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 .
Status of Claims
The present application is said to be a CIP of Application No. 18/395,552. Claims 1-17 are pending and subject to examination in this Office action.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1 (4th limitation), the term “the basis” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1 (4th limitation), the word “their” is recited. To what previously recited structure is this word referring?
Regarding claim 4, the word “its” is recited. To what previously recited structure is this word referring?
Regarding claim 7, the term “the flanges” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, the term “the wood columns” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the term “the plurality of EMC composite members” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17, the word “its” is recited. To what previously recited structure is this word referring?
Accordingly, the pending claims will be interpreted as best understood.
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 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, 2, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Truckner (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0082735).
Regarding independent claim 1, Truckner describes an apparatus for joining together two structural components (anchor, 105, joining post, 121, and flooring member, 147, together; Figures 1 and 5b; paragraph [0025]), the apparatus comprising:
a first End Moment Coupling (EMC) including a wood-frame coupling and one or more tension members that are affixed to the wood-frame coupling (anchor [wood-frame coupling], 105, and fasteners [tension members], 117, affixed to anchor; Figures 1 and 5b; paragraph [0027]);
a second EMC including a wood-frame coupling and one or more tension members that are affixed to the wood-frame coupling (bracket [second wood-frame coupling], 103, with fasteners [tension members], 117, affixed to the bracket, 103; Figures 1 and 5b; paragraph [0027]);
wherein the first EMC and the second EMC are spaced from one another (anchor, 105, and bracket, 103, are spaced from one another by flooring member, 147; Figure 5b);
wherein the first EMC and the second EMC have a common wood member as the basis of their respective wood-frame couplings (anchor, 105, and bracket, 103, have a post, 121, which is a common wood member for the basis of their coupling; Figure 5b);
wherein the first EMC and the second EMC are joined together by the one or more tension members that are affixed to the wood-frame coupling of the first EMC and the wood-frame coupling of the second EMC (fasteners, 117, couple the anchor, 105, and bracket, 103; Figure 5b; paragraphs [0022], [0027]), and
wherein the one or more tension members are arranged in substantial parallel to and spaced from the common wood member to form an EMC composite member (fasteners, 117, are parallel to and spaced from post, 121; Figure 5b).
Regarding claim 2, wherein a plurality of EMC composite members are joined together (a plurality of anchor/bracket/fastener units are joined together as deck framing; Figure 4; paragraphs [0012], [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of EMC composite members has its own discrete set of plurality of tension members (each anchor/bracket/fastener unit is illustrated as having its own discrete set of fasteners, 117; Figures 4 and 5b).
Regarding claim 6, wherein a flange is used to affix the tension members to the wood-flange couplings of the first EMC and the second EMC (flanges, 109 and 131, are used to affix anchor, 105, and bracket, 103; Figures 1 and 5b).
Regarding claim 7, wherein locking nuts are used to join the tension members to the flanges of the first EMC and the second EMC (locking nuts on the fasteners, 117, are used to join the flanges, 109 and 131, of anchor, 105, and bracket, 103; Figure 5b).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3, 5, and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Truckner as applied above, and further in view of Mozingo (U.S. Patent No. 4,932,178).
Regarding claim 3, Truckner does not appear to expressly describe wherein the plurality of EMC composite members have common tension members. As evidenced by Mozingo, it was old and well-known in the art to utilize a wood deck held together by wood-frame couplings (timbers, 16, held together by rod, 24, anchor and bearing plates, 26 and 28, and nut, 30; Figures 2-3; column 4, lines 45-67) wherein the plurality of EMC composite members have common tension members (opposite anchor and bearing plates, 26 and 28, share common tension members, 24; Figures 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plurality of EMC composite members having common tension members with a reasonable expectation of success because it would bolster the structural integrity and load distribution of the apparatus. Such combination of known prior art elements that merely yields predictable results would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-16.
Accordingly, Truckner as modified by Mozingo results in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Mozingo describes wherein the tension members are steel threaded rods (threaded steel tensioning rods, 24; column 4, line 45 - column 5, line 3).
Regarding claim 8, Mozingo describes wherein the common wood member has a cross-sectional area greater than a cross-sectional area of the wood-frame couplings of the first EMC member and the second EMC member (timbers, 16, have a greater cross-sectional area than that of the anchor and bearing plates, 26 and 28, of the couplings; Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Truckner describes wherein a compression plate connected to the wood-frame coupling of the first EMC and the second EMC is used to affix the tension members to same wood-flange couplings of the first EMC and the second EMC (load plate, 107; Figures 1 and 5b; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Truckner describes wherein the compression plate of the first EMC and the second EMC is used to compress and pre-stress the common wood member (load plate, 107, is designed to increase stiffening and rigidity of the post – the load plate can compress and pre-stress post, 121, to add stiffening and rigidity and satisfy the functional language of the claim; paragraph [0024 ]).
Regarding claim 11, Truckner describes wherein the compression plate is used to create a wood-frame coupling by uniformly tightening affixed plurality of tension members (load plate, 107, creates coupling between 3 wood members and anchor and bracket, 105 and 103 - load plate, 107, creates a horizontal surface such that fasteners, 117, can be uniformly tightened against the plate - thus being capable of satisfying the functional limitation; Figure 5b; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Truckner describes wherein each of the wood columns includes preformed holes or preformed channels for passing the tension members therethrough (wood floor member, 147, includes channels or holes, 129, in which fasteners, 117, pass through; Figure 5b; paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, Truckner describes wherein the preformed holes or preformed channels for passing the tension members therethrough connect compression plates locked in place with locking nuts (load plate, 107, and flange, 131, are connected via fasteners, 117, that pass-through apertures, 129, with the fasteners, 117, having a locking nut on the end thereof; Figure 5b).
Regarding claim 14, Truckner describes wherein the locking nuts allow the tension member to slide freely in cases where compression plates of the first EMC and the second EMC are compressing the common wood member (fasteners, 117, have a locking nuts on the end and if a user chooses not to fully tighten the locking nut against the load plate, 107, the fastener would be able to slide freely - thus the structure is capable of satisfying the functional language of the claim; Figure 5b).
Regarding claim 15, Truckner describes wherein a plurality of EMC composite members are joined together (a plurality of anchor/bracket/fastener units are joined together as deck framing; Figure 4; paragraphs [0012], [0032]).
Regarding claim 16, Mozingo describes wherein the plurality of EMC composite members have common tension members (opposite anchor and bearing plates, 26 and 28, share common tension members, 24; Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 17, Truckner describes wherein each of the plurality of EMC composite members has its own discrete set of plurality of tension members (each anchor/bracket/fastener unit is illustrated as having its own discrete set of fasteners, 117; Figures 4 and 5b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 EDT.
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 on 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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights