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, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Hatzinkolas (U.S. 6,128,883) hereafter Hatzinkolas ‘883.
In re Claim 1 and 11 Hatzinkolas ‘883 teaches masonry veneer support assembly comprising: a masonry veneer shelf angle(14), at least a first mounting bracket(12,134), and an adapter(70); said veneer support assembly being attachable to a building structure(62,64,66,114); as installed, the building structure being rearwardly of said first mounting bracket; said shelf angle (14,112) having a first leg(34,154) extending upwardly, and a second leg(36,156) extending forwardly away from the building structure; at least said first mounting bracket(12,134) having a back(26,136) that, in use, face toward the building structure, and a web(32140) that extends out-of-plane forwardly away from said back; said web of said first mounting bracket having a seat (42,146) defined therein; in use, said seat of said web of said mounting bracket faces away from the building structure and is engaged by said masonry veneer shelf angle; in use said adapter (70) being located between the building structure(62,64,66,114) and said first mounting bracket(12,134); said adapter having a first interface(rear surface) that in use faces toward the building structure and a second interface(forward surface) that is oriented toward said first mounting bracket; said first interface of said adapter being a load-spreading footing that, in use, engages the building structure. The load would be distributed/spread over the rear surface of the adapter. The second interface (front surfaces) of said adapter defining a receiver to which said back of said mounting bracket is mated. The back of said first mounting bracket and said adapter having aligned assembly fittings/holes; and on installation, a single mechanical fastener (18,68,116) passing through said aligned assembly fittings/holes of said first mounting bracket, and said adapter, and passes into the building structure, whereby when the mechanical fastener is tightened said load spreading footing is placed in compression against the building structure. The adaptor (70) is a single piece adaptor. Regarding the term fitting, this is normally defined as a part or piece. However, applicants’ disclosure makes it clear that the fittings can refer to slots (like element 74) and holes including how the fasteners (40) pass through fittings (74). Therefore, as was stated Hatzinkolas ‘883 teaches how a single mechanical fastener (18,68,116) passes through said aligned assembly fittings/holes. (Figure 1-6)
In re Claim 14, Hatzinkolas ‘883 teaches that the building structure includes a concrete slab (64) and that the mechanical fastener (18,68,116) secures the masonry veneer mounting bracket (12,134) and the adapter (70) to one of the concrete slabs (Figure 1-6).
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) 2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatzinkolas (U.S. 6,128,883), hereafter Hatzinkolas ‘883 in view of Hatzinkolas (U.S. 20210310252) hereafter Hatzinkolas ‘252.
In re Claim 2. hereafter Hatzinkolas ‘883 has been previously discussed but does not teach that the adapter has a first and second piece.
Hatzinkolas ‘252 teaches a masonry veneer support where a mounting bracket (50) is assembled with an adapter with two pieces (75) first piece having a footprint that, when installed bears against the building structure (52), and said first and second pieces have mutually engaging indexing features/holes that govern the positioning of said second piece relative to said first piece. (Figures 3a,3b)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the invention, to modify Hatzinkolas ‘883 with the teachings of Hatzinkolas ‘252) Additional shims/adapters thicken the adapter plates and reinforce the assembly under compressional loading.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatzinkolas (U.S. 6,128,883).
In re Claim 6, Hatzinkolas ‘883 has been previously discussed. It teaches a shim plate (70) for evenly engaging a concrete surface and spacing a bracket from the wall to accommodate irregularities in the outer face of the wall. (Figures 1-6, Column 4, Lines 44-49). Shims are used to level out a surface. Therefore, to level out an irregular surface such as the outer face of a wall, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention for the shim plate/adapter (70) to have a non-planar/irregular section to produce a level surface.
In re Claims 8 and 9, Hatzinkolas ‘883 has been previously discussed. It teaches a shim plate/adapter (70) for evenly engaging a concrete surface and spacing a bracket from the wall to accommodate irregularities in the outer face of the wall. The examiner notes how Hatzinkolas ‘883 teaches a wedge-shaped shim (49) to produce a tight level surface to support angle (14). Indeed, the use of shim wedges to level out angled surfaces is well known in the art and an angled/taper face of the concrete floor slab adjacent the shim would be an obvious irregularity on the outer surface of the wall that is to be leveled off by that the shim plate/adapter.
