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 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 16 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.
In regard to claim 16, the claim is indefinite because it is not clear what is being claimed. The claim appears to claim each of the holes of the plurality of holes pass through only one of the stiffeners? That doesn’t seem possible.
For examining purposes, it is assumed each of the holes of the plurality of holes passes through each of the stiffeners.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hilliard et al. US 2018/0016808 A1 (hereinafter ‘Hilliard’).
In regard to claims 1, 2, Hilliard teaches a bracket (5) for connecting a bottom of a column to a foundation, comprising:
a base (10), and
a plurality of stiffeners (20 and their respective wall part) extending upward from the base,
wherein each of the plurality of stiffeners comprises at least one face configured to attach to an exterior of the column (note that the end of the stiffeners is also the walls 12 and 14 which are configured to attach to the column as seen in fig. 1 and disclosed in [0021]);
wherein the base comprises a plurality of holes (30) around a perimeter of the base (see fig. 1);
wherein each of the holes are configured to receive corresponding rods extending from the foundation (it is noted that the holes are capable and configured to receive rods either from the foundation or fasteners from above, thus per MPEP 2114 the functional limitation is met); and
wherein the base is substantially flat (see fig. 1) and configured to be in contact with the bottom of the column (see [0022] disclosing the walls 12 and 14 define a rectangle that extends from the base, thus making it configured to contact a column directly, once a column is installed).
In regard to claims 3 and 4, Hilliard teaches the claimed invention wherein the base further comprises a plurality of nut bearing surfaces (117), surrounding each of the holes (see fig. 1 and 2), and configured to form a seat for each of a plurality of nuts. Note that surfaces 117 of washers 120 provide for a surface which is fully capable of supporting a nut because a washer’s main function is to support a nut in a connection. Note that the nut is not part of the claimed subject matter.
In regard to claim 5, Hilliard teaches the claimed invention wherein the bracket is configured such that nuts can be threaded with the rods extending from the foundation. It is noted that since neither the nuts or the rods are part of the claimed subject matter, the claim is met as the bracket of Hilliard allows for nuts to be threaded with rods.
In regard to claim 32, Hilliard teaches a bracket (5) for connecting a bottom of a column to a foundation, comprising:
a base (10), and
a collar (formed by walls 12/14) extending upward from the base and configured to have interior horizontal dimensions substantially equal to exterior horizontal dimensions of the column (as seen in fig. 1),
wherein the base comprises a plurality of holes (30) around a perimeter of the base (see fig. 1);
wherein each of the holes are configured to receive corresponding rods extending from the foundation (it is noted that the holes are capable and configured to receive rods either from the foundation or fasteners from above, thus per MPEP 2114 the functional limitation is met); and
wherein the base is substantially flat (seen in fig. 1) and configured to be in contact with the bottom of the column (see [0022] disclosing the walls 12 and 14 define a rectangle that extends from the base, thus making it configured to contact a column once a column is installed).
Alternatively,
Claims 1, 11-12, 14, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Milanowski et al. US 2024/0151059 A1 (hereinafter ‘Milanowski’).
In regard to claim 1, Milanowski teaches a bracket (10) for connecting a bottom of a column to a foundation, comprising:
a base (10), and
a plurality of stiffeners (72) extending upward from the base,
wherein each of the plurality of stiffeners comprises at least one face (inner surface of the members 72) configured to attach to an exterior of the column (see Abstract);
wherein the base comprises a plurality of holes (28) around a perimeter of the base (see fig. 1);
wherein each of the holes are configured to receive corresponding rods extending from the foundation (see [0024]); and
wherein the base is substantially flat (seen in fig. 2) and configured to be in contact with the bottom of the column (see fig. 3).
In regard to claim 11, Milanowski teaches the claimed invention further comprising a collar (14) extending upward from the base (fig. 1) and configured to have interior horizontal dimensions substantially equal to exterior horizontal dimensions of the column (100 -see fig. 2).
In regard to claim 12, Milanowski teaches the claimed invention wherein the collar comprises a top profile (40) configured to attach to the exterior of the column by welding. Note that parts of the apparatus of Milanowski are welded to one another as noted in [0025] thus, making the profile fully capable of being welded to another element, thus meeting the functional limitation being claimed.
In regard to claim 14, Milanowski teaches the claimed invention wherein the base comprises a plurality of ribs (64) on a top surface of the base configured to increase a bending stiffness and/or strength of the base (see [0044]).
In regard to claim 15, Milanowski teaches the claimed invention wherein the bottom surface of the base is flat and configured to be parallel to a top surface of the foundation (see fig. 3 -The bottom surface is capable of being parallel to a foundation in the same manner that is parallel to the surface of element 114).
In regard to claim 17, Milanowski teaches the claimed invention wherein the bracket comprises a cast construction (see [0019]).
Alternatively,
Claims 1, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato US 4,125,217 (hereinafter ‘Sato’).
In regard to claim 1, Sato teaches a bracket (20) for connecting a bottom of a column to a foundation (see fig. 1), comprising:
a base (6), and
a plurality of stiffeners (9) extending upward from the base (see fig. 3),
wherein each of the plurality of stiffeners comprises at least one face configured to attach to an exterior of the column (note that wall 5 is also part of the stiffeners and that is the face that is configured to attach to the interior of a column as noted in col. 2, ln. 41);
wherein the base comprises a plurality of holes (11) around a perimeter of the base (see fig. 3);
wherein each of the holes are configured to receive corresponding rods extending from the foundation (See fig. 1); and
wherein the base is substantially flat (see fig. 1) and configured to be in contact with the bottom of the column (note that a column is perfectly capable of contacting the flat base 6).
In regard to claim 16, Sato teaches the claimed invention wherein each of the holes passes through each of the plurality of stiffeners (see fig. 3).
In regard to claim 18, Sato teaches the claimed invention wherein the bracket comprises a forged construction (see Abstract).
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.
Claims 1, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. US 2005/0166485 A1 (hereinafter ‘Sugimoto’).
In regard to claim 1, Sugimoto teaches a bracket (seen in fig. 1 supporting column 10) for connecting a bottom of a column to a foundation (see [0004]), comprising:
a base (11), and
a plurality of stiffeners (12) extending upward from the base,
wherein each of the plurality of stiffeners comprises at least one face configured to attach to an exterior of the column (see figs. 2a-2c);
wherein the base comprises a plurality of holes (not explicitly shown, but one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide holes for bolts 15 locater around the perimeter) around a perimeter of the base (see fig. 1);
wherein each of the holes are configured to receive corresponding rods (the holes can receive rods in the same manner they receive bolts 15, thus per MPEP 2114 the functional limitation is met); and
wherein the base is substantially flat (see fig. 1) and configured to be in contact with the bottom of the column (seen in fig. 1).
In regard to claim 7, Sugimoto teaches the claimed invention wherein each of the stiffeners have at least one weld edge configured to attach the stiffeners to the exterior of the column by welding. Note that the stiffeners are attached to the column by welding (at 16), hence meeting the functional limitation.
In regard to claim 10, Sugimoto teaches the claimed invention wherein each of the stiffeners comprises a dimension that tapers to a smaller dimension as the stiffeners extend upward from the base (seen in fig. 1).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milanowski.
In regard to claim 19, Milanowski teaches the bracket can be formed in “any suitable fashion” but fails to specifically mention 3D printing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to form the bracket of Milanowski of 3D printed construction as the suitable fashion so as to reduce cost by utilizing readily available and affordable materials and because 3D printed construction is known for being strong and durable in addition to cost-effective.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilliard as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Birch et al. US 2022/0364383 A1 (hereinafter ‘Birch’).
In regard to claim 25, Hilliard does not explicitly teach the base comprises a rim that extends upward from the base around an outer edge and configured to increase a stiffness of the base.
Birch teaches a bracket for connecting a bottom of a column to a structure, the bracket comprises a rim (115) that extends upward from the base around an outer edge and configured to increase a stiffness of the base (see [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a rim in the bracket of Hilliard, as taught by Birch so as to enhance the load distribution across the base and increase bending resistance (see Birch [0051]).
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato.
In regard to claims 26 and 27, Sato teaches the stiffeners have a substantially cylindrical construction. Note that one end of the stiffeners is circular, i.e. cylindrical at one end, per broadest reasonable interpretation.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to make the stiffeners comprising a cylinder as a matter of design choice because doing so involves a mere change in shape and the stiffeners having a cylindrical shape would have expected to perform in the same manner and produce predictable results (see MPEP 2144.04). Note that the stiffeners of Sato all have holes configured to receive rods.
In regard to claim 28, Sato teaches the claimed invention wherein each cylinder further comprises a nut bearing surface configured to form a seat for each of a plurality of nuts. Note that the surface around the hole provide for a surface which is fully capable of supporting a nut because the holes are provided for fastening members. Note that the nuts are not part of the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
