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 12/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 19-25 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13-15, 17-18 and 26-29 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-18 and 26-29 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “further support member” claim 11 (arrangement not shown) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 19-25 appear to be cancelled, as opposed to “withdrawn” as their status indictor suggest.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon, FR (2519243) (IDS).
In regards to claim 1 Simon discloses:
A support member (vertical tubular element 1 with faces 3-6; as shown in fig. 4) and bracket (U-shaped profile 2, 16; fig. 4) for a modular decking system (intended use), wherein the support member includes at least one securing location (locations at 7 / central stop 8; fig. 4) at which the bracket is securable to the support member (as shown in fig. 4), each of the at least one securing location including one or more hook apertures (either two apertures 7 above each other or two apertures at surfaces 7c & 7d next to each other separated by slit 9), and the bracket includes:
one or more hooks (hooks formed by tabs 20 and notches 21; fig. 4) configured to be received by the one or more hook apertures (7; fig. 4) of the at least one securing location (as shown in fig. 4); and
a pair of opposing side walls (walls 17, 18) and a further wall (19) extending between the opposing side walls to define a tapering slot (slot defined by the space bound by 17, 18 and 19 being tapered due to the slanted outer edge of 20 facing face 6) for receipt of a fin of a decking member or beam (intended use where the space in bracket 16 can receive a fin) and wherein each of the one or more hooks extends from, and is planar with, at least one of the opposing side walls (as shown in annotated drawings below).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
550
789
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 Simon discloses the at least one securing location comprises a plurality of securing locations (multiple 7s and central stops 8; as shown in fig. 4) at which the bracket is securable to the support member (bracket securable to anyone of the openings 7), (also considering the two halves of 7 at 7c and at 7d being two different apertures).
In regards to claim 3 Simon discloses the tapering slot is an open-ended slot at both a first and second end of the bracket (at top as shown in fig. 4 and bottom to accommodate stops 8 and at notches 21).
In regards to claim 4 Simon discloses the bracket further includes a catch mechanism (23, 24; fig. 4) including a catch member (24) configured to move between a retracted and an extended position (as it slides in aperture 23) with respect to the side walls of the bracket, such that with the bracket secured to the support member and the catch member in the extended position, at least part of the catch member is received by a securing aperture of the support member at the securing location (fig. 5, pin is received in left hand side aperture at 7c).
In regards to claim 5 Simon discloses the one or more hooks include a pair of hooks (upper and lower hooks 20/21).
In regards to claim 6 Simon discloses the pair of hooks are configured to be received between two outer edges of the one or more hook apertures (outer edges 7c and 7d; fig. 4).
In regards to claim 7 Simon discloses the two outer edges define a first portion and second portion (upper and lower portions; see annotated drawings), with a thickness of a portion of the bracket configured to be received by the or each hook aperture being greater than a width of the second portion (when hooks are inserted; fig. 5) and the first portion being wider than the second portion (as shown in fig. 4; reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
353
393
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8 Simon discloses the portion of the bracket configured to be received by the or each hook aperture is at least part of the pair of hooks (as shown in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 9 Simon discloses the two outer edges are outer edges of a single one of the one or more hook apertures (where both halves of aperture 7 between 7c and 7d is considered one aperture; fig. 4).
In regards to claim 10 Simon discloses the two outer edges are outer edges of respective hook apertures (multiple hook apertures 7 as shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 12 Simon discloses the one or more hooks include two pairs of hooks (as pair on each end of crosspieces 2 as shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 13 Simon discloses the or each hook includes a hook head (20) at least partially defining a hook gap (see annotated drawings) including a first mouth portion (see annotated drawings) and a second inner portion (see annotated drawings), the first mouth portion being wider than the second inner portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
621
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon, FR (2519243) (IDS).
In regards to claim 17 Simon discloses:
A modular decking system (system shown in fig. 11) cross-brace member (2, 25 or 30; figs. 1, 2, 3 respectively) including:
a beam (2, 25 or 30); and
two brackets (a bracket 16 or 33 on each side of the beams as shown in figs. 1, 2, 3), each bracket coupled to an opposing end of the beam (as shown in figs. 1, 2, 3), wherein each bracket is configured to be secured to a respective securing location (locations at 7; fig. 4) of a support member (vertical tubular element 1), and wherein each bracket includes:
one or more hooks (hooks formed by tabs 20 and notches 21; fig. 4) configