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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 7/31/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/25, 3/14/25 and 12/18/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majusiak, US 2006/0277841 in view of Paul et al., US 2002/0083656.
Regarding claim 1:
Majusiak discloses a construction framing system comprising:
(a) first (32) and second (34) studs (Figs. 1 and 2);
(b) a first layout track (36), wherein a first end of the first stud is received within the first layout track and a first end of the second stud is received within the first layout track comprising:
(i) a web (28),
(ii) a first flange (30) extending perpendicular to the web, and
(iii) a second flange (30) extending perpendicular to the web, wherein the second flange is separated from the first flange by the web, and
(iv) a first array of preformed apertures (54), wherein each aperture of the first array of preformed apertures extends completely through the first flange, wherein the first array of preformed apertures is arranged along a first longitudinal axis,
wherein fasteners (42) are inserted through various apertures into the respective studs.
Majusiak discloses wherein measurement lines (46) are placed along the layout track with the apertures to mark desired intervals wherein fasteners are inserted through on apertures and none are inserted through off apertures but Majusiak does not disclose wherein the apertures have different shapes denoting on module apertures and off module apertures.
Paul discloses various “on” and “off” modules aperture shapes that are different from each other (Figs. 7 and 8) for identifying any specific measurement intervals (para. 0048).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to substitute the different shaped on and off modules apertures as suggested by Paul for the measurement lines of Majusiak in order to better assist an installer in visualizing and identifying the correct location of the stud placements (para. 0014-0015).
Regarding claim 2:
Majusiak discloses a predetermined distance of 24 inches on center (para. 0041).
Regarding claim 3:
Majusiak discloses wherein adjacent preformed apertures of the first array are spaced apart an off module length of two inches on center (para. 0036).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the adjacent preformed apertures one inch, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from make the spacing one inch instead of two inches. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions not specifically taught by Majusiak provide a criticality that would be unachievable and unexpected with a reasonable amount of experimentation.
Regarding claims 4, 8, 10 and 11:
Paul discloses wherein the apertures may be any of a circle, diamond, triangle for denoting interval spacing but does not specify which is a first shape and a second shape in the arrangement of apertures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made to construct the first shape and second shape of any of the possible shapes suggested by Paul, as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from changing the shapes to denote a specific interval spacing.
Regarding claims 5-7 and 13:
Majusiak discloses wherein both the on and off module apertures have the same shape (54, refer to Fig. 4) and as set forth above and wherein there are a plethora of on and off apertures along the length of the first layout track, the examiner holds the position that it would be obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the varying aperture shapes as suggested by Paul for the on and off apertures of Majusiak. Further, it would be obvious to provide different shapes to denote different on and off intervals, as suggested by Paul.
Regarding claims 9 and 14:
Majusiak discloses wherein the first fastener has a generally circular cross-sectional area (it is a screw, para. 0009) that is different than the first shape (refer to Fig. 4) wherein the threaded portion has a maximum cross-sectional area that is greater than a maximum cross-sectional area define by the module aperture (they are self-tapping screws – suggesting formation of its own hole as it bores into the existing aperture).
Regarding claim 12:
Majusiak discloses a second array of apertures on the second flange (Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 15 and 16:
Majusiak discloses wherein the layout track comprises a first terminal end and a second terminal end opposite the first terminal end (length L, Fig. 2 and para. 0035, preferably twelve feet) and the first array of preformed apertures further comprises a first terminal end aperture (left most slot) and a second terminal end (right most slot) located between the first terminal end and the first on module aperture, wherein the distance between the first terminal end and the first terminal end aperture is equal to the distance between the first terminal end aperture and a preformed aperture in the first array of preformed apertures that is adjacent to the first terminal end aperture. The second terminal end also includes this structure. The apertures are spaced 2 inches apart including the first one from the end.
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 BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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 (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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights