DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to a response by the Applicant’s filing 05/28/2024.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/28/2024 has been entered.
Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. This reissue application was filed 05/13/2021. Thus, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 made in this application are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,340,637 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Response to Amendment
Amended claims has been reviewed. The amendments filed in the Response do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c).
Claims
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c),
“(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.”
The Remarks do not show the specific teachings to the specific limitations of the new claims. As seen in MPEP 1453 V. D. New Claims must show specific mappings to those new and amended limitations to the sections of the specification that teach the amended claim limitation,
Example from MPEP 1453 V. D. Amendment of New Claims:
First Amendment (wherein claim 11 was first presented):
Claim 11 (New). A knife comprising a handle portion and a notched blade portion.
In the Remarks (supplied on a separate page):
Status: The present application includes pending claims 1-11, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. With this amendment, applicant has added new independent claim 11. Support for this new claim is found in column 4, lines 26-41, column 5, lines 3-18, and column 6, lines 5-15.
Second Amendment (wherein claim 11 is amended):
Claim 11 (New, amended). A fishing knife comprising a bone handle portion and a notched blade portion.
In the Remarks (supplied on a separate page):
Status: The present application includes pending claims 1-11, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. With this amendment, applicant has amended new independent claim 11 as described below.
Claim 11: Claim 11 is amended to add "fishing" before "knife" and "bone" before "handle". Support for these changes is found in column 4, lines 34-41 and column 6, lines 5-8, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 to claim(s) 14-20 and 26-54 have been considered and are persuasive. Those rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejection of claim(s) 14-20 and 26-54 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 31 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite the term “parallel”. This is not found in the specification along with the surrounding text that give context to the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 26-30, 32, 33, 35, 37-51, 53 and 54 (as they can best be understood, see the indefiniteness rejection above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kaisser et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0176656, (hereinafter “Kaisser”), in view of the Patent Owner's admitted prior art and O'Riley, Ronald, Electrical Grounding Based on 2002 National Electrical Code, 6th Ed., 2002 (hereinafter "2002 National Electrical Code") (cited by the Patent Owner).
Regarding independent claim 26,
An electrically electrically-conductive cover for use in an equipotential zone (EPZ) mat, comprising:
As discussed above regarding claim 14, Chen teaches an electrically-conductive cover mat and thus due to ground would exhibit equipotential zone (EPZ) properties.
Nonetheless, the Patent Owner describe prior art EPZ ground support surface. 1:48-63.
The teaching/suggestion/motivation for adding EPZ protection would have been to increase safety because “EPZ is an arrangement typically designed so that dangerous electric potential differences do not appear across the body of a person working on or near ground-based machinery.” 1:50-53. Chen also describes working near ground-based machinery. Fig. 1.
Thus, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to add prior art EPZ as taught by the Patent Owner admitted prior art to the ground mat of Chen.
PNG
media_image1.png
1041
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a top surface,
Chen teaches a top surface associated with spaced rigs 54. Fig. 3
a rigid outer frame having a plurality of sides:
Chen teaches a frame assembly 52 comprised by rigid frame members 60-63. Figs. 2 and 3.
an inner portion at least partially formed of a grating and having a perimeter joined with the outer frame;
Spaced ribs 54 form a grating and have a perimeter joined with the outer frames 60-63.
a conductive interface for electrically connecting the electrically-conductive cover to at least one other electrically-conductive cover, said conductive interface comprising a planar surface extending from at least a portion of at least one side of the outer frame;
Chen teaches fixing button 76 installed on frame assembly 52. Fig. 2 and 4:15-17. A “fixing button” comprises a button on the end of a fastener. Thus, the button of the “fixing button 76” comprises a planar surface extending via the fastener from the outer frame. Fixing button 76 comprises “grounding wires 58 extending from the frame assembly 52 and passing through a hole fabricated in the fixing button 76 are connecting to a ground end . . . .” 4:18-24. Thus, the fixing button 76 also a conductive interface to provide grounding. “The fixing button 76 is used for combining and fastening two of the frame assemblies 52.” 4:17-18. Thus, the portion of the ground wire inside the fixing button is the broadly recited conductive “interface.” The fixing button, ground wire and hole in the outer frame forms a planar surface with the outer frame’s surface as broadly recited. The frame assembly is composed of stainless steel, which is conductive. 3: 34-37. Thus, Chen also teaches that the conductive interface electrically connects the support surface (mat and frame assembly) to another support surface (mat and frame assembly).
a grounding cable electrically connecting to the conductive interface to an earth grounding element, wherein during use, the electrically-conductive cover is electrically grounded to earth via the earth grounding element.
Chen teaches a grounding interface 58 for electrically connecting the support surface to ground (earth). Fig. 2 and 4:18-23.
Although “ground” can be reasonably interpreted as the “ground” of the earth, the 2002 National Electrical Code describes the word “ground” as made to the earth. 6, 7, as was previously stated the Office looks to expedite the examination and refers to the prior art of Kaisser. Kaisser specifically teaches ground to earth in multiple areas, (e.g., ¶¶ 0076, 0083).
The teaching/suggestion/motivation for providing an earth ground would have been to conform to the industry standards set forth in the 2002 National Electrical Code. Moreover, earth is the most effective grounding body.
Thus, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to add earth grounding as taught by the 2002 National Electrical Code and Kaisser to Chen as modified.
Independent claim 47 differs substantively from claim 26 in that claim 47 recites a “plurality of holes to allow a liquid to pass therethrough” which reads on grating 54 (Fig. 3), where a “hole” is reasonably broadly interpreted as an opening or perforation. Claim 47 also recites a “metal plate,” which reads on bottom frame 64. Fig. 6. Claim 47 also recites a “conductive booster,” which reads grounding wires 58 extending from the frame and passing through the fixing button 78 (grounding interface). 4:19-20. Grounding wires “boost” (as broadly recited) the electrical connection in order to provide actual grounding.
Regarding claim 27, the interface comprises a conduit as discussed in the claim 26 rejection.
Regarding claim 28, the multiple frame assemblies are fastened together using the conductive interface (fixing button 76). 4: 17-18.
Regarding claim 29, the button comprising the conduit extends outwardly from the frame.
Regarding claim 30, the interface is below the top grated surface.
Regarding claim 32, multiple frames would comprise multiple disclosed interfaces.
Regarding claim 33, the wire (part of grounding interface) and the conductive interface (channeling the wire through a conduit or opening in the button) comprise the same fixing button 76.
Regarding claim 35, Chen teaches this limitation as it pertained to “on or near” the earth, as was previously rejected.
Regarding claims 37-40, see Fig. 4, cutouts 66 and 68 in the metallic frame.
Regarding claim 41, see Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 42, It is well known in the art that Galvanized paint (zinc-rich coating) is applied to grounding mats and rods to provide sacrificial corrosion protection and prevent rust in highly conductive environments. Because grounding components are buried in soil or exposed to the elements, this zinc layer acts as an anode that corrodes instead of the base metal, ensuring system longevity and is therefore obvious.
Regarding claim 43, see the claim 26 rejection regarding the entire mat designed to support a person.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, are similarly rejected as seen in claims 47, and 26, see above.
Regarding claim 46, Kaisser teaches the use of a rod similarly claimed in claim 46, (e.g., ¶¶ 0051, 0073 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine Kaisser with Chen because of similar reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 48, see Fig. 5.
Regarding claims 49 and 50, see Fig. 3 (metal plates 60-64) and the claim 26 rejection.
Regarding claim 51, see the claim 26 rejection regarding grounding.
Regarding claim 53, the frame assembly includes a fixing button 76 hole for grounding wires. 4:15-23.
44-46
Regarding claim 54, as discussed in the prior rejections, the mesh cover comprises grounding cables for connecting the mesh to the rigid frames. As also discussed, Chen uses a fixing button 76 for this connection, which is a releasable connection.
Claims 14-20 (as they can best be understood, see the indefiniteness rejection above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,037,865 B1 to Lawrence W. Kimberly (hereinafter “Kimberly”), and further in view of Kaisser, in further view of said 2002 National Electrical Code.
Regarding independent claim 14,
An electrically groundable support surface for use on earth's surface, the electrically groundable support surface comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
806
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chen teaches an conductive floor mat (groundable support surface) (abstract) configured to support the weight of personnel 38 (Fig. 1). Fig. 3, which is reproduced below, illustrates an exploded view perspective. Chen also teaches a grounding interface 58 for electrically connecting the support surface to ground (earth). Fig. 2 and 4:18-23.
Although “ground” can be reasonably interpreted as the “ground” of the earth, the 2002 National Electrical Code describes the word “ground” as made to the earth. 6, 7, as was previously stated the Office looks to expedite the examination and refers to the prior art of Kaisser. Kaisser specifically teaches ground to earth in multiple areas, (e.g., ¶¶ 0076, 0083).
The teaching/suggestion/motivation for providing an earth ground would have been to conform to the industry standards set forth in the 2002 National Electrical Code. Moreover, earth is the most effective grounding body.
Thus, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to add earth grounding as taught by the 2002 National Electrical Code and Kaisser to Chen as modified.
a mat having top surface and a bottom surface . . . . deployed on earth’s surface
As shown in FIG. 3, the grounding mat disclosed in Chen has a top surfaces associated frame members 60, 61, 62 and 64 and bottom surface 64. See also 3:18-22.
Although Chen teaches that the mat is made of stainless steel, Chen does not specifically teach that the mat withstands “up to 600 psi in crush pressure.”
However, Kimberly teaches of composite materials made of composites and metal (abstract, Fig. 1, 5:64-21, 7:25-38). Kimberly teaches that composite materials have a crush strength up to 60,000 psi, which encompasses the recited 600 psi. 7:18-24.
The teaching/suggestion/motivation for adding the composite materials of Kimberly to Chen would have been to provide for a “high strength to weight ratios . . . [and] high impact and compressive resistance.” Kimberly, 1:33-44. Such advantages would have been beneficial to the load-supporting structure of Chen.
Thus, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to add composite materials to increase crush pressures to encompass 600 psi as taught by Kimberly to Chen.
Chen teaches that the mat is used in a manufacturing facility (Fig. 1). Although “ground” can be reasonably interpreted as the “ground” of the earth, the 2002 National Electrical Code describes the word “ground” as made to the earth. 6, 7, as was previously stated the Office looks to expedite the examination and refers to the prior art of Kaisser. Kaisser specifically teaches ground to earth in multiple areas, (e.g., ¶¶ 0076, 0083). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the 2002 National Electrical Code and Kaisser to Chen and Kimberly for similar reasons stated above.
and an electrically-conductive cover constructed at least partially of electrically-conductive material, said electrically-conductive cover having at least one inner panel constructed at least partially of metallic mesh having spaces formed between metal strips, each inner panel extending at least partially across said top surface of said mat and providing an electrical connection to earth ground.
Chen teaches in Fig. 3 (above) that the frame assembly 52 also comprises a cover constructed of parallel spaced ribs 54 and parallel spaced supports 56. The frame assembly, which comprises the cover as discussed above, is composed of stainless steel, which is conductive. 3: 34-37. Indeed, the assembly has ground wires 58. 3:16-17. The crisscrossing pattern of the ribs 54 and supports 56 forms an inner panel of metallic mesh (stainless steel) having spaces formed between the metal strips (ribs). As discussed above, the inner mesh panel extends across the top surface of the mat and provides an electrical connection (ground) to earth, see cited areas, teachings, and reasons for combining above.
Independent claim 18 differs substantively from independent claim 14 in that claim 18 recites the following limitations:
electrically-conductive cover portion allows the passage of liquid through said electrically-conductive cover portion and into contact with said lower portion
Chen teaches that the floor mat collects process particles produced from process. 1:6-11. Thus, the floor mat including the mesh cover portion allows for passage of liquid through the cover mesh and into contact with the lower portion of the mat as illustrated in Fig. 3, reproduced above.
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches that the cover mesh is planar, see Fig. 3 reproduced above and the receptacle structure of frame members 60, 61, 62 and 64 forms a fastener for securing mesh cover 54 and 56.
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches that a fixing button 76 fastens two of the mats 52 together and the grounding wires pass through (interface) fixing button 76. Fig. 2 and 4:11-23.
Regarding claim 17, see Chen, Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 14 rejection regarding the cover mesh structure.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 32 Chen rejection above for further details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. ENGLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-3912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at 571-270-1367. 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.
DAVID E. ENGLAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3992
Signed:
/DAVID E ENGLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
