DETAILED ACTION
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Fukumoto (WO 2022153848).
In re Claims 1, Fukumoto teaches a wall framing system, including: a frame including upper (27) and lower horizontal members (22) attached to each other by a plurality of horizontally-spaced vertical studs (23) forming a frame; at least one wall panel (31,32) secured to said frame, said panel having at least one corner; a plurality of fasteners (33) securing each said at least one panel to said frame, said fasteners having a prescribed spacing. Figure 4a shows a denser pattern of said fasteners (33), narrower than said prescribed spacing, being applied at each said corner than the portions found at the center of the panel. These corner fasteners have a linear, consecutive arrangement. (Figures 1-4 c)
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto (WO 2022153848).
In re Claims 1, Fukumoto teaches a wall framing system, including: a frame including upper (27) and lower horizontal members (22) attached to each other by a plurality of horizontally-spaced vertical studs (23) forming a frame; at least one wall panel (31,32) secured to said frame, said panel having at least one corner; a plurality of fasteners (33) securing each said at least one panel to said frame, said fasteners having a prescribed spacing. Figure 4b shows a denser pattern of said fasteners (33), narrower than said prescribed spacing, being applied at each said corner than on other portions of the panel. (Figures 1-4 c)
As was noted above in the 35 USC 102 rejection above, Fukumoto teaches corner fasteners have a linear, consecutive arrangement. However, should the applicant disagree, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the fasteners in a linear, consecutive arrangement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Rearranging the fastener configuration shown in Figure b into a denser linear, consecutive arrangement rather than a zig zag pattern would simplify construction by having only to arrange a single line of nails. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. In fact, there is no mention of a linear arrangement and the only support is provided in the drawings. The applicant has not stated that a linear arrangement is superior or performs better than a zig zag pattern or any other pattern. The examiner contends that a zig zag pattern and a linear pattern will perform equally well because both arrangements are shown and taught by Fukumoto.
In re Claims 2 and 3, Fukumoto has been previously discussed but does not specifically teach 12 nails at each corner having a 2 inch (5 cm) spacing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to 12 corner screws and 2 inch spacing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Having 12 fasteners and 2 inch spacing secures the corners the position. Corners are common locations for some of the higher stress concentrations.
Screws are well known fasteners and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use screws as they are resistance to pulling loose.
In re Claims 4, Fukumoto has been previously discussed. Panels (31,32) have a single thickness. Studs (23,24) are single ended. However, should the applicant disagree, the examiner takes official notice that single panels with a single thickness and single ended studs are well known in the constructions art. Since the reference meets the positively claimed elements, it will be capable of the meeting the performance requirements specified in the claims such as having a shear capacity of 3,137lb., which is at least 10% stronger than walls having conventional fastener spacing.
In re Claims 5 and 6, Fukumoto has been previously discussed. Panels (31,32) have a single thickness. However, should the applicant disagree, the examiner takes official notice that single panels with a single thickness are well known in the constructions art. Studs (23,24) are single ended. There is a denser fastener spacing at panel corners. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to double up the studs so that they are double ended since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. A double ended stud where the studs are doubled up would produce a stronger and more durable wall frame. Since the reference meets the positively claimed elements, it will be capable of meeting the performance requirements specified in the claims such as having a shear capacity of at least 5,000lb and the shear capacity increases at least 40% from walls having conventional fastener spacing.
In re Claims 8, Fukumoto has been previously discussed but does not specifically teach the first spacing is one of 4 inches and 6 inches, and said second spacing is 2 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have first spacing is one of 4 inches and 6 inches, and said second spacing is 2 inches, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Having a 2 inch spacing secures the corners the position and are locations for some of the higher stress concentrations. Having a 4 inch or 6 inch spacing along the horizontal and vertical edges ensures the use of enough spacing of fasteners along the length of the panel side to hold the panel in place against the stud.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the embodiment shown in Figure 4b is meant to be a comparative to the one shown in Figure 4c. The examiner notes that the reference discloses that both embodiments are beneficial due to small nail spacing and that both pattern 2 (Figure 4b) and pattern 3 (Figure 4c) allow each to obtain a design strength of 26 kN, demonstrating comparable performance as shown on the chart in the figures. The examiner also notes that other than what is shown the drawings there is no disclosure in the specification that the fasteners have a linear, consecutive arrangement. This limitation appears to lack criticality. This linear consecutive arrangement of fasteners in general is shown throughout Figures 4a-4c). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that adding more nails would strengthen the connection due to more connective points. Finally, corners are areas of greater stress concentration. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the need for a stronger connection at such locations for structural stability.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights