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 8 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.
Claim 8 recites “the plurality of through recesses of the connection rosette have a uniform shape and size”, contradicting claim 1 which has been amended to recite “the first through recesses are larger than the second through recesses and, in contrast to the second through recesses, are designed to open towards a central recess of the connection rosette”.
It appears that originally, claim 8 was directed to the embodiment of figure 7, which has exclusively first through recesses 16, which are of uniform shape and size. However, since claim 1 is now specific to an embodiment other than that shown in figure 7, (for example figure 2) it appears that claim 8 either needs to be canceled or updated to reflect the changes in claim 1 (i.e.: “wherein the first through recesses are of a first uniform shape and size, and wherein the second through recesses are of a second uniform shape and size”).
NOTE: this issue was raised in the previous office action, however, applicant has yet to address it.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-13 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwoerer (WO2005/052283) in view of Masahiro (JP2011231533).
Schwoerer discloses:
1. A connecting rosette (4, figure 3) for a scaffolding post (1; figure 2a), comprising:
a plurality of through recesses (12,13; figure 3) for passage of coupling parts of framework components to be detachably connected to the connecting rosette (figure 2a), which are arranged at a distance from one another in a circumferential direction of the connecting rosette (figure 3);
an upper (top surface of 4 seen in figure 2a) and a lower side surface (bottom surface of 4 seen in figure 2b), which are executed plane-parallel and define a nominal thickness DN (height between upper and lower surfaces) of the connection rosette (figure 2b);
wherein plurality of through recesses (12, 13; figure 3) comprise first (12) and second (13) through recesses (figure 3), wherein the first through recesses (12) are larger than the second through recesses (13) and, in contrast to the second through recesses, are designed to be open towards a central recess of the connection rosette (figure 3),
wherein the second through recesses (13) are arranged in radial direction completely within a circular line (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schwoerer does not disclose a plurality of hollow embossments with projections formed on only one of the two side surfaces and corresponding recesses formed on the respective other side surface, wherein the hollow embossments are each arranged at a distance from the through recesses on a radial segment of the connecting rosette, which extends in the radial direction from an inner edge to an outer edge of the connecting rosette and by which one of the through recesses is bounded on each side, and wherein a pair of the hollow embossments are positioned on opposing sides of each second through recess.
However, Masahiro teaches: a plurality of hollow embossments (18, figure 7) with projections formed on only one of the two side surfaces (figure 6b) and corresponding recesses formed on the respective other side surface (indentation of top surface best seen figure 6b), wherein the hollow embossments (18) are each arranged at a distance from the through recesses (5; figure 6a) on a radial segment (highlighted below) of the connecting rosette (figure 6a), which extends in the radial direction from an inner edge to an outer edge of the connecting rosette (see below) and by which one of the through recesses (5) is bounded on each side (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
342
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Providing the rosette of Schwoerer with the hollow embossments Masahiro would result in a structure that like that below. Note that the hollow embossments of Masahiro are positioned radially further out than the recesses. Transposing that teaching onto a rosette like that of Schwoerer would positions the embossments such that the second through recesses are arranged in radial direction completely within a circular line intersecting the hollow embossments, and wherein a pair of the hollow embossments are positioned on opposing sides of each second through recess (see below; see also “Response to Arguments”).
PNG
media_image3.png
688
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the connecting rosette of Schwoerer with the hollow embossments as taught by Masahiro, so as to prevent unwanted and unintentional lateral movement of the scaffolding bars supported by the rosette, creating a more stable and secure scaffolding to support workers at elevation.
With respect to the hollow embossments taught by Masahiro:
2. wherein each radial segment has only exactly one hollow embossment (figure 6a).
3. wherein all hollow embossments (18) are arranged uniformly spaced from a central axis Z of the connection rosette (figure 6a).
4.wherein elevations of the hollow embossments each have a circular cross-sectional shape (figure 7).
5. wherein each elevation of the hollow embossments have a uniform height h (figure 6b).
6. wherein elevations of the hollow embossments correspond to each other in their shaping and/or in their dimensioning (figures 6a, 6b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the connecting rosette of Schwoerer with the hollow embossments as taught by Masahiro, so as to prevent unwanted and unintentional lateral movement of the scaffolding bars supported by the rosette, creating a more stable and secure scaffolding to support workers at elevation.
