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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Some of the documents listed in the IDS dated 07/07/2025 have not been considered for one or more of the following reasons: The title of the document listed did not match the tile of any of the NPL documents submitted with the IDS, the document was not legible, no translation was provided for a foreign search document so applicability could not be determined, bibliographic information listed on the IDS do not correspond to any of the submitted documents, the referenced document has not been provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 5-9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, U.S. Patent 4,885,883 in view of Weitzman, U.S. Patent 4,630,550 and Huang, U.S. Patent 8,671,644.
Regarding claim 5, Wright discloses a corner connection bracket, each of said brackets being formed as a unitary structure (as shown in the figures) and including a plurality of tubular sockets (26a-26d) connected to one another at one end, each of said tubular sockets having a plurality of planar faces that intersect with adjacent planar faces to define a continuous peripheral wall of said socket (see Fig. 4), said structural members (14, 16, 18) being received within respective ones of said tubular sockets so as to be encompassed by said peripheral wall (as shown in Fig. 1), said planar faces of sockets including inwardly directed planar faces directed toward a planar face of another socket (see Figs. 3-4) and outwardly directed planar faces directed away from planar faces of adjacent sockets (see Figs. 3-4, generally), planar faces including an array of holes (40) to facilitate attachment of said bracket to a respective structural member and to permit connection of an attachment to the bracket to support ancillary components by a fastener passing through a respective hole and into said structural member within said socket (see figures), but does not disclose each opposed pair of said inwardly directed planar faces on adjacent sockets having an identical array of holes thereon and said outwardly directed planar faces being devoid of such arrays, each of said arrays including a pair of holes spaced apart along a longitudinal axis of said socket to facilitate attachment of said bracket to a respective structural member and to permit connection of an attachment to the bracket to support ancillary components by a fastener passing through a respective hole and into said structural member within said socket. Weitzman teaches opposed pairs of said inwardly directed planar faces (inwardly directed faces of 44, 46, 48) on adjacent sockets having an identical array of holes thereon (50, see Fig. 5) and said outwardly directed planar faces being devoid of such arrays (upwardly directed faces, see Fig. 4), each of said arrays including a pair of holes (50) spaced apart along a longitudinal axis of said socket to facilitate attachment of said bracket to a respective structural member and to permit connection of an attachment to the bracket to support ancillary components by a fastener passing through a respective hole and into said structural member within said socket (as shown in Figs. 4, generally). Huang teaches each socket having two interior facing planar surfaces including holes and two exterior facing surfaces being devoid of holes (see Figs. 1-4, 10-13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the bracket having longitudinally spaced holes on the inwardly faces to provide for adjustability depending on the length of the structural members, and to not include the holes on exterior faces where they are not needed for a desired aesthetic appearance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The phrase “to facilitate attachment of said bracket to a respective structural member and to permit connection of an attachment to the bracket to support ancillary components by a fastener passing through a respective hole and into said structural member within said socket” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art, as modified, discloses a corner connection bracket wherein said outwardly directed faces of said sockets are imperforate to provide a smooth exterior surface to said bracket (see Huang Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Wright discloses a corner connection bracket wherein said structural members are disposed on orthogonal axes and are connected by a respective one of said brackets having a plurality of orthogonally disposed sockets (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Wright discloses a corner connection bracket wherein said array of holes permits connection of an attachment between adjacent planar faces of adjacent sockets to support ancillary components (see figures, generally). The phrase “permits connection of an attachment between adjacent planar faces of adjacent sockets to support ancillary components” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art as modified discloses a corner connection bracket wherein each array has two sets of holes spaced apart laterally, at least one of said sets having a plurality of holes spaced apart longitudinally (as modified, see Weitzman Fig. 5), said arrays being disposed on said adjacent planar faces to provide two lines of holes extending between said adjacent sockets to permit connection of an attachment either to one hole of each array to extend between adjacent sockets to support ancillary components or connected to two holes of one array to be supported on one socket (as shown in Weitzman Fig. 5), each of said outwardly directed planar faces being imperforate to provide a smooth exterior surface for said bracket(see Huang Figs. 1-4, 10-13).
Regarding claim 13, Wright discloses a corner connection bracket wherein said elongate structural members of said framework include a plurality of vertical posts (14, 16) disposed at corners of a polygon and longitudinal stringers extending between said posts (at 24, 26), said stringers and posts being connected at each corner by a respective one of said brackets (24, 26, see Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, U.S. Patent 4,885,883 in view of Weitzman, U.S. Patent 4,630,550, Huang, U.S. Patent 8,671,644, and in further view of Porter, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0178551.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art discloses a corner connection bracket but does not disclose wherein each of said array of holes is arranged in two parallel rows spaced from one another with the holes in each row uniformly spaced apart to define a grid. Porter teaches connection brackets wherein each of said array of holes is arranged in two parallel rows spaced from one another with the holes in each row uniformly spaced apart to define a grid (see Fig. 6 for example). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the bracket with holes arranged in two parallel rows spaced from one another with the holes in each row uniformly spaced apart to define a grid as taught by Porter to maximize versatility of the bracket and provide adjustability in the construction of a structure assembly, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, U.S. Patent 4,885,883 in view of Weitzman, U.S. Patent 4,630,550, Huang, U.S. Patent 8,671,644, Porter, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0178551, and Elston, U.S. Patent 4,429,730.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art, as modified, discloses a corner connection bracket, but does not disclose wherein a hanger extends between a pair of inwardly directed faces and is secured to a hole in each array. Elston teaches a hanger member extending between adjacent elongate members of a structure (15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a hanger member for the attachment of additional desired components to the structure, depending on the desired function of the structure. It would have been obvious to attach the hanger via the array holes because the holes are already present and would not require additional drilling.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art as modified discloses a corner connection bracket wherein a panel is secured to said hanger (Elston 1).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, U.S. Patent 4,885,883 in view of Weitzman, U.S. Patent 4,630,550, Huang, U.S. Patent 8,671,644, and Elston, U.S. Patent 4,429,730.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art discloses a corner connection bracket but does not disclose wherein a panel is secured at each corner by a hanger to provide roof for said framework. Elston teaches a hanger member extending between adjacent elongate members of a structure (15) to secure a panel (1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a hanger member for the attachment of a panel to the structure, depending on the desired function of the structure. It would have been obvious to attach the hanger via the array holes because the holes are already present and would not require additional drilling.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art as modified discloses a corner connection bracket but does not disclose wherein a panel is secured to hangers on a pair of said brackets and to a pair of said posts at locations spaced from the brackets to provide a wall for said framework. Elston teaches a hanger member extending between adjacent elongate members of a structure (15) to secure a panel (1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a hanger member for the attachment of a panel to the structure, depending on the desired function of the structure. It would have been obvious to attach the hanger via the array holes because the holes are already present and would not require additional drilling. The panel will be secured to all elongate members, including the posts upon fastening of all of the elongate members and brackets together when the structure is formed.
Claim(s) 16-17, 19-20, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzman, U.S. Patent 4,630,550 in view of Huang, U.S. Patent 8,671,644.
Regarding claim 16, Weitzman discloses a corner connection bracket , said bracket being formed as a unitary structure (40) and including a plurality of tubular sockets (44, 46, 48) connected to one another at one end (see Fig. 5, generally), to receive a respective structural member disposed on the longitudinal axis of said socket (as the sockets are tubes they may receive a structural member), each of said tubular sockets having a plurality of planar faces that intersect with adjacent planar faces to define a continuous peripheral wall of said socket for encompassing the respective structural member when received in said socket (as shown in Fig. 5), said planar faces including inwardly directed planar faces directed toward a planar face of another socket and outwardly directed planar faces directed away from planar faces of adjacent sockets (as shown in Fig. 5), an array of holes (50) on some inward faces and some outward faces devoid of holes (see Fig. 5), each of said arrays including a pair of holes spaced apart along a longitudinal axis (see figures) of said socket to facilitate attachment of said bracket to a respective structural member, but does not disclose each opposed pair of said inwardly directed planar faces on adjacent sockets having an identical hole arrangement formed thereon and said outwardly directed planar faces being devoid of such arrays. Huang teaches a corner bracket (4) each opposed pair of said inwardly directed planar faces on adjacent sockets having an identical array of holes formed thereon and said outwardly directed planar faces being devoid of such arrays. Huang teaches each socket having two interior facing planar surfaces including holes and two exterior facing surfaces being devoid of holes (see Figs. 1-4, 10-13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the bracket having longitudinally spaced holes on the inwardly faces to provide for adjustability depending on the length of the structural members, and to not include the holes on exterior faces where they are not needed for a desired aesthetic appearance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The phrases “to receive a respective structural member,” “for encompassing the respective structural member when received,” and “to facilitate attachment of said bracket to a respective structural member” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art, as modified, discloses a corner connection bracket wherein said outwardly directed faces of said sockets are imperforate to provide a smooth exterior surface to said bracket (see Huang Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, Weitzman discloses a corner connection bracket wherein each of the sockets are square in cross section (square tubular steel, abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Weitzman discloses a corner connection bracket wherein three sockets are provided on orthogonal axes (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 24, Witzman discloses a corner connection bracket wherein a pair of said adjacent planar faces are mechanically interlocked along a common vertex of said socket (see figures, generally).
Claim(s) 18, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzman, U.S. Patent 4,630,550 in view of Huang, U.S. Patent 8,671,644 and Porter, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0178551.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art discloses a corner connection bracket but does not disclose wherein each of said array of holes is arranged in two parallel rows spaced from one another with the holes in each row uniformly spaced apart to define a grid. Porter teaches connection brackets wherein each of said array of holes is arranged in two parallel rows spaced from one another with the holes in each row uniformly spaced apart to define a grid (see Fig. 6 for example). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the bracket with holes arranged in two parallel rows spaced from one another with the holes in each row uniformly spaced apart to define a grid as taught by Porter to maximize versatility of the bracket and provide adjustability in the construction of a structure assembly, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art discloses a corner connection bracket, but does not disclose wherein each of said arrays has two sets of holes spaced apart laterally, at least one of said sets having a plurality of holes spaced apart longitudinally, said arrays being disposed on said adjacent planar faces to provide two lines of holes extending between said adjacent sockets to permit connection of an attachment either to one hole of each array to extend between adjacent sockets to support ancillary components or connected to two holes of one array to be supported on one socket. Porter teaches connection brackets wherein each of said array of holes is arranged in two parallel rows spaced from one another with the holes in each row uniformly spaced apart to define a grid (see Fig. 6 for example). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the bracket with holes arranged in two parallel rows spaced from one another with the holes in each row uniformly spaced apart to define a grid as taught by Porter to maximize versatility of the bracket and provide adjustability in the construction of a structure assembly, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The phrase “to permit connection of an attachment either to one hole of each array to extend between adjacent sockets to support ancillary components or connected to two holes of one array to be supported on one socket” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art discloses a corner connection bracket but does not disclose wherein each set of holes includes a plurality of holes, said sets being arranged in two parallel rows spaced from one another with the holes in each row uniformly spaced apart to define a grid. Porter teaches connection brackets wherein each of said array of holes is arranged in two parallel rows spaced from one another with the holes in each row uniformly spaced apart to define a grid (see Fig. 6 for example). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the bracket with holes arranged in two parallel rows spaced from one another with the holes in each row uniformly spaced apart to define a grid as taught by Porter to maximize versatility of the bracket and provide adjustability in the construction of a structure assembly, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitzman, U.S. Patent 4,630,550 in view of Huang, U.S. Patent 8,671,644 and Feeleus, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0308063.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art discloses a corner connection bracket, but does not disclose wherein five sockets are provided on orthogonal axes and at least three faces on each socket are inwardly directed to respective faces of the other sockets, each of said three faces having an array of holes. Feeleus teaches a structural corner connection bracket (30) including five sockets provided on orthogonal axes and at least three faces on each socket are inwardly directed to respective faces of the other sockets (see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a bracket having five sockets for more versatility of an assembled structure or if a larger structure is deemed necessary, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. As modified, all inwardly directed faces will then have the array of holes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights