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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 26 September 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Furthermore, it appears the Farr et al. reference cited in the IDS filed 26 September 2026, was provided a wrong Patent Number, the correct Patent Number appears in the applicant’s specification as follows: US 8122609 B2 (Farr et al.). The examiner lined through the Farr et al. reference in the IDS and has listed this reference in the PTO-892.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 5 (line 4), “degrees markings 66⁰ to 89⁰”;
Claim 5 (lines 5-6), “markings with pitches….16.97” ”.
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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(s) 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 8, lines 1-2, should read “wherein [the] the common rafter markings”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickey (US 2007/0028474 A1 ; see reference in its entirety) in view of Buzzell (US 2013/0227846 A1; see reference in its entirety) and Gutowski et al. (US 3488868; see reference in its entirety).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Dickey disclose(s): A multi-purpose framer’s speed square in the form of a right angle triangle (Fig. 1) comprising:
a. a top plate (Fig. 2: 34) having a T-shaped edge (Fig. 4), a first top end (see annotated Fig. 2 below), a second top end (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and an upper surface including framing top plate (see annotated Fig. 4 below);
b. a notched front edge (Fig. 2: 22) having a first end (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and a second end (see annotated Fig. 2 below), said first end of said notched front edge extending downwardly at a 90° angle from said first top end (see annotated Fig. 2 below), said notched front edge having a plurality of notches (Fig. 3: 60 & 62) spaced along the length thereof in quarter inch (¼″) increments (Fig. 3: 45), having markings ranging from one-eighth inch (⅛″) to seven-and-seven eighth inch (7⅞″) for ruler callouts, and lumber width callouts denoting 2×2, 2×4 and 2×6 lumber sizes (Fig. 3: 45; it is understood that a 1 ½ inch mark denotes a 2x2 lumber size, a 3 ½ mark denotes a 2x4 lumber size and a 5 ½ inch mark denotes a 2x6 lumber size);
c. a pivot point located at said 90° angle (see annotated Fig. 2 below);
d. a hypotenuse edge (Fig. 2: 20) having a proximal end (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and a distal end (see annotated Fig. 2 below), said proximal end joined to said second end of said notched front edge at a 45° angle (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and said distal end joined to said second top end of said top plate at a 45° angle (see annotated Fig. 2 below), said hypotenuse edge having top plate lines markings and common rafter window plumb cuts markings with pitches from 1 through 24 and 12″ (Fig. 2: 44), and a hip/valley section disposed above said hypotenuse edge (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and
e. a front face (see annotated Fig. 4 below) and a rear face (see annotated Fig. 4 below), both with indicia in calibrated scales for rafter, angle, and linear measurements (Fig. 2; 44 & 45).
PNG
media_image1.png
1069
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dickey does not specifically disclose: having a series of line markings including framing callouts.
However, Buzzell teach(es) a multi-purpose device (Fig. 2) comprising: having a series of line markings including framing callouts (Fig. 2: 12 and ¶ [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dickey, with the teachings of Buzzell, for the purpose of quickly identifying measurements (¶[0025]).
Dickey in view of Buzzell do(es) not specifically disclose: etched markings, etched indicia.
However, Gutowski teach(es): a multi-purpose device (Fig. 2) including: etched markings (Fig. 2: 32), etched indicia (Fig. 2: 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dickey and Buzzell, with the teachings of Gutowski, for the purpose of providing a useful labeling technique (col. 6, lines 10-16).
With respect to Claim 2, Dickey, Buzzell and Gutowski teach(es) the device of Claim 1.
The combination does not specifically disclose: wherein said framing callouts are 2x2, 2x4, 2x8 and DBL 2x4 markings.
However, Buzzell further teach(es): wherein said framing callouts are 2x2, 2x4, 2x8 and DBL 2x4 markings (Fig. 2 and ¶ [0025]).
Motivation to combine is the same as Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 3, Dickey, Buzzell and Gutowski teach(es) the device of Claim 1.
Dickey further disclose(s): wherein said plurality of notches along the length of said notched front edge range from one quarter inch (¼”) to seven-and-one-quarter inch (7 ¼”) cutouts (Fig. 2: 60 & 62).
With respect to Claim 4, Dickey, Buzzell and Gutowski teach(es) the device of Claim 1.
Dickey further disclose(s): wherein said notches facilitate scribing lumber for ripping, said notches for the rip scribe cut outs each being about one-sixteenth inch (1/16”) wide and about one-eighth inch (1/8”) deep (Fig. 2: 60 & 62 and ¶[0025]).
With respect to Claim 5, Dickey, Buzzell and Gutowski teach(es) the device of Claim 1.
Dickey further disclose(s): wherein said hip/valley section disposed above the hypotenuse edge comprises a hip/valley looking window (see annotated Fig. 2 above) having degrees markings below said hip/valley looking window (Fig. 2: 48) and degrees markings along the proximal length (see annotated Fig. 2 above) and hip/valley roof rafter plumb cuts markings with pitches 1 through 24 above said hip/valley looking window (Fig. 2: 48).
The combination does not specifically disclose: degrees markings ranging from 1⁰ to 65⁰, 66⁰ to 89⁰ and markings with pitches 16.97”.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide degree markings ranging from 1⁰ to 65⁰, 66⁰ to 89⁰ and markings with pitches 16.97”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the optimum range of the degree marking and markings with pitches in order to improve accuracy in measurement.
With respect to Claim 8, Dickey, Buzzell and Gutowski teach(es) the device of Claim 1.
Dickey further disclose(s): wherein the common rafter markings are placed along the hypotenuse edge (Fig. 2: 44).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickey, Buzzell and Gutowski further in view of Logan (US 11142018 B2; see reference in its entirety).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Dickey, Buzzell and Gutowski disclose(s) the device of Claim 1.
Dickey further disclose(s): a first looking window (Fig. 2: 40) disposed below said top plate (Fig. 2).
The combination does not specifically disclose: first looking window having a 2X King Stud/Trimmer layout marking and a second looking window having a 4X King Stud/Trimmer layout marking.
However, Logan teach(es) a device (Fig. 3) including: first looking window having a 2X King Stud/Trimmer layout marking (Fig. 6: 66 and col. 2, lines 13-17) and a second looking window having a 4X King Stud/Trimmer layout marking (Fig. 6: 67 and col. 2, lines 13-17)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dickey, Buzzell and Gutowski, with the further teachings of Logan, for the purpose of providing provisions for quickly marking incremental lines (col. 1, lines 48-51).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickey, Buzzell and Gutowski further in view of Mussell (US 5727325; see reference in its entirety).
The combination does not specifically disclose: configured to be carried in the pocket of a standard framer’s tool apron.
However, Mussell teach(es) a device (Fig. 1) including configured to be carried in the pocket of a standard framer’s tool apron (col. 7, lines 40-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dickey, Buzzell and Gutowski, with the further teachings of Mussell, for the purpose of allowing the device to be readily accessible (col. 7, lines 40-43).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following reference(s) relate to a square: Beckwith (US 0387966); Thoni (US 2024/0191522 A1); Atwood (US 8074368 B2); Miller (US 4574492); Graham (US 6725556 B1); Wright (US 5170568); Allemand (US D511698 S); Allemand (US 6868616 B2).
The following reference(s) relate to a cutting device: Castleton (US 4598482).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANIA COURSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7am-3:30pm).
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/TC/
26 September 2026
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
