of a right triangular prism having truncated tips. However, Hikai teaches a backing metal fixture and external wall constructing structure using the same, the backing metal fixture comprising a load plate (Fig. 1a) that is generally in the configuration of a right triangular prism having truncated tips (Fig. 1a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the load plate to be generally in the configuration of a right triangular prism having truncated tips, with the reasonable expectation of success of improving the strength of the load plate, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 4, as modified above, the combination of Chong and Hikai teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches wherein said load plate further comprises a central portion generally in the configuration of a right triangular prism (Chong 234; note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the tips of 234 do not come to a peak to form a perfect triangular prism and thus the shape constitutes generally a configuration of a right triangular prism, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5A; alternatively, Hikai element 75 could be considered a central portion). In the event that applicant disagrees that the shape constitutes a configuration of a right triangular prism in Chong, or the alternative interpretation is considered, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to modify the central portion of Chong, or alternatively element 75 of Hikai to be generally in the configuration of a right triangular prism, with the reasonable expectation of success of lowering stress concentration at sharp corners, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 5, as modified above, the combination of Chong and Hikai teaches all the limitations of claim 4, and further teaches wherein said central portion comprises a hollow opening (Hikai 75).
Claim 6, Chong and Hikai teach all the limitations of claim 4 as above. Chong further teaches said load plate further comprising a raised lip adjacent to and partially surrounding said central portion (226, 228). Chong does not teach the raised lip surrounding said central portion entirely. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the raised lip by adding another portion of the raised lip such that the raised lip entirely surrounds the central portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of further increasing the rigidity of the load plate without adding excessive weight, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis. See also In re Harza, 274 F2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of Chong and Hikai teaches all the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein said each leg in said plurality of legs is generally in the configuration of a triangular prism (Hikai legs 72) attached to said load plate at a base of said triangular prism and having an opposing tip (Hikai 721) projecting away from said load plate (Hikai Fig. 1a).
Claim 8, Chong further teaches wherein said plurality of fastener bores comprises at least three fastener bores (Chong Fig. 5a), a first fastener bore of said at least three fastener bores being disposed at a first corner of said load plate (Chong Fig. 5a), a second fastener bore of said at least three fastener bores being disposed at a second corner of said load plate (Chong Fig. 5a), and a third fastener bore of said at least three fastener bores being disposed at a third corner of said load plate (Chong Fig. 5a).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong (US 20130034383) in view of Hikai et al. (US 7797902) (‘Hikai’) and further in view of Goeman (US 4359849).
Claim 9, Chong and Hikai teach a system for installing drywall panels comprising a plurality of the reinforcing bracket of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 as above) and a plurality of mending plates (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, any of elements 270, 300, 310, 324, 342 constitute a plurality of mending plates, as exceedingly broadly claimed), each of said mending plates comprising: a mending plate load plate (each of the above mending plates comprise a load plate, as shown throughout the figures), said mending load plate comprising a top side and an opposing bottom side (each of the above load plates comprises a top side and an opposing bottom side, as shown throughout the figures); a plurality of mending plate fastener bores (each of the above mending plates comprises a plurality of fastener bores extending through each respective mending plate load plate from the top side to the bottom side, as shown throughout the figures) extending through said mending plate load plate from said top side to said opposing bottom side (each of the above mending plates comprises a plurality of fastener bores extending through each respective mending plate load plate from the top side to the bottom side, as shown throughout the figures); and a plurality of mending plate legs extending downward from an outside surface of said mending plate load plate (each of the above mending plates comprises a plurality of mending plate legs extending downward from an outside surface of said mending plate load plate, as shown throughout the figures).
Chong does not teach the mending plate being in the configuration of a rectangular prism.
However, Goeman teaches a system for installing drywall panels comprising a plurality of reinforcing bracket comprising mending plates comprising a mending plate load plate in the configuration of a rectangular prism (20; Figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the load plates of Chong to be in the configuration of a rectangular prism, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known configuration or shape of a load plate that provides increased stability, ease of manufacturing and load distribution under heavy, dynamic loads, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, specifically Chong (US 20130034383), Hikai et al. (US 7797902) (‘Hikai’) and Goeman (US 4359849) does not teach or disclose, alone or in combination, all the elements and features of the claimed invention as a whole, including, inter ala a method for installing drywall panels on a stud frame using the system of claim 9, comprising: providing a stud frame comprising a plurality of studs connected to form a grid; providing a first drywall panel; applying an adhesive to a front side of said stud frame; positioning said first drywall panel on said stud frame such that said an outer periphery of said first drywall panel adheres to said stud frame via said adhesive; disposing a first reinforcing brackets of said plurality of reinforcing brackets in a first corner of said first drywall panel such that said legs and said fastener bores of said first reinforcing bracket are vertically aligned with said stud frame; hammering said first reinforcing bracket into said first drywall panel such that said legs are driven into said stud frame; fastening said first reinforcing bracket to said first drywall panel and said stud frame by driving a fastener through each of said fastener bores and through said first drywall panel into said stud frame; and repeating said disposing, hammering, and fastening steps for each corner of said drywall panel, as recited in claim 10. Claim 11 depends from claim 10. Claim 12 depends from claim 11. It would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify or combine any of the cited prior art references of record to arrive at the claimed invention.
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 JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights