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 .
The amendment filled 08/06/2025 has been entered. Claims 4-5 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 10, 12 and 13 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 6-17 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the claimed “node point” referred to in the specification with numeral 44 is show in fig. 3 as pointing to a general region which do not make clear which component is the claimed node point. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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, 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 1-3, 6-7, 10-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) in view of Partridge, US (587695).
In regards to claim 1 AAPA discloses:
A frame element (10; fig. 1 and described prior art in paragraph [0038]; highlighted sections below) for a building scaffold, the frame element comprising:
a support head having a threaded spindle (16; note that as claimed so broadly, the threaded spindle can be the support head or an outward section thereof);
a frame pipe (12) configured to be mounted vertically in the building scaffold (fig. 1), the frame pipe having a spindle receiving portion (14) on a first axial frame pipe end (top end/opening of 12), the threaded spindle being introduced partially into the spindle receiving portion (fig. 1); a spindle nut (20) mounted to the threaded spindle (as shown in fig. 1) the support head introducing a vertical load into the frame pipe via the threaded spindle in a mounted state of the frame element (at least the weight of the threaded spindle or as weight is placed atop the threaded spindle).
PNG
media_image1.png
705
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 AAPA does not disclose the spindle receiving portion defines a first spindle positioning groove that reduces an inner diameter of the frame pipe and the spindle receiving portion has a second spindle positioning groove, the second spindle positioning groove exhibits the same reduced inner diameter of the frame tube as the first spindle positioning groove.
Partridge teach spindle receiving portion (bore of inner walls of socket S; fig. 3) defines a first spindle positioning groove (right most hand-side S2; as shown in annotated drawings below) that reduces an inner diameter of the frame pipe (as shown in fig. 1 for cross-section view reference) the spindle receiving portion has a second spindle positioning groove (2nd right hand-side groove S1; as shown in annotated drawings below) that is axially spaced apart from the first spindle positioning groove (as shown in annotated drawings below) and exhibits a reduced inner diameter of the frame pipe (as shown in fig. 1 for cross-section view reference), wherein the second spindle positioning groove exhibits the same reduced inner diameter of the frame pipe as the first spindle positioning groove (as shown in fig. 1 for cross-section view reference), wherein a clearance fit (clearance between T and S “simply put in tightly” prior to applying pressure as described in page 1; lines 85-100; see highlighted excerpt below) is present between the spindle and the frame pipe, wherein an axial spacing of the first spindle positioning groove from the first axial frame pipe end is smaller than an inner diameter of the spindle receiving portion (see annotated drawings),
wherein the spindle reinforcing portion is mechanically reinforced against kinking by the first and second spindle positioning grooves (first and second grooves of Partridge reinforcing the spindle in the same manner as in the current invention; per the resultant shape), wherein the frame pipe (equivalent to S of fig. 3) has a node point (see annotated drawings below) on which a crossbar of the frame element is connectable to the frame pipe (intended use where the crossbar is connectable but not positively recited or required by the claim; see annotated drawings), the frame pipe having a first reinforcing groove (see annotated drawings) in a region of the node point (see annotated drawings) and a second reinforcing groove (see annotated drawings) in the region of the node point (see annotated drawings), the first reinforcing groove and the second reinforcing groove defining a mechanical stable portion (see annotated drawings) of the pipe having mechanical stability against buckling of the frame pipe (in the same manner as int eh current invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
670
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
410
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note that there is no physical distinction between the positioning and the reinforcing grooves, hence two of the grooves of Partridge as shown in annotated drawings above are the positioning grooves and another two are the reinforcement grooves. Also note that the crossbar is not positively recited/required by the claim, only that the “node point” is such that a crossbar is connectable thereto.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the grooves taught by Partridge onto the frame pipe and threaded spindle of the AAPA for their predictable function with reasonable expectation of success of positioning and securing the threaded spindle within the frame pipe; and to restrict relative movement between the frame pipe and the support head.
In regards to claim 2 AAPA as modified by Partridge teaches the first spindle positioning groove radially centers the threaded spindle in the frame pipe such that a longitudinal axis of the threaded spindle is inclined at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the frame pipe (angle resulting from minor tolerances between the inner and outer pipes), the angle being less than 1 degree (as shown in figs. 1, 4). However, should it be found that Partridge does not teach the angle being less than 1 degree; it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the angle between the longitudinal axes of spindle and the pipe less than 1 degree, 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 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would find that the lesser the angle between the longitudinal axes of spindle and the pipe the more stable the connection would be since it would apply/divide the load in the axial direction more evenly around the cylindrical shape and have the assembly less prone to failure due to wear and tear resulting from relative movements between the pipes due to higher tolerances.
In regards to claim 3 Partridge teaches the first spindle positioning groove extends in a circumferential direction of the frame pipe, the first spindle positioning groove being discontinuous or circumferential in the circumferential direction of the frame pipe (fig. 4).
In regards to claim 6 AAPA and Partridge teaches the spindle receiving portion has a third spindle positioning groove (another one of the second to the left-hand side grooves s2; see annotated drawings below) that is axially farther spaced from the first spindle positioning groove than the second spindle positioning groove and exhibits a reduced inner diameter of the frame pipe (as shown in fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
696
772
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7 AAPA as modified by Partridge do not teach the third spindle positioning groove is axially spaced closer to the second spindle positioning groove than the second spindle positioning groove is to the first spindle positioning groove. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the spacing between the three positioning grooves where the third spindle positioning groove is axially spaced closer to the second spindle positioning groove than the second spindle positioning groove is to the first spindle positioning groove, 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 233. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the third positioning groove (once taught via duplication of parts above) closer to the second groove than the second groove is to the first in order to provide securement to the spindle at areas where the load increases, since the further down the pipe the higher the effects of the load applied.
In regards to claim 10, Partridge teaches wherein the first reinforcing groove is spaced less than 15 cm from the node point in a first axial direction (as best understood since the groove is in the region of the node point and the node point itself is a region as shown in fig. 3 of the current invention; hence it cannot be more than 15 cm away from the node point) and reduces the inner diameter of frame pipe (fig. 3, and as described in page 1; lines 85-100) or ii. increases the outer diameter of frame pipe.
In regards to claim 11 Partridge teaches the frame pipe has a further reinforcing nut (see annotated drawings below) in the region of the node point that is spaced less than 15 cm from the node point (since node point itself is a region as shown in fig. 3 of the current invention) in a second axial direction (left hand side versus right hand side direction where the first groove is) opposite the first axial direction and reduces the inner diameter of frame pipe or ii. increases the outer diameter of frame pipe (fig. 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
670
755
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15 AAPA discloses the frame pipe is mounted vertically in the building scaffold ([0005]; also evident by the rosette shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 16 AAPA as modified by Partridge teaches the third spindle positioning groove reduces the inner diameter of the frame tube by a same amount as the first spindle positioning groove (fig. 3; Partridge).
In regards to claim 17 AAPA as modified by Partridge teaches the clearance fit extends longitudinally at least between the first spindle positioning groove and the second spindle positioning groove (clearance allowing insertion “simply put in tightly” prior to applying pressure as described in page 1; lines 85-100; see highlighted excerpt above).
Claims 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA and Partridge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rogers, US (2012/0228060).
In regards to claims 8 and 9, AAPA and Partridge do not teach the frame pipe has a pin receiving portion at a second axial frame pipe end into which a pin of a further frame element can be introduced, the pin receiving portion having a first pin positioning groove that reduces the inner diameter of the frame pipe and the pin receiving portion has a second pin positioning groove that is axially spaced apart from the first pin positioning groove and reduces the inner diameter of the frame pipe.
Rogers teaches the frame pipe has a pin receiving portion (52, 54; fig. 6) at a second axial frame pipe end (bottom end) into which a pin of a further frame element can be introduced, the pin receiving portion having a first pin positioning groove (44) that reduces the inner diameter of the frame pipe and the pin receiving portion has a second pin positioning groove (groove 44 under the lower rosette, where there is a groove 44 under each rosette; as shown in fig. 4) that is axially spaced apart from the first pin positioning groove and reduces the inner diameter of the frame pipe(fig. 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
752
564
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the pin receiving portion taught by Rogers onto the second axial frame pipe end of the frame pipe of AAPA for the predicable function with reasonable expectation of success of facilitating the modular attachment of the frame pipe between two vertical pipes inline at elevated levels of a scaffolding where the pipe would attach at the bottom to a frame element in the same manner it attaches to a spindle at the top.
In regards to claim 13 the claimed elements not taught are taught by Rogers, attention is directed to Rogers teaches wherein the frame pipe has the node point on which a coupling point (apertures of the rosette 8) is designed for connecting the crossbar (152; fig. 14), the first reinforcing groove (44; fig. 6) is spaced less than 15 cm from the node point (as best understood since the groove is in the region of the node point and the node point itself is a region hence it cannot be more than 15 cm away from the node point) in a first axial direction (downward direction of the center of the pipe from the rosette) and reduces the inner diameter of frame pipe (fig. 6) or ii. increases the outer diameter of frame pipe.
In regards to claim 14 Rogers further teaches wherein the coupling point (8) is in the form of a rosette (fig. 5, 6).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) in view of Partridge, US (587695).
In regards to claim 12 AAPA discloses:
A building scaffold having a frame element (10; fig. 1 and described prior art in paragraph [0038]; highlighted sections below) for a building scaffold, the frame element comprising:
a support head having a threaded spindle (16; note that as claimed so broadly, the threaded spindle can be the support head or an outward section thereof) the threaded spindle defining a constant radius along a longitudinal axis defined by the threaded spindle (as shown in fig. 1; Prior art);
a frame pipe (12) configured to be mounted vertically in the building scaffold (fig. 1), the frame pipe having a spindle receiving portion (14) on a first axial frame pipe end (top end/opening of 12), the threaded spindle being introduced partially into the spindle receiving portion (fig. 1);
a spindle nut (20) mounted to the threaded spindle (as shown in fig. 1) the support head introducing a vertical load into the frame pipe via the threaded spindle in a mounted state of the frame element (at least the weight of the threaded spindle or as weight is placed atop the threaded spindle).
PNG
media_image1.png
705
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12 AAPA does not disclose the spindle receiving portion defines a first spindle positioning groove that reduces an inner diameter of the frame pipe and the spindle receiving portion has a second spindle positioning groove, the second spindle positioning groove exhibits the same reduced inner diameter of the frame tube as the first spindle positioning groove, wherein the first spindle positioning groove and the second spindle positioning groove are configured to reduce an inclination of the threaded spindle.
Partridge teaches spindle receiving portion (bore of inner walls of socket S; fig. 3) defines a first spindle positioning groove (right most hand-side S2; as shown in annotated drawings below) that reduces an inner diameter of the frame pipe (see annotated drawings) the spindle receiving portion has a second spindle positioning groove (2nd right hand-side groove S1; as shown in annotated drawings below) that is axially spaced apart from the first spindle positioning groove (as shown in annotated drawings below) and exhibits a reduced inner diameter of the frame pipe (similar to first groove; as shown in annotated drawings below), wherein the second spindle positioning groove exhibits the same reduced inner diameter of the frame tube as the first spindle positioning groove (as shown in fig. 1 for cross-section view reference), wherein the first spindle positioning groove and the second spindle positioning groove are configured to reduce an inclination of the threaded spindle (where any inclination due to clearances between T and S will be reduced due to the presence of grooves imposed into indentations), wherein a clearance fit (clearance between T and S “simply put in tightly” prior to applying pressure as described in page 1; lines 85-100; see highlighted excerpt below) is present between the threaded spindle and the frame pipe such that a continuous channel is formed between the frame pipe and the spindle (as shown in fig. 3) between the first and second spindle positioning grooves (as shown in fig. 3), wherein an axial spacing of the first spindle positioning groove from the first axial frame pipe end is smaller than an inner diameter of the spindle receiving portion (see annotated drawings),
wherein the spindle reinforcing portion is mechanically reinforced against kinking by the first and second spindle positioning grooves (first and second grooves of Partridge reinforcing the spindle in the same manner as in the current invention; per the resultant shape), wherein the frame pipe (equivalent to S of fig. 3) has a node point (see annotated drawings below) on which a crossbar of the frame element is connectable to the frame pipe (intended use where the crossbar is connectable but not positively recited or required by the claim; see annotated drawings), the frame pipe having a first reinforcing groove (see annotated drawings) in a region of the node point (see annotated drawings) and a second reinforcing groove (see annotated drawings) in the region of the node point (see annotated drawings), the first reinforcing groove and the second reinforcing groove defining a mechanical stable portion (see annotated drawings) of the pipe having mechanical stability against buckling of the frame pipe (in the same manner as int eh current invention).
PNG
media_image7.png
670
755
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
410
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note that there is no physical distinction between the positioning and the reinforcing grooves, hence two of the grooves of Partridge as shown in annotated drawings above are the positioning grooves and another two are the reinforcement grooves. Also note that the crossbar is not positively recited/required by the claim, only that the “node point” is such that a crossbar is connectable thereto.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the grooves taught by Partridge onto the frame pipe and threaded spindle of the AAPA for their predictable function with reasonable expectation of success of positioning and securing the threaded spindle within the frame pipe; and to restrict relative movement between the frame pipe and the support head.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “Applying the teachings of Partridge, such pressure would disrupt any clearance fit between frame pipe and threaded spindle. Further, such application of pressure would deform at least the frame pipe, if not the threaded spindle. Such deformation would lock the pipe and spindle together such that they can no longer be removed from one another and cycled. In this regard, AAPA in view of Partridge do not disclose, teach, or suggest the recited "clearance fit ... between the threaded spindle and the frame pipe”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that clearance is indeed present between the spindle and the frame pipe at least after insertion and prior to the application of pressure as described in page 1; lines 85-100. In addition, and with regards to applicant’s argument that “they can no longer be removed from one another and cycled”; it is presented that in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues “As set forth in the recited features, the "spindle reinforcing portion is mechanically reinforced against kinking by the first and second spindle positioning grooves" and "the first reinforcing groove and the second reinforcing groove defining a mechanical stable portion of the pipe having mechanical stability against buckling of the frame pipe." In this regard, it clear that kinking and bucking are undesirable in the context of the recited frame pipe and spindle reinforcing portion… As explained in Partridge, "[p]ressure is then applied to the socket over the depressions until both the socket and tube are forced together, as seen in section T', Fig. 1, when the tube is securely locked between the anvil-liner A and the socket." Partridge at col. 2, Ins. 95-100. In this regard, Partridge relies upon deformation to secure the socket and tube together. Applying the teachings of Partridge, one of ordinary skill in the art would deform (i.e., kink or buckle) either or both the frame pipe or the spindle reinforcing portion. Thus, AAPA in view of Partridge do not disclose, teach, or suggest the features of amended claim 1”; examiner respectfully disagrees and presents that the depressions present in Partridge are equivalent to the recited grooves and the intentional, calculated and deliberate applying of pressure to result in said grooves would indeed result in a stability region that opposes further buckling or kinking of the pipe. It is finally submitted that in the same manner as in the current invention, Partridge teach the spindle reinforcing portion is mechanically reinforced against kinking by the first and second spindle positioning grooves (first and second grooves of Partridge reinforcing the spindle in the same manner as in the current invention; per the resultant shape), wherein the frame pipe (equivalent to S of fig. 3) has a node point (see annotated drawings below) on which a crossbar of the frame element is connectable to the frame pipe (intended use where the crossbar is connectable but not positively recited or required by the claim; see annotated drawings), the frame pipe having a first reinforcing groove (see annotated drawings) in a region of the node point (see annotated drawings) and a second reinforcing groove (see annotated drawings) in the region of the node point (see annotated drawings), the first reinforcing groove and the second reinforcing groove defining a mechanical stable portion (see annotated drawings) of the pipe having mechanical stability against buckling of the frame pipe (in the same manner as int eh current invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
670
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634