The wedge/taper shim (49) appears to have an angle of taper between 0 and 10 degrees but is not specifically disclosed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a taper angle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such a taper would level out the underlying angled surface irregularities.
In re Claim 10, the modified Hatzinkolas ‘883 has been previously discussed. Hatzinkolas ‘883 teaches that the back (26,136) of said first mounting bracket (12,134), and said first leg (34,154) of said shelf angle (14,112) lie in parallel vertical planes. (Figure 1-6).
Claim(s) 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatzinkolas (U.S. 6,128,883), hereafter Hatzinkolas ‘883.
In re Claim 15, Hatzinkolas ‘883 has been previously discussed but does not disclose that the concrete slab is a a pre-cast hollow core floor slab. However, the examiner takes official notice that a pre-cast hollow core floor slabs are well known in the art and it would be obvious to modify Hatzinkolas ‘883 to incorporate them. Hollow core slabs are lighter, durable, and offer increase fire resistance.
In re Claim 16, the modified Hatzinkolas ‘883 has been previously discussed. It teaches a shim plate/adapter (70) for evenly engaging a concrete surface and spacing a bracket from the wall to accommodate irregularities in the outer face of the wall. The examiner notes how Hatzinkolas ‘883 teaches a wedge-shaped shim (49) to produce a tight level surface to support angle (14). Indeed, the use of shim wedges to mate with and level out angled surfaces is well known in the art and an angled/taper face of the concrete floor slab adjacent the shim would be an obvious irregularity on the outer surface of the wall that is to be leveled off by that the shim plate/adapter. (Figure 1-6).
In re Claim 17, Hatzinkolas ‘883 has been previously discussed. Hatzinkolas ‘883 teaches fasteners (18,68,116) that are embedded in concert slabs (64). The holes they occupy are blind holes. Moreover, they are surrounded by cementious material. These concrete embedded fasteners are functional equivalent to fasteners that are placed within hollows that are at least partially filled with cementious material that will harden around them. Either way, the final product is a fastener embedded in hardened cementious material. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to substitute one known slab anchor configurations with another that is functionally equivalent and results in the same final product. (Figure 1-6).
In re Claim 19, Hatzinkolas ‘883 has been previously discussed. The modified Hatzinkolas ‘883 teaches pre-cast hollow core concrete slab (64 has a through-thickness. This thickness extends from its top to its bottom surface. A mid-height plane may be defined at the middle of that thickness. Figures 4 shows said mechanical fastener (68) engages said pre-cast hollow core concrete slab at a height that is at least as high as said mid-height plane (at the middle of that thickness). (Figures 1-6)
In re Claim 20, Hatzinkolas ‘883 has been previously discussed. The building structure can include all parts of a building, including the concrete slab previously discussed Hatzinkolas ‘883. The use of laminated wood-based beams in construction of buildings is well known in the art and the examiner takes official notice of this. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use a laminated wood beam in the building structure. They resist warping and twisting, can be used in longer spans, are often more durable than standard beams.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 12, 13, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a masonry veneer support assembly with the combination of characteristics specified in the independent claim. Of particular note are the requirement that the two-piece adapter has first piece that is a spreader plate; said second piece is an out-of-plane formed section that has a footprint that is smaller than said spreader plate. The spreader plate has a set of apertures formed therein and the second piece has dogs has mating indexing fittings that engage the apertures. The dogs have a length that is contained within said apertures. The adapter has a non-planar formed section with a channel section. Further, adapter and said bracket are keyed together by indexing fittings. The adapter has a set of dogs and said mounting support bracket has accommodations/apertures that receive the dogs. The concrete slab has a toe facing toward the mounting bracket; and said adapter. The toe defines a stand-off that maintains the mounting bracket clear of said toe. There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant's 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 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