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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to the specification at page 14 [0040] line 5 and 6 show duplicate subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okura (JP 2004/052464).
In regards to claim 1, Okura discloses a connection structure, comprising:
A first connection structure (as seen in annotated fig. 1) connecting a lower end of a first sloped beam (as seen in annotated fig. 1, lower end of reference element 3) and a first framework member (as seen in fig. 6, reference element 2b), wherein,
The first connection structure includes a first metal bracket (pg. 9 [0014], lines 1-6 of Okura’s Translation) contacting a first end surface of the lower end of the first sloped beam 3 (as seen in annotated fig. 1),
The first metal bracket connects the first sloped beam 3 and the first framework member 2b so that a lower surface of the first sloped beam 3 is located above an upper surface of the first framework member 2b (as seen in fig. 6).
The examiner notes that although in fig. 5 shows the lower surface of the sloped beam 3 to be below the upper surface of the first framework, however, when you start on the lower surface near the bottom of the first sloped beam 3 and continue up the beam towards the second framework (as seen in fig. 6, reference element 2a) the lower surface of the sloped beam 3 begins to be located above the upper surface of the first framework 2b and continues to be above even when the second framework 2a is reached. Therefore, per broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation is met.
The first metal bracket includes a first connection surface (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element 4b) contacting the first end surface and a second connection surface (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element 5b) contacting the upper surface of the first framework member 2b and perpendicularly intersecting the first connection surface (as seen in annotated fig. 1).
The examiner wants to make the record clear moving forward that the annotated fig. 1 consists of fig. 4 & 5 which is a connecting device that Okura teaches in B1 of Fig. 6. This connection structure can be applied to B2 of fig. 6 which the connecting device is mounted to the beam 2b. The only difference is that the connection is at the column 1b instead of the beam 2b (pg. 4, [0017] lines 45-46). It is important to note that the first and second connection structures can be applied to A2 and B2 of fig. 6 as well which are connected to the first and second framework members (2a and 2b).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
In regards to claim 3, Okura discloses wherein the first connection surface includes a first connection portion configured to be inserted into a slit formed in the first end surface (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference elements 6b and 9b).
In regards to claim 4, Okura discloses wherein the second connection surface includes a second connection portion configured to be inserted into an insertion hole formed (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference elements 12 and 20) in the upper surface of the first framework member 2b (as seen in annotated fig. 1).
In regards to claim 6, Okura discloses a roof of a building, the roof comprising:
The connection structure according to claim 1 (as seen in annotated fig. 1).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okura (JP 2004/052464) in view of Noritaka (JP-H11315610).
In regards to claim 5, Okura discloses the claimed invention comprising a second connection structure connecting an upper end of the first sloped beam 3 (as seen in fig. 1) and a second framework member (as seen in figs. 1 & 6, reference element 2a) that is arranged parallel to the first framework member 2b (as seen in fig. 6), wherein the second connection structure includes a second metal bracket (pg. 4 [0014], lines 18-19) contacting a second end surface of the upper end of the first sloped beam 3 (as seen in fig. 1 & 6), the second end surface is opposite to the first end surface (as seen in fig. 6), and the second connection structure includes a structure in which the first sloped beam 3 is connected to the second framework member 2a by the second metal bracket (as seen in fig. 1 & 6).
However, Okura does not specifically disclose at least part of the second end surface is located above an upper surface of the second framework member 2a.
Noritaka teaches that this second connection structure (as seen in fig. 23, reference element 75) is positioned that the upper surface of the first sloped beam is located above an upper surface of the second framework member (as seen in fig. 22 & 23, reference element 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the choice of design to allow the second end surface of the first sloped beam 3 to sit above the upper surface of the second framework 2a member to allow additional connection surfaces if needed or for aesthetics purposes.
Claims 7 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okura (JP 2004/052464) in view of Akihiro (JP H05163789).
In regards to claim 7, Okura discloses a roof of a building, the roof comprising:
A first framework member 2b (as seen in fig. 6);
A second framework member 2a (as seen in fig. 6) arranged parallel to the first framework member 2b (as seen in fig. 6);
A first sloped beam 3 connected to the first framework 2b member and the second framework member 2a (as seen in fig. 6);
a connection structure connecting a lower end of the first sloped beam 3 and the first framework member 2b (as seen in fig. 6),
Wherein the connection structure includes the connection structure according to claim 1. However, Okura does not disclose a rafter arranged parallel to the first sloped beam as well as the first sloped beam is connected to the first framework member and the second framework member so that an upper surface of the first sloped beam is located above a lower surface of the rafter.
Akihiro teaches a rafter (as seen in fig. 1 & 3, reference element 8) arranged parallel to the first sloped beam (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 5) as well as the first sloped beam 5 is connected to the first framework member (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 1b) and the second framework member (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 6) so that the upper surface of the first sloped beam 5 is located above a lower surface of the rafter 8 (as seen in fig. 3).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as per design choice to include the rafters 8 to be parallel to Okura’s sloped beams and to sit on the first and second framework members so that the upper surface of the sloped beams is above the lower surface of the rafter 8 so the rafters bear the loading forces for proper loading distribution.
In regards to claim 8, Okura in view of Akihiro disclose the claimed invention. Okura in view of Akihiro further teaches wherein the first sloped beam 5 is connected to the first framework member 1b and the second framework member 6 so that the upper surface of the first sloped beam 5 is located at the same height as an upper surface of the rafter 8 (as seen in Akihiro’s fig. 1 & 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the choice of design to include to position the upper surface of the sloped beam 5 to be the same height of the upper surface of the rafter to maintain proper loading distribution of the roof.
Claims 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okura (JP 2004/052464) in view of Akihiro (JP H05163789) and in further view of Shinichi et al. (JP 05018033).
In regards to claim 9, Okura in view of Akihiro discloses the claimed invention wherein the second sloped beam 3 arranged parallel to the first sloped beam 3, wherein the second sloped beam 3 is connected to the first framework member 2b and second framework member 2a.
However, Okura in view of Akihiro does not disclose the upper surface of the second sloped beam 3 is located below an upper surface of the rafter 8.
Shinichi teaches an arrangement in which the upper surface of the second sloped beam (as seen in fig. 2, reference element 4) are configured below the upper surface of the rafter (as seen in fig. 2, reference element 1a & 1b).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this design choice for allocating different loads to different rafters, install additional panels that allow additional features, or for aesthetics purposes.
In regards to claim 10, Okura in view of Akihiro discloses the claimed invention. However, Okura in view of Akihiro does not disclose a verge member being arranged across the second sloped beam and being supported by the second sloped beam.
Shinichi teaches an arrangement of which a first sloped beam (as seen in fig. 2, reference element 5a) is positioned parallel to a second sloped beam 4 in which a verge member (as seen in fig. 1(A), reference element 2) can be installed crossing and supported on the second sloped beam 4 (as seen in Fig. 3, pg. 5, [0010] lines 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify this choice of design to include a verge member for better structural support, roof durability, and for aesthetic purposes.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okura (JP 2004/052464) in view of Akihiro (JP H05163789) and further view of Shinichi (JP 05018033).
In regards to claim 11, Okura in view of Akihiro and further view of Shinichi discloses the claimed invention of a roof building, the roof comprising:
A first framework member 2b,
a second framework member 2a arranged parallel to the first framework member 2b,
a first sloped beam 3 connected to the first framework 2b member and the second framework member 2a,
a rafter arranged parallel to the first sloped beam; (as previously mention in the above rejection of claim 7),
a second sloped beam 3 arranged parallel to the first sloped beam 3 (as previously mentioned in the above rejection of claim 9); and
a verge member arranged crossing the second sloped beam 3 and supported by the second sloped beam (as previously mentioned in the above rejection of claim 10),
Wherein the first sloped beam is connected to the first framework member and the second framework member so that an upper surface of the first sloped beam is located above a lower surface of the rafter (as previously mentioned in the above rejection of claim 7),
The second sloped beam is connected to the first framework member and the second framework member so that an upper surface of the second sloped beam is located below an upper surface of the rafter, (as previously mentioned in the above rejection of claim 9)
Shinichi further teaches that the verge member is arranged so that an upper surface of the verge member 2 is flushed (as seen in fig. 1 (C) and 2) with an upper surface of the rafter (as seen in fig. 2 & 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the upper surface of the verge member is flushed with an upper surface of the rafter to maximize all contact surfaces, reduce future maintenance, and for aesthetic purposes.
Conclusion
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
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights