DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on November 19, 2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected as set forth below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a sacrificial fastener as described in the specification paragraph [39]. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 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 4-8 and 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 joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4, which is dependent on claim 2, recites “a second U-shaped protrusion” in line 2. Claim 2 recites “a plurality of U-shaped protrusions, wherein the plurality of U-shaped protrusions comprises the first U-shaped protrusion” in line 1. This is indefinite because clarification is needed on whether the plurality of U-shaped protrusions of claim 2 includes the second U-shaped protrusion of claim 4. Claims 5-8 depend on claim 4 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 12, which is dependent on claim 1, recites “a second fastener” in line 2. Claim 1 does not include a first fastener. This is indefinite because clarification is needed on where the first fastener is in claim 12.
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 1-9, 11, 12, 14, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claudin (US 9,416,546) in view of Shadbolt (AU 2022203537).
Re claim 1, Claudin discloses a system (Fig 31A); a deck board (114 in Fig 31A) having a deck board proximal edge (proximal edge of 114) and a deck board distal edge (distal edge of 114); a joist plate (602 in Fig 28) configured to be attached to (602 attached to 130 in Fig 31A) an upper surface (upper surface of 130) of a joist (130 in Fig 31A), wherein the joist plate (602 in Fig 28) comprises a first U-shaped protrusion (606 in Fig 28).
Claudin does not disclose a hinge assembly configured to attach with the deck board proximal edge, and engage with the first U-shaped protrusion to pivotally connect the deck board with the joist.
Shadbolt discloses a hinge assembly (Fig 7) configured to attach with (14a attached to 50a in Fig 9) the deck board proximal edge (proximal edge of 50a) to pivotally connect (pivotal movement of hinge assembly in Fig 7 and connection of hinge assembly to deck board 50a in Fig 9) the deck board (50a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a deck board, a joist plate comprising a first U-shaped protrusion, and a joist as taught by Claudin with a hinge assembly as taught by Shadbolt. The engagement of the hinge assembly of Shadbolt and the first U-shaped protrusion of Claudin could be a similar engagement of the hinge assembly with the protrusions 18aa in the joist plate of Fig 7B in Shadbolt. A pivotal connection of this type would allow the deck boards greater flexibility to move under pressure and allow the deck boards to be more easily replaced.
Re claim 2, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the joist plate (602 in Fig 28) comprises a plurality of U-shaped protrusions (606, 610 in Fig 28), wherein the plurality of U-shaped protrusions (606, 610 in Fig 28) comprises the first U-shaped protrusion (606 in Fig 28).
Re claim 3, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 2, wherein each U-shaped protrusion (606, 610 in Fig 28) is located at a predetermined distance (predetermined distance between 606 and 610 elements in Fig 31A) from adjacent U-shaped protrusions (606, 610 are adjacent U-shaped protrusions in Fig 31A).
Re claim 4, as understood by the examiner, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the deck board (114 in Fig 31A) is positioned between (114 positioned between 606, 610 elements in Fig 31A) the first U-shaped protrusion (606 in Fig 28) and a second U-shaped protrusion (610 in Fig 28) that is positioned adjacent to (606, 610 are adjacent U-shaped protrusions in Fig 31A) the first U-shaped protrusion (606 in Fig 28) on the joist plate (602 in Fig 28).
Re claim 5, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the deck board distal edge (distal edge of 114) is configured to attach to (114 attached to 610 in Fig 31A) the second U-shaped protrusion (610 in Fig 28) via an interference fit (interference fit of 114 in Fig 31A).
Re claim 6, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the deck board distal edge (distal edge of 114) is configured to detach from the second U-shaped protrusion (610 in Fig 28) when the deck board distal edge (distal edge of 114) receives a force greater than a threshold value (Column 3 lines 47-50 discloses 114 can detach given a sufficient pulling force).
Re claim 7, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 6; the deck board proximal edge (proximal edge of 114); the first U-shaped protrusion (606 in Fig 28); the deck board distal edge (distal edge of 114); the deck board (114 in Fig 31A).
Claudin does not disclose wherein the deck board proximal edge pivotally moves about the first U-shaped protrusion when the deck board distal edge is detached and the deck board moves from a first position to a second position.
Shadbolt discloses wherein the deck board proximal edge (proximal edge of 50b) pivotally moves (50b pivotally moves between Figs 9A, 9B); the deck board distal edge (distal edge of 50b) is detached (distal edge of 50b detached in Fig 9A) and the deck board (50b) moves from a first position (first position of 50b in Fig 10) to a second position (second position of 50b in Fig 9A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deck board and U-shaped protrusion of Claudin with the pivotally moving deck boards that can detach as seen in Shadbolt. With the replacement of the protrusion 18aa in Fig 7B of Shadbolt with the U-shaped protrusion 606 in Fig 28 of Claudin, the deck boards of Shadbolt would be allowed to pivotally move about a U-shaped protrusion, as the deck boards already pivotally move about protrusion 18aa in Shadbolt. A pivotal connection of this type would allow the deck boards greater flexibility to move under pressure and allow the deck boards to be more easily replaced.
Re claim 8, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 7.
Claudin does not disclose wherein in the first position, a deck board plane is parallel to a joist plane, and wherein in the second position, the deck board plane is not parallel to the joist plane.
Shadbolt discloses wherein in the first position (first position of 50b in Fig 10), a deck board plane (plane of 50b in Fig 10) is parallel (plane of 50b and plane of 10 are parallel in Fig 10) to a joist plane (plane of 10), and wherein in the second position (second position of 50b in Fig 9A), the deck board plane (plane of 50b in Fig 9A) is not parallel (plane of 50b and plane of 10 are not parallel in Fig 9A) to the joist plane (plane of 10). ([0028] “The decking fastener assembly 10 is typically one of a plurality of assemblies joined end to end and fastened to an underlying joist (not shown).” Therefore, the decking fastener assembly 10 and the joist the decking fastener assembly 10 is fastened to would have similar planes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deck board of Claudin and have the deck board move between a first position and a second position as seen in Shadbolt. A deck board first position and second position would allow the deck boards greater flexibility to move under pressure and allow the deck boards to be more easily replaced.
Re claim 9, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 1.
Claudin does not disclose wherein the hinge assembly comprises a hinge plate, a bushing, and a hinge pin.
Shadbolt discloses wherein the hinge assembly (Fig 7) comprises a hinge plate (14a), a bushing (44aa), and a hinge pin (36aa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a deck board, a joist plate comprising a first U-shaped protrusion, and a joist as taught by Claudin with a hinge plate, a bushing, and a hinge pin as taught by Shadbolt. The joining of the system of Claudin with the hinge assembly of Shadbolt would allow the deck boards greater flexibility to move under pressure and allow the deck boards to be more easily replaced.
Re claim 11, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 9; the first U-shaped protrusion (606 in Fig 28); the deck board (114 in Fig 31A); the joist (103 in Fig 31A).
Claudin does not disclose wherein the bushing is configured to be inserted in the first U-shaped protrusion and engaged with the hinge pin to pivotally connect the deck board with the joist.
Shadbolt discloses the bushing (44aa) engaged with (44aa engaged with 36aa in Fig 7) the hinge pin (36aa) to pivotally connect (pivotal movement of hinge assembly in Fig 7 and connection of hinge assembly to deck board 50a in Fig 9) the deck board (50a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the U-shaped protrusion, the deck board, and the joist of Claudin to include the bushing engaged with the hinge pin of Shadbolt. When combined, it would have been obvious to place the bushing of Shadbolt into the U-shaped protrusion of Claudin to pivotally connect the deck board and the joist, because this would allow the deck boards greater flexibility to move under pressure and allow the deck boards to be more easily replaced. A replacement of the protrusion 18aa in Shadbolt with the U-shaped protrusion in Claudin would also allow for a pivotal connection between the U-shaped protrusion and the deck board and joist.
Re claim 12, as understood by the examiner, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the joist plate (602 in Fig 28) is attached to (Column 3 lines 42-46 discloses an attachment device 116 to allow a joist plate to be attached to a joist) the upper surface (upper surface of 130) of the joist (130 in Fig 31A) via a second fastener (116).
Re claim 14, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the joist plate (602 in Fig 28) is a continuous plate (Column 5 lines 22-25 disclose a joist plate that may be continuously formed).
Re claim 15, Claudin discloses a system (Fig 31A); a deck board (114 in Fig 31A) having a deck board proximal edge (proximal edge of 114) and a deck board distal edge (distal edge of 114); a joist plate (602 in Fig 28) configured to be attached to (602 attached to 130 in Fig 31A) an upper surface (upper surface of 130) of a joist (130 in Fig 31A), wherein the joist plate (602 in Fig 28) comprises a first U-shaped protrusion (606 in Fig 28) and a second U-shaped protrusion (610 in Fig 28); wherein the deck board distal edge (distal edge of 114) is configured to attach to (114 attached to 610 in Fig 31A) the second U-shaped protrusion (610 in Fig 28) via an interference fit (interference fit of 114 in Fig 31A).
Claudin does not disclose a hinge assembly configured to attach with the deck board proximal edge, and engage with the first U-shaped protrusion to pivotally connect the deck board with the joist.
Shadbolt discloses a hinge assembly (Fig 7) configured to attach with (14a attached to 50a in Fig 9) the deck board proximal edge (proximal edge of 50a) to pivotally connect (pivotal movement of hinge assembly in Fig 7 and connection of hinge assembly to deck board 50a in Fig 9) the deck board (50a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a deck board, a joist plate comprising a first U-shaped protrusion, and a joist as taught by Claudin with a hinge assembly as taught by Shadbolt. The engagement of the hinge assembly of Shadbolt and the first U-shaped protrusion of Claudin could be a similar engagement of the hinge assembly with the protrusions 18aa in the joist plate of Fig 7B in Shadbolt. A pivotal connection of this type would allow the deck boards greater flexibility to move under pressure and allow the deck boards to be more easily replaced.
Re claim 16, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the deck board distal edge (distal edge of 114) is configured to detach from the second U-shaped protrusion (610 in Fig 28) when the deck board distal edge (distal edge of 114) receives a force greater than a threshold value (Column 3 lines 47-50 discloses 114 can detach given a sufficient pulling force).
Re claim 17, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 15.
Claudin does not disclose wherein the hinge assembly comprises a hinge plate, a bushing, and a hinge pin.
Shadbolt discloses wherein the hinge assembly (Fig 7) comprises a hinge plate (14a), a bushing (44aa), and a hinge pin (36aa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a deck board, a joist plate comprising a first U-shaped protrusion, and a joist as taught by Claudin with a hinge plate, a bushing, and a hinge pin as taught by Shadbolt. The joining of the system of Claudin with the hinge assembly of Shadbolt would allow the deck boards greater flexibility to move under pressure and allow the deck boards to be more easily replaced.
Re claim 19, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 17; the first U-shaped protrusion (606 in Fig 28); the deck board (114 in Fig 31A); the joist (103 in Fig 31A).
Claudin does not disclose wherein the bushing is configured to be inserted in the first U-shaped protrusion and engaged with the hinge pin to pivotally connect the deck board with the joist.
Shadbolt discloses the bushing (44aa) engaged with (44aa engaged with 36aa in Fig 7) the hinge pin (36aa) to pivotally connect (pivotal movement of hinge assembly in Fig 7 and connection of hinge assembly to deck board 50a in Fig 9) the deck board (50a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the U-shaped protrusion, the deck board, and the joist of Claudin to include the bushing engaged with the hinge pin of Shadbolt. When combined, it would have been obvious to place the bushing of Shadbolt into the U-shaped protrusion of Claudin to pivotally connect the deck board and the joist, because this would allow the deck boards greater flexibility to move under pressure and allow the deck boards to be more easily replaced. A replacement of the protrusion 18aa in Shadbolt with the U-shaped protrusion in Claudin would also allow for a pivotal connection between the U-shaped protrusion and the deck board and joist.
Claims 10, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claudin (US 9,416,546) in view of Shadbolt (AU 2022203537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McInnis (US 2017/0074014).
Re claim 10, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 9; the deck board proximal edge (proximal edge of 114) (Fig 31A).
Claudin does not disclose wherein the hinge plate is configured to be attached to the deck board proximal edge via a first fastener.
McInnis teaches the hinge plate (11) (Fig 1); a first fastener ([0021] “fasteners may pass to affix the hinge plate 11 to an associated panel.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a deck board, a joist plate comprising a first U-shaped protrusion, and a joist as taught by Claudin with a hinge plate as taught by McInnis. The replacement of the hinge plate of Shadbolt with that of McInnis would allow the attachment of the hinge plate to the deck board proximal edge and would secure the connection of the deck board to the joist plate, reducing the chance of the deck board breaking away from the joist plate in the event of a storm surge.
Re claim 18, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 17; the deck board proximal edge (proximal edge of 114) (Fig 31A).
Claudin does not disclose wherein the hinge plate is configured to be attached to the deck board proximal edge via a fastener.
McInnis teaches the hinge plate (11) (Fig 1); a fastener ([0021] “fasteners may pass to affix the hinge plate 11 to an associated panel”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a deck board, a joist plate comprising a first U-shaped protrusion, and a joist as taught by Claudin with a hinge plate as taught by McInnis. The replacement of the hinge plate of Shadbolt with that of McInnis would allow the attachment of the hinge plate to the deck board proximal edge and would secure the connection of the deck board to the joist plate, reducing the chance of the deck board breaking away from the joist plate in the event of a storm surge.
Re claim 20, Claudin as modified discloses a system (Fig 31A); a deck board (114 in Fig 31A) having a deck board proximal edge (proximal edge of 114) and a deck board distal edge (distal edge of 114); a joist plate (602 in Fig 28) configured to be attached to (602 attached to 130 in Fig 31A) an upper surface (upper surface of 130) of a joist (130 in Fig 31A), wherein the joist plate (602 in Fig 28) comprises a U-shaped protrusion (606 in Fig 28).
Claudin does not disclose a hinge assembly configured to attach with the deck board proximal edge, and engage with the U-shaped protrusion to pivotally connect the deck board with the joist, wherein: the hinge assembly comprises a hinge plate, a bushing, and a hinge pin, the hinge plate is configured to be attached to the deck board proximal edge via a fastener, and the bushing is configured to be inserted in the U-shaped protrusion and engaged with the hinge pin to pivotally connect the deck board with the joist.
Shadbolt discloses a hinge assembly (Fig 7) configured to attach with (14a attached to 50a in Fig 9) the deck board proximal edge (proximal edge of 50a) to pivotally connect (pivotal movement of hinge assembly in Fig 7 and connection of hinge assembly to deck board 50a in Fig 9) the deck board (50a); wherein: the hinge assembly (Fig 7) comprises a hinge plate (14a), a bushing (44aa), and a hinge pin (36aa); the bushing (44aa) engaged with (44aa engaged with 36aa in Fig 7) the hinge pin (36aa) to pivotally connect (pivotal movement of hinge assembly in Fig 7 and connection of hinge assembly to deck board 50a in Fig 9) the deck board (50a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the deck board, joist plate, joist, and U-shaped protrusion of Claudin to include the hinge assembly pivotally connected to the deck board of Shadbolt. When combined, it would have been obvious to place the bushing of Shadbolt into the U-shaped protrusion of Claudin to pivotally connect the deck board and the joist. A pivotal connection of this type would allow the deck boards greater flexibility to move under pressure and allow the deck boards to be more easily replaced. A replacement of the protrusion 18aa in Shadbolt with the U-shaped protrusion in Claudin would also allow for a pivotal connection between the U-shaped protrusion and the deck board and joist.
McInnis teaches the hinge plate (11) (Fig 1); a first fastener ([0021] “fasteners may pass to affix the hinge plate 11 to an associated panel.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a deck board, a joist plate comprising a first U-shaped protrusion, and a joist as taught by Claudin with a hinge plate as taught by McInnis. The replacement of the hinge plate of Shadbolt with that of McInnis would allow the attachment of the hinge plate to the deck board proximal edge and would secure the connection of the deck board to the joist plate, reducing the chance of the deck board breaking away from the joist plate in the event of a storm surge.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claudin (US 9,416,546) in view of Shadbolt (AU 2022203537) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (“Kim”) (KR 102685239).
Re claim 13, Claudin as modified discloses the system of claim 1; a joist plate width (‘W’ in Fig 36); a joist width (width of 130).
Claudin does not disclose wherein a joist plate width is equivalent to a joist width.
Kim discloses wherein a joist plate width is equivalent to a joist width (Pg 3 Paragraph 5: “The base plate 52 has a substantially rectangular plate shape with the same width as the joist 30”) (Figs 3, 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a joist plate width and a joist width as taught by Claudin with the width of the joist plate and the joist being equal as taught by Kim. With the joist plate and the joist having the same width, there is sufficient width for multiple fasteners to secure the joist plate to the joist in the event of a storm surge.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY P HARRIS whose telephone number is (571) 270-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-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 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.
/ZACHARY P HARRIS/ Junior Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights