DETAILED ACTION
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.
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) 1-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burt et al (“Burt”) (US 2019/0360202), McManus (US 2015/0113903) and Holizlander (US 5,606,837).
Re claim 1, Burt discloses a deck tile support system (Fig. 8 120), comprising:
a deck frame (110, 12, 16) comprising at least one perimeter support member (10, 12) supporting a plurality of support joists (16), each support joist (16) comprising a top wall (Fig. 10A, top wall of 16) and at least one lateral wall (Fig. 10A, lateral walls of 16) extending downwardly from (Fig. 10A) the top wall (top wall of 16); and
a plurality of deck tile support straps (140; [0066] disclosing “one or more”) secured to the plurality of support joists (16), the plurality of deck tile support straps (140) together forming a backing substrate (Fig. 10A), each deck tile support strap (140; Fig. 10B) comprising:
a horizontal wall (142);
a first vertical wall (148) defining a plurality of first gaps (150) each receiving one ([0068]) of the plurality of support joists (16);
a second vertical wall (148 on an opposite side) defining a plurality of second gaps (150) each receiving the one ([0068]) of the plurality of support joists (16),
but fails to disclose the plurality of deck tile support straps supporting a plurality of deck tiles, and a plurality of first connector tabs extending generally perpendicularly from the first vertical wall and secured to the at least one lateral wall of respective ones of the plurality of support joists.
In addition, Holizlander discloses a plurality of first connector tabs (132/136) extending generally perpendicularly from (Fig. 1) the first vertical wall (40; Burt: vertical wall of 16) and secured to (Fig. 6) the at least one lateral wall (lateral wall of 20) of respective ones of the plurality of support joists (20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt with a plurality of first connector tabs extending generally perpendicularly from the first vertical wall and secured to the at least one lateral wall of respective ones of the plurality of support joists as disclosed by Holizlander in order to rigidly, more permanently secure the strap to the joist, instead of merely sliding the joist therethrough, through use of tabs with fasteners therein.
Re claim 2, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1, Holizlander discloses wherein each deck tile support strap (10) further comprises a plurality of second connector tabs (130/134) extending generally perpendicularly from (Fig. 1) the second vertical wall (the other vertical wall of 40; Burt: vertical wall of 16) and secured to a second lateral wall (another wall of 20) of respective ones of the plurality of support joists (20) opposite (130/134 being opposite 132/136) the at least one lateral wall (one lateral wall of 20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt wherein each deck tile support strap further comprises a plurality of second connector tabs extending generally perpendicularly from the second vertical wall and secured to a second lateral wall of respective ones of the plurality of support joists opposite the at least one lateral wall.as disclosed by Holizlander in order to rigidly, more permanently secure the strap to the joist, instead of merely sliding the joist therethrough, through use of tabs with fasteners therein.
Re claim 3, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of deck tile support straps (140) straddles multiple (Fig. 10A) ones of the plurality of support joists (16).
Re claim 4, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 3 wherein at least one of the plurality of deck tile support straps (140) runs transverse to (Fig. 10A) at least one of the plurality of support joists (16).
Re claim 5, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of deck tile support straps (140) is formed of metal ([0066]).
Re claim 6, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of deck tile support straps is formed of a polymeric material.
However, McManus discloses wherein each of the plurality of deck tile support straps (30) is formed of a polymeric material ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt wherein each of the plurality of deck tile support straps is formed of a polymeric material as disclosed by McManus in order to utilize a light, durable, weather resistant, easily formable material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 7, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1, McManus discloses wherein each of the plurality of deck tiles (20) is porcelain ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt wherein each of the plurality of deck tiles is porcelain as disclosed by McManus in order to utilize a durable, weather resistant, aesthetically pleasing material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 8, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1, McManus discloses wherein each of the plurality of deck tiles (20) is stone ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt wherein each of the plurality of deck tiles is stone as disclosed by McManus in order to utilize a durable, weather resistant, aesthetically pleasing material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 9, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein each of the plurality of deck tiles is brick.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt wherein each of the plurality of deck tiles is brick in order to utilize a durable, weather resistant, aesthetically pleasing material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 10, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1, and adjacent deck tile support straps (Fig. 8; [0070]) but fails to disclose further comprising a gap between adjacent deck tile support straps.
However, McManus discloses further comprising a gap (Fig. 2 between adjacent elements 30) between adjacent deck tile support straps (30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt further comprising a gap between adjacent deck tile support straps as disclosed by McManus in order to support the decking material across an entirety of the decking frame/decking structure.
Re claim 11, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the gap is less than two inches.
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 modify the deck tile support system of Burt wherein the gap is less than two inches in order to provide more straps across the entirety of the decking frame to support more weight. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 12, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1 and a first and second deck tile support straps ([0070]), but fails to disclose wherein a first one of the plurality of deck tile support straps abuts a second one of the plurality of deck tile support straps.
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 modify the deck tile support system of Burt wherein a first one of the plurality of deck tile support straps abuts a second one of the plurality of deck tile support straps in order to provide more straps across the entirety of the decking frame to support more weight. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 14, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of support joists (16) is spaced apart either 12 inches on center or 16 inches on center ([0067]).
Re claim 15, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1, wherein the horizontal wall (142) defines a plurality of through holes (146).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burt et al (“Burt”) (US 2019/0360202), McManus (US 2015/0113903), Holizlander (US 5,606,837) and Pommier (US 2020/0123786).
Re claim 13, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of deck tiles is adhered to the plurality of deck tile support straps.
However, Pommier discloses wherein the plurality of deck tiles (16) is adhered to (Claim 7) the plurality of deck tile support straps (10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt wherein the plurality of deck tiles is adhered to the plurality of deck tile support straps as disclosed by Pommier in order to permanently and tool-lessly secure the deck tiles.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burt et al (“Burt”) (US 2019/0360202) and Holizlander (US 5,606,837).
Re claim 16, Burt discloses a deck tile support system (Fig. 8 120), comprising:
a deck frame (110, 12, 16) comprising at least one perimeter support member (10, 12) supporting first (16) and second support joists (16), each of the first and second support joists (16) comprising a top wall (Fig. 10A, top wall of 16) and at least one lateral wall (Fig. 10A, lateral walls of 16) extending downwardly from (Fig. 10A) the top wall (top wall of 16); and
first and second deck tile support straps (140; [0066] disclosing “one or more”) secured to the first and second support joists (16), the first and second deck tile support straps (140) together forming a backing substrate (Fig. 10A) configured to support a plurality of deck tiles (140 is capable of supporting a plurality of deck tiles, as this is a statement of intended use), each of the first and second deck tile support straps (140; Fig. 10B) comprising:
an upper horizontal wall (142);
a first vertical wall (148) defining a first gap (150) receiving ([0068]) the first support joists (16) and a second gap (another 150) receiving ([0068]) the second support joist (16);
a second vertical wall (148 on an opposite side) defining third gap (150) receiving ([0068] )first support joist (16) and a fourth gap (another 150) receiving ([0068]) the second support joist (16);
but fails to disclose a first connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the first vertical wall and secured to the at least one lateral wall of the first support joist; and a second connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the first vertical wall and secured to the at least one lateral wall of the second support joist.
However, Holizlander discloses a first connector tab (132) extending generally perpendicularly from (Fig. 1) the first vertical wall (vertical wall of 40; Burt: 148) and secured to (Fig. 6) the at least one lateral wall (lateral wall of 20; Burt: lateral wall of 16) of the first support joist (20; Burt: 16); and a second connector tab (98) extending generally perpendicularly from (Fig. 1) the first vertical wall (vertical wall of 40; Burt: 148) and secured to (Fig. 6) the at least one lateral wall (lateral wall of 20; Burt: lateral wall of 16) of the second support joist (20; Burt: 16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt with a first connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the first vertical wall and secured to the at least one lateral wall of the first support joist; and a second connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the first vertical wall and secured to the at least one lateral wall of the second support joist as disclosed by Holizlander in order to rigidly, more permanently secure the strap to the joist, instead of merely sliding the joist therethrough, through use of tabs with fasteners therein.
Re claim 17, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 16, Holizlander discloses wherein each of the first and second deck tile support straps (10) further comprises: a third connector tab (130) extending generally perpendicularly from (Fig. 1) the second vertical wall (vertical wall of 40; Burt: 148) and secured to a second lateral wall (of 20) opposite the at least one lateral wall (of 20) of the first support joist (20); and a fourth connector tab (86) extending generally perpendicularly from (Fig. 1) the second vertical wall (vertical wall of 40; Burt: 148) and secured to a second lateral wall (of 20) opposite the at least one lateral wall (of 20) of the second support joist (20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt wherein each of the first and second deck tile support straps further comprises: a third connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the second vertical wall and secured to a second lateral wall opposite the at least one lateral wall of the first support joist; and a fourth connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the second vertical wall and secured to a second lateral wall opposite the at least one lateral wall of the second support joist as disclosed by Holizlander in order to rigidly, more permanently secure the strap to the joist, instead of merely sliding the joist therethrough, through use of tabs with fasteners therein.
Re claim 18, Burt discloses a deck tile support system (Fig. 8 120), comprising:
a deck frame (110, 12, 16) comprising at least one perimeter support member (10, 12) supporting first (16) and second support joists (16), each of the first and second support joists (16) comprising a top wall (Fig. 10A, top wall of 16) and at least one lateral wall (Fig. 10A, lateral walls of 16) extending downwardly from (Fig. 10A) the top wall (top wall of 16); and
first and second deck tile support straps (140; [0066] disclosing “one or more”) secured to the first and second support joists (16), the first and second deck tile support straps (140) together forming a backing substrate (Fig. 10A) configured to support a plurality of deck tiles (140 is capable of supporting a plurality of deck tiles, as this is a statement of intended use), each of the first and second deck tile support straps (140; Fig. 10B) being formed of metal ([0066]) and comprising:
an upper horizontal wall (142) defining a plurality of through holes (146);
a first vertical wall (148) defining a first gap (150) receiving ([0068]) the first support joist (16) and a second gap (another 150) receiving ([0068]) the second support joist (16);
a second vertical wall (148 on an opposite side) defining third gap (150) receiving ([0068]) first support joist (16) and a fourth gap (another 150) receiving ([0068]) the second support joist (16);
but fails to disclose a first connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the first vertical wall and secured to the at least one lateral wall of the first support joist; and a second connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the first vertical wall and secured to the at least one lateral wall of the second support joist, a third connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the second vertical wall and secured to a second lateral wall opposite the at least one lateral wall of the first support joist; and a fourth connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the second vertical wall and secured to a second lateral wall opposite the at least one lateral wall of the second support joist
However, Holizlander discloses a first connector tab (132) extending generally perpendicularly from (Fig. 1) the first vertical wall (vertical wall of 40; Burt: 148) and secured to (Fig. 6) the at least one lateral wall (lateral wall of 20; Burt: lateral wall of 16) of the first support joist (20; Burt: 16); and a second connector tab (98) extending generally perpendicularly from (Fig. 1) the first vertical wall (vertical wall of 40; Burt: 148) and secured to (Fig. 6) the at least one lateral wall (lateral wall of 20; Burt: lateral wall of 16) of the second support joist (20; Burt: 16), a third connector tab (130) extending generally perpendicularly from (Fig. 1) the second vertical wall (vertical wall of 40; Burt: 148) and secured to a second lateral wall (of 20) opposite the at least one lateral wall (of 20) of the first support joist (20); and a fourth connector tab (86) extending generally perpendicularly from (Fig. 1) the second vertical wall (vertical wall of 40; Burt: 148) and secured to a second lateral wall (of 20) opposite the at least one lateral wall (of 20) of the second support joist (20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt with a first connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the first vertical wall and secured to the at least one lateral wall of the first support joist; and a second connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the first vertical wall and secured to the at least one lateral wall of the second support joist, a third connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the second vertical wall and secured to a second lateral wall opposite the at least one lateral wall of the first support joist; and a fourth connector tab extending generally perpendicularly from the second vertical wall and secured to a second lateral wall opposite the at least one lateral wall of the second support joist as disclosed by Holizlander in order to rigidly, more permanently secure the strap to the joist, instead of merely sliding the joist therethrough, through use of tabs with fasteners therein.
Re claim 19, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 18, and first and second deck tile support straps (Fig. 8; [0070]) but fails to disclose further comprising a gap between the first deck tile support strap and the second deck tile support straps.
However, McManus discloses further comprising a gap (Fig. 2 between adjacent elements 30) between the first deck tile support strap (30) and the second deck tile support straps (30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deck tile support system of Burt further comprising a gap between the first deck tile support strap and the second deck tile support strap as disclosed by McManus in order to support the decking material across an entirety of the decking frame/decking structure.
Re claim 19, Burt as modified discloses the deck tile support system of claim 18 and a first and second deck tile support straps ([0070]), but fails to disclose wherein the first deck tile support strap is abutted with the second deck tile support strap.
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 modify the deck tile support system of Burt wherein the first deck tile support strap is abutted with the second deck tile support strap in order to provide more straps across the entirety of the decking frame to support more weight. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights