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 .
Background
The present Reissue application U.S. Application No. 17/319,222, filed May 13 2021, addresses original U.S. Application No. 15/990,613 (the “’613 Application”) issuing as U.S. Patent No. 10,340,637 B1 to James Kerwin McDowell et al. (hereinafter the "McDowell" patent) on July 2, 2019. Based upon review of the ‘613 Application, the application was filed on May 26, 2018, claiming the entitlement via a series of continuations and continuations-in-part to non-provisional U.S. Application No. 14/496,105, filed on September 25, 2014 and domestic priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/888,580, filed on October 9, 2013
The McDowell patent issued with original claims 1-25.
A preliminary amendment was filed concurrently with the present reissue application (hereinafter the “Amendment”). The Amendment cancelled claims 1-13 and 2-15 and added new claims 26-54. Thus, claims 14-20 and 26-54 are currently pending.
A non-final Office action was mailed June 6, 2023 and an personal interview conducted on October 19, 2023.
In response, the Patent Owner filed amendment and accompanying arguments on November 6, 2023 (the “Amendment”) amending all independent claims and various other dependent claims.
Although said Amendment has been duly considered, it is not deemed persuasive to distinguish the claims over the prior art. Although the arguments were persuasive as to written description support (hence the new matter rejections are withdrawn), the Amendment is informal and introduced new 112 issues for the reasons discussed below. Moreover, the prior art rejections are repeated, except where any new grounds of rejection is necessitated by the Patent Owner’s amendment to the claims.
Informal Amendment
Said Amendment, filed November 6, 2023, does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173. Specifically, amended claims do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(g), which requires that claim amendments be made relative to the patent specification, including the claims. However, new claims 26-46 include bracketing despite being new claims. Thus, the amendment was not made relative to the patent specification, which did not contain the new claims, but instead relative to the prior amendment.
If the next response does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173, the response will be held “Non-Compliant” and a shortened statutory period for reply to this letter is set to expire three (3) MONTHS from the mailing date of this Office Action.
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.
Claims 14-20 and 26-54 are 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 term “on or near” in claims 14 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of what makes a support surface “near” the earth’s surface, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Similarly, the term “generally parallel” term in claims 52 and 54 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of what makes a to structures “generally” parallel to each other, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 26-54 recite the term “EPZ” whose meaning is not apparent. MPEP 2173.05(a). The Examiner recommends that the Patent Owner spell out all acronyms upon their initial introduction into the claims.
Rejections Based on Chen
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, 34, 37-41, 43, 48-51, 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 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 EPZ mat.
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 an 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.
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 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 34, 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 claims 37-40, see Fig. 4, cutouts 66 and 68 in the metallic frame.
Regarding claim 41, see Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 43, see the claim 26 rejection regarding the entire mat designed to support a person.
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.
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”), newly cited, and further in view of said 2002 National Electrical Code.
Regarding independent claim 14,
An electrically groundable support surface for use on or near earth's surface, the electrically groundable support surface comprising:
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.
Earth ground would have been an obvious addition as taught by the 2002 National Electrical Code (see the claim 26 rejection above for further details).
PNG
media_image1.png
1041
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a mat having top surface and a bottom surface . . . . deployed on or near 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. Chen teaches that the mat is used in a manufacturing facility (Fig. 1), which is “deployed . . . near earth’s surface” as broadly recited.
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.
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.
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 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 the claim 14 rejection regarding the cover mesh structure.
Regarding claim 20, see the claim 32 Chen rejection above for further details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above, which address those Patent Owner’s arguments that are still applicable to the new grounds of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roland Foster whose telephone number is (571) 272-7538. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 9:30 AM – 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Signed:
/ROLAND G FOSTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 (571) 272-7538
Conferee: /DAVID E ENGLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights