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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “21” has been used to designate both a reinforcing member (para. 0041) and a surface (para. 0038 and 0039). 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. 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 Objections
Claims 9-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 9-17, the preamble of the claim should read: “A structural connector of claim #” so the claim language is consistent with claim 1 and other dependent claims depending from claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim should recite “a” before “purlin, beam, column, post and wall”.
Claims 15 and 16 should recite antecedence by reciting “the” or “said” before “concrete”.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites “wherein two or more connectors”. Are the two or more connectors referring to the structural connector or a different structure? Antecedence should be clearly reflected or the claim terms should be clearly differentiated from each other for clarity.
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.
Claims 1-4, 14 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Triplett (US 6345474).
In regards to claim 1, Triplett discloses a structural connector being made of a material comprising concrete (col 1, lines 59-61), the connector being configured to join two or more mass timber structural components (as seen in fig. 6-7, reference elements 80 & 80’).
In regards to claim 2, Triplett discloses the claimed invention, wherein one or more mounting channels are defined within the concrete (as seen in fig. 3, reference element 60), dimensioned to receive a fastener (as seen in fig. 3, reference element 76) therethrough for fixedly securing the connector to the mass timber structural components (as seen in fig. 3).
In regards to claim 3, Triplett discloses the claimed invention, wherein the one or more mounting channels 60 are present in the concrete (as seen in fig. 3).
In regards to claim 4, Triplett discloses the claimed invention, wherein one or more voids are defined in the concrete (as seen in fig. 1 &2, reference elements 20, 45 & 50). The slots that receive the timber members are considered voids or empty spaces of the concrete block.
The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In regards to claim 14, Triplett discloses the claimed invention, wherein the mass timber structural components comprise one or more purlin, beam, column, post and wall (as seen in fig. 5-7, reference elements 70’, 80 & 80’). Triplett discloses multiple wooden posts which are capable to lead to other beams, purlins or walls.
In regards to claim 17, Triplett discloses the claimed invention, a structural assembly comprising mass timber structural components joined by one or more structural connectors as defined in claim 1 (as previously mentioned in rejected claim 1).
Claims 1, 7 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thorpe (US 20040221538).
In regards to claim 1, Thorpe discloses a structural connector being made of a material comprising concrete (pg. 1 [0005], lines 12-14) the connector being configured to join two or more mass timber structural components (as seen in fig. 6, reference element 61 & 62).
In regards to claim 7, Thorpe discloses the claimed invention, wherein the concrete comprises fiber-reinforced concrete (para. 0015).
In regards to claim 8, Thorpe discloses the claimed invention, wherein the fibers in the fiber-reinforced concrete comprise one or more glass fibers (para. 0013).
Claims 1, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romanenko (US 9523201).
In regards to claim 1, Romanenko discloses a structural connector being made of a material comprising concrete (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 104, col 3, lines 9-10), the connector being configured to join two or more mass timber structural components (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 101a, 110a & 101b, 110b).
The examiner notes that although this block is to be used with other similar blocks (as seen in fig. 3), the vertical channels (reference elements 101a & 101b) are configured to receive a tenon style male end mass timber structural component.
In regards to claim 9, Romanenko discloses the claimed invention, wherein one or more reinforcing members are embedded in the concrete (as seen in fig. 1, reference elements 112a, 112b & 112c, col 8 lines 2-4).
In regards to claim 10, Romanenko discloses the claimed invention, wherein the one or more reinforcing members comprise one or more of reinforcing bars (rebars), (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 112a, 112b, and 112c).
In regards to claim 11, Romanenko discloses the claimed invention, wherein the reinforcing bars are made of a material comprising steel (col 3, lines 1-3).
In regards to claim 12, Romanenko discloses the claimed invention, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the connector along a longitudinal axis thereof comprises a rectangular-shape (as seen in fig. 2).
Claims 1 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilhelm (US 11015366).
In regards to claim 1, Wilhelm discloses a structural connector being made of a material comprising concrete (col 2, lines 54-55), the connector being configured to join two or more mass timber structural components (as seen in fig. 36, reference element 3601).
In regards to claim 13, Wilhelm discloses the claimed invention, as best understood, wherein two or more connectors are fixedly secured by one or more reinforcing members (as seen in fig. 26, reference element 2608) to form a combined structural connector (as seen in fig. 26).
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.
Claims 5 & 6, 15 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triplett (US 6345474) in view of Messenger et al. (US 20060218870).
Regarding claims 5 & 6, Triplett teaches the claimed invention, however, Triplett does teach of voids being present in the concrete (e.g. the openings that receive the timber components) but does not expressly disclose air pockets within the concrete material of the concrete structural connector. Triplett also does not teach of having a specific range of one or more voids in the concrete from 1-5% and thus 2-3%.
Messenger does teach of removing air bubbles or concrete voids by vibrating the casting table for a predetermined time (para. 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Triplett’s design choice by using vibration, on the concrete material to help position the concrete material to minimize air pockets and improve density of the concrete block.
Although Messenger does not disclose the exact range, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a total volume of the one or more voids in the concrete to be in a range of from 1% to about 5% than 2% to about 3%, 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 223. When one of ordinary skill would recognize the known effect attributed to a claimed parameter, then it is logical to conclude that changes to that parameter produce expected results. In this case, it is expected that decreasing the range of voids in a concrete slab would strengthen the concrete for larger load bearing capabilities and postpone the concrete to cracking.
Regarding claims 15 & 16, Triplett discloses the claimed invention, However, Triplett does not teach of a range of more than 90 and more than 95 % of v/v (volume mix over total volume of solution) of concrete.
Messenger does teach of using vibration for a predetermined amount of time to control the position the concrete material (para. 0070).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Triplett’s design by using vibration for a predetermined amount of time to better control the position of the concrete material which would lead to a larger volume mix over total volume of solution of concrete.
Although Messenger does not disclose the exact range, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a total volume of the concrete to be in a range of from 90% to about 95%, 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 223. When one of ordinary skill would recognize the known effect attributed to a claimed parameter, then it is logical to conclude that changes to that parameter produce expected results. In this case, it is expected that having the maximum amount of concrete per volume and decreasing the range of voids in a concrete slab would strengthen the concrete for larger load bearing capabilities, and postpone the concrete to cracking.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants disclose. Rex (US 5119614) discloses a structural connector comprising of concrete, reinforcing members and capable to configure to join two or more mass timber structural components. The concrete post comprises of an “I” shape and is fabricated with vertical reinforcing bars.
Gutierrez (US 4328651) discloses of a structural connector comprising of concrete and capable to configure to join two or more mass timber structural components, capable to receive reinforcing members such as rods or bars, plurality of holes dimensioned to receive a fastener therethrough.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARRETT C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7.30am-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 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.
/GARRETT CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRENT W HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights