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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, line 5, the recitation “direction. metal” appears to be a typo, and the period should be removed.
Regarding claim 9, line 1, the recitation “where in” appears it should read –wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-9 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 a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, line 13, the recitation “the at least two metal structures” renders the claim indefinite because the claim is directed to “a structure” and not multiple structures attached to one another. The recitation lacks proper antecedent basis and further appears to be directed to a combination. The positive recitation of multiple metal structures recites a combination and the claim is directed to a sub-combination of a single structure. The claim has been examined as if directed to the combination.
Regarding claim 6, lines 5-6, it is unclear if the text after the period is a typo or if the text after the period is meant to be present. The text after the period does not appear to mesh with the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, lines 1-2, it is unclear how the end studs of single structure can be connected back-to-back if they are located at opposite ends of the structure.
Regarding claim 8, lines 2-3, it is unclear how the “two metal structures” are connected “back-to-back”. Studs secured at an end of a structure being connected back-to-back with a stud is different than the metal structure being connected back-to-back. The structure secured “back-to-back” would mean the sides of the jambs would be side-to-side.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2003/0037494 A1 to Collins et al.
Regarding claim 1, Collins et al. disclose a brace (40, 41; Fig.1-4) for structurally connecting metal studs (20), the brace comprising: a length of metal (40) that folded along a longitudinal axis (49) to define longitudinal stripes (each side of the V-shaped member 40, 41) that are angled with the longitudinal axis; each of the longitudinal stripes has a plurality slots (42) that are dimensioned to receive a portion of a metal stud (Fig.6) and at least one tab (46) that is positioned to abut a metal stud and receive a fastener (tab 46 is capable of receiving a fastener) that connects the at least one tab to a metal stud.
Regarding claim 2, the stabilizer comprising: a length of metal (41) that is creased along a longitudinal axis (49) and folded to define longitudinal stripes (each side of the V shaped metal) in intersecting planes; each of the longitudinal stripes has at least one slot (42) that is dimensioned to receive a portion of a metal structure and at least one tab (46) that is positioned to abut a portion of metal structure.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the at least one tab is positioned to receive a fastener that joins the at least one tab to the metal structure (the tab 46 is capable of receiving a fastener).
Regarding claim 4, Collins et al. disclose a metal structure (Fig.1) comprising: least one beam (12) disposed in a first direction; a plurality of metal studs (20) that are disposed in a second direction relative to the at least one beam and connected to the at least one beam (connected at 23); each of the plurality of metal studs that are disposed in a second direction has at least one aperture (26); at least one metal structural stabilizer (40, 41) that is creased along a longitudinal axis (49) and folded to define longitudinal stripes (each side of the metal beam 41); and, at least one of the longitudinal stripes has a slot (42) that is dimensioned to receive a portion of a metal stud (Fig.6) disposed in the second direction and at least one tab (46) that is positioned to be connected with a metal stud disposed in the second direction (Fig.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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0037494 A1 to Collins et al. in view of US 2019/0271149 A1 to Haba in view of US 2003/0145537 A1 to Bailey.
Regarding claim 5, Collins discloses a structure (Fig.1) comprising: at least one beam (12) disposed in a first direction; a plurality of metal studs (20) that are disposed in a second direction relative to the at least one beam and connected to the beam (23) to define at least two end metal studs (studs at the ends of 12); each of the plurality of metal studs that are disposed in a second direction has at least one aperture (26); at least one brace (40, 41) folded (49) to define longitudinal stripes (each side of V-shaped 41); and, at least one of the longitudinal stripes has at least one slot (42) that is dimensioned to receive a portion of a metal stud (Fig. 1 and 6) disposed in the second direction, at least one tab (46) on the brace is positioned to be connected with a metal stud disposed in the second direction (Fig.6).
Collins et al. do not disclose an end tab on the brace is positioned to be connected with an end metal stud disposed in the second direction; nor does Collins et al. disclose whereby end metal studs of the at least two metal structures are positioned back-to-back and a fastener connects the least one brace in each of the at least two metal structures together.
Haba discloses an end tab (310, 610) on the brace is positioned to be connected with an end metal stud (Paragraph [0099]-[0101]).
Bailey discloses end metal studs (1, 1, Fig.14) of the at least two metal structures are positioned back-to-back (Fig.14) and a fastener (fasteners inserted through holes 12 in the webs) connects the least one brace (17, 18) in each of the at least two metal structures together (Fig.14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided tabs along the brace of Collins including end tabs as taught by Haba so to enable the brace to abut and be secured to an end stud thereby preventing the end of the brace from being exposed and further to strengthen the structure overall.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used threaded fasteners to secure end studs of the structures of Collins to one another as taught by Bailey so to provide a strong, structurally sound wall structure and further to ensure the adjacent structures remain in line with one another.
Regarding claim 6, Collins discloses wherein the at least one longitudinal stripe has a plurality of slots (42) that are dimensioned to receive a portion of a metal stud disposed in the second direction (Fig. 1 and 6), a plurality of tabs (46) that are positioned to be connected with a metal stud disposed in the second direction (Fig.6). Haba discloses a plurality of end tabs (310, 610) that are positioned to be connected with an end metal stud disposed in the second direction. Bailey discloses wherein metal studs defining an end of the structures are connected with at least one fastener (1 and 1 are secured by fasteners through holes 12, Fig.14).
Regarding claim 7, Bailey discloses wherein the metal end studs are connected back- to-back (1, 1, Fig.14) and a plurality of fastener pass through the plurality of end tabs to secure the end studs together (fasteners through holes 12, Fig.14; Haba, Fig.8A, fasteners shown in Fig.4).
Regarding claim 8, Bailey discloses wherein each end metal stud is dimensioned to receive a fastener head and the at least two metal structures are positioned back-to- back without interference from the head of a fastener (fasteners are inserted from the interior of the C-shaped studs, therefore the studs are dimensioned to receive the fastener without interference; Fig.14).
Regarding claim 9, Collins discloses where in the brace is formed from a metal stripe (44; Paragraph [0063]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights