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 elements "12" and "8" have both been used to designate an additional beam that supports different posts. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Per specification pg. 10 [0035], additional beam 12 is used as a beam that supports the second posts 4C and 4D on the lower portion of the roof while additional beam 8 is used to support the upper portion of the first posts 4A and 4B (pg. 8 [0028]).
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 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.
The support metal connector is never positively recited as part of the claimed invention, but line 19 introduces limitations for the support metal connector. It is therefore unclear if the support metal connector is being positively recited.
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 1 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 10358811) in view of Kumakawa et al. (US 8511033).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood, Fox discloses a connection structure for connecting a sloped beam (as seen in fig. 32, reference element beam 16) and a post (as seen in fig. 32), the connection structure comprising a metal connector (col. 7, lines 3-5) arranged between a lower surface of the sloped beam and an upper surface of the post, wherein the metal connector connects the sloped beam to the post so that the sloped beam crosses the post in plan view (as seen in fig. 32),
wherein the metal connector includes:
a main body (as seen in fig. 30-39 reference element 10) that contacts the sloped beam and the post (as seen in fig. 32);
an inclined part (as seen in fig. 30-39, reference element 190) and contacting the lower surface of the sloped beam 16;
a bottom part (as seen in fig. 33, reference element 52) and contacting the upper surface of the post (as seen in fig. 32);
a side part extending from the bottom part 52 toward the sloped beam (as seen in fig. 33, reference element 176). The examiner wants to note that Fox discloses that the vertical side plates (reference elements 20, 36, 66, & 78) may be discrete metal plates that are welded to the bottom plate 52 (col. 19, lines 22-25). Fox also teaches that the side part 176 is capable to have different heights (as seen in fig. 37 & 38) to form a first end (reference element 184).
However, Fox does not disclose a first shaft arranged on the main body for insertion into a first insertion hole formed in the sloped beam;
a second shaft arranged on the main body for insertion into a second insertion hole formed in the post:
the side part includes a first support hole configured to receive a shaft member of a support metal connector.
Kumakawa teaches of a first shaft (as seen in fig. 2 & 5, reference element 26), a second shaft (as seen in fig. 2 & 5, reference element 19), a side joint hardware (as seen in fig. 2 & 3, reference element 23), a plurality of bolt insertion holes within the second shaft 19 (as seen in fig. 5, reference element 18a) configured to support the side joint hardware 23 and a second pitch of a plurality of bolt insertion holes 18a of the support metal connector (as seen in fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kumakawa’s shafts into Fox’s metal bracket design by placing one support shaft on the inclined part 190, and the second shaft 19 on Fox’s bottom plate 52, because this would allow the sloped beam 16, the connection structure, and the post to all be interlocked together through the post members. Thus, this would form a stronger, more secure connection.
In regards to claim 6, Fox in view of Kumakawa discloses a roof of a building as shown in figure 1 of Fox (as previously mentioned in rejected claim 1).
Claims 7, 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forsberg (US 5600924) in view of Nickloy et al. (US 4541215).
In regards to claim 7, Forsberg discloses a roof of a building, the roof comprising:
a sloped beam (as seen in fig. 2, reference element 12a) connected by a connection structure to a post (as seen in fig. 2) that supports the roof; and a tie beam (as seen in fig. 2, lower portion of reference element 66) connected to the sloped beam 12a so that a lower surface of the tie beam 66 is located at the same height as a lower surface of the sloped beam 12a (as seen in fig. 2), wherein, in the connection structure, the sloped beam 12a is connected to the post 6 by a metal connector (as seen in fig. 2, reference element 30, col. 2, lines 42-43) arranged between the lower surface of the sloped beam 12a and an upper surface of the post 6 (as seen in fig. 2, near reference elements 25 & 27) so that the sloped beam 12a crosses the post 6 in plan view (as seen in fig. 2),
However, Forsberg does not disclose a ceiling portion that covers the sloped beam and the lower surface of the tie beam. Forsberg also does not disclose the ceiling portion continuously extends along the sloped beam above and below the post.
Nickloy teaches using a snap-in ceiling system or panels (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 9) that have grip members have an engagement side (as seen in fig. 3-4reference element 39) that can be placed underneath beams and are held in place by tension (col. 3 lines 68 – col. 4 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nickloy’s gripping members design to Forsberg structure so the panel can be placed underneath the flanges (as seen in Forsberg’s fig. 1, reference elements 72 & 76) of the sloped beam and tie beam. Covering up these beams would bring a more aesthetic appeal to the interior of the ceiling and hide any unwanted beams and bring a more finished appearing ceiling (as seen in Nickloy’s col. 2, line 68 to col. 3, lines 1-2). The examiner wants to note that a definition of a post is a long sturdy piece timber or metal set upright in the ground and used to support something. In Forsberg fig. 2, the combination of the wall column 6 and platform connector 20 are considered by broadest reasonable interpretation of making up said post.
In regards to claim 9, Forsberg in view of Nickloy disclose the claimed invention, wherein a linking member (as seen in Forsberg’s fig. 2, upper portion of reference element 66) arranged perpendicular to the sloped beam 12a, wherein the linking member is joined to the sloped beam so that an upper surface of the sloped beam is located at the same height as an upper surface of the linking member (as seen in Forsberg’s fig. 2).
In regards to claim 10, Forsberg in view of Nickloy disclose the claimed invention, wherein an additional beam (as seen in Forsberg’s fig. 2, reference element 34) is arranged perpendicular to the sloped beam 12a (as seen in Forsberg fig. 2), wherein the additional beam is connected to the post so that a lower surface of the additional beam is located below the lower surface of the sloped beam 12a (as seen in fig. 2).
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