Regarding claim 8. Schwoerer discloses wherein the plurality of through recesses (12, 13) of the connection rosette (figure 3) have a uniform shape and size (all of the first recesses 12 are a uniform shape and size, and all of the second recesses 13 are of a uniform shape and size).
Regarding claim 18. Schwoerer discloses:
(i) the first through recesses (12) are configured for connection of horizontal bars (7, figures 4a,4b); and
(ii) the second through recesses (13) are configured for connecting diagonals (9, figures 4a, 4b).
Schwoerer in view of Masahiro make obvious:
Re Claim 11. A scaffolding assembly (Schwoerer, figure 1) comprising a scaffolding post (Schwoerer, 1, figure 1) having at least one of the connecting rosette according to claim 1 (see claim 1 addressed above) and a scaffold member (Schwoerer, 9, figure 1) releasably secured to the at least one of the connecting rosette (Schwoerer, figure 4a) wherein the scaffold member
a) has one or more locating pins and each locating pin engages a recess in one of the hollow embossments of a terminal rosette of the at least one connecting rosette; or
b) is laterally limited in its pivotability relative to a first connection rosette of the at least one connecting rosette by at least one of a plurality of elevations of a hollow embossment (see resulting combination below; any scaffolding bar connected to one of the recesses would have limited pivotability relative the rosette due to the presence of the embossments).
PNG
media_image3.png
688
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the connecting rosette of Schwoerer with the hollow embossments as taught by Masahiro, so as to prevent unwanted and unintentional lateral movement of the scaffolding bars supported by the rosette, creating a more stable and secure scaffolding to support workers at elevation.
Re: claim 12, Schwoerer disclose: wherein the scaffolding assembly is designed as a diagonal (9, figure 4a), which has at one end a fork head (11, figure 6) with a receiving gap (gap between 19, 20, figure 6) for the connecting rosette (figure 4b), the width b of which is greater than the functional thickness DF of the connecting rosette (figure 4b, width of gap must be larger of functional thickness of rosette in order to clamp thereto), wherein the fork head engages over the connecting rosette on both sides in the axial direction (figure 4b) in its state detachably mounted (via 21) on the connecting rosette (figure 4b) and is secured on the connecting rosette via a securing element (21, figure 4b) which engages through the fork head and one of the through recesses of the connecting rosette (openings 25 and 26 align with recess 13 for receiving 21)
Re: claim 13, Schwoerer disclose: wherein the scaffold member is in the form of a horizontal latch (latch connecting 8 to 4, figure 2a) having at one end a latch head with a coupling hook (seen in figures 2a,2b but not numbered) which engages in one of the through recesses (12) of the connecting rosette (figures 2a, 2b).
Re: claim 19, Schwoerer discloses wherein the diagonal (9) is a vertical diagonal (figure 9).
Re: claim 20: Schwoerer discloses: a connecting rosette (4, figure 3) for a scaffolding post (1, figure 2a), comprising:
a surface (figure 3);
a central recess formed in the surface (figure 3);
a plurality of first recesses (12) formed in the surface and each open towards the central recess (figure 3), the first recesses (12) being for passage of coupling parts of framework components (7) to be detachably connected to the connecting rosette (figures 4a,4b); and
a plurality of second recesses (13) formed in the surface (figure 3), the second recesses (13) being smaller in area than the first recesses (12) and positioned in an alternating fashion between the first recesses (figure 3), the second recesses (13) being for passage of coupling parts of framework components (9) to be detachably connected to the connecting rosette (figures 4a,4b).
PNG
media_image4.png
569
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Schwoerer does not disclose a plurality of pairs of hollow embossments formed on the surface, each pair of hollow embossments being positioned on opposing sides of the second recesses.
However, Masahiro teaches: a plurality of pairs of hollow embossments (18, figure 7) formed on the surface, each pair of hollow embossments being positioned on opposing sides of the recess (see below).
PNG
media_image5.png
642
764
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Providing the rosette of Schwoerer with the hollow embossments Masahiro would result in a structure that like that below. Note that the hollow embossments of Masahiro are positioned radially further out than the recesses. Transposing that teaching onto a rosette like that of Schwoerer would positions the embossments on opposing sides of each second through recess (see below; see also “Response to Arguments”).
PNG
media_image3.png
688
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the connecting rosette of Schwoerer with the hollow embossments as taught by Masahiro, so as to prevent unwanted and unintentional lateral movement of the scaffolding bars supported by the rosette, creating a more stable and secure scaffolding to support workers at elevation.
Re: claim 21, Schwoerer discloses: a connecting rosette (4, figure 3) for a scaffolding post (1; figure 2a), comprising:
a plurality of through recesses (12,13; figure 3) for passage of coupling parts of framework components to be detachably connected to the connecting rosette (figure 2a), which are arranged at a distance from one another in a circumferential direction of the connecting rosette (figure 3);
the plurality of through recesses (12, 13) comprise first (12) and second (13) through recesses (figure 3), wherein the first through recesses (12) are larger than the second through recesses (13) and, in contrast to the second through recesses (13), are designed to be open towards a central recess of the connection rosette (see below),
the second through recesses (13) are arranged in radial direction completely within a circular line (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schwoerer does not disclose a plurality of hollow embossments; wherein: the hollow embossments are each arranged at a distance from the through recesses on a radial segment of the connecting rosette, which extends in the radial direction from an inner edge to an outer edge of the connecting rosette and by which one of the through recesses is bounded on each side,
However, Masahiro teaches: a plurality of hollow embossments (18, figure 7), wherein the hollow embossments (18) are each arranged at a distance from the through recesses (5; figure 6a) on a radial segment (highlighted below) of the connecting rosette (figure 6a), which extends in the radial direction from an inner edge to an outer edge of the connecting rosette (see below) and by which one of the through recesses (5) is bounded on each side (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
342
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
642
764
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Providing the rosette of Schwoerer with the hollow embossments Masahiro would result in a structure that like that below. Note that the hollow embossments of Masahiro are positioned radially further out than the recesses. Transposing that teaching onto a rosette like that of Schwoerer would positions the embossments such that the second through recesses are arranged in radial direction completely within a circular line intersecting the hollow embossments, and wherein a pair of the hollow embossments are positioned on opposing sides of each second through recess (see below; see also “Response to Arguments”).
PNG
media_image3.png
688
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the connecting rosette of Schwoerer with the hollow embossments as taught by Masahiro, so as to prevent unwanted and unintentional lateral movement of the scaffolding bars supported by the rosette, creating a more stable and secure scaffolding to support workers at elevation.
With respect to claims 7, 16 and 17, and the respective dimensions and ratios claimed, examiner refers to in MPEP 2144.04, IV., A.
IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the connecting rosette in whichever dimensions and ratios best fit the intended application and needs, understanding that as dimensions and ratios change so do the limitations of the features. For example, too small a height of a hollow embossment would not be adequate to retain or limit the scaffolding components connected to the rosette; just as too tall a height could interfere with the insertion and removal of the connecting components. Adjusting the dimensions, and therefore ratios, would be an obvious design consideration to anyone of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
NOTE: Claim 14 is being indicated as allowable with the understanding that the alternative language in claim 11 is replaced with positive selection/presence of the locating pins of option a). If claim 14 (and intervening claim 13) is rolled up into claim 11, and claim 11 is left with the alternative of b) as an option within the claim, the amended claim would still be rejected as presented above. To clarify, it is the combination of Claim 11, option a) plus claim 13 plus claim 14 that is indicated as allowable.
Applicant is welcome to contact the examiner should they have any questions on the above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the protrusions/embossments of Masahiro are only positioned on one side of the recesses. However, this argument is not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
First of all, the plurality of second recesses does not need to be all four recesses (5) in Masahiro. For example, just two of the recesses (5) shown can be considered the plurality of recesses, and then there are two protrusions/embossments for each of the recesses present.
Alternatively, one can also consider that the pairs of protrusions overlap, as shown in the annotated image below. As can be seen below, a pair of embossments are positioned on opposing sides of each recess 5.
PNG
media_image5.png
642
764
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For at least these reasons applicant’s remarks against the prior art are not found persuasive in the claims remain rejected as advanced above.
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 COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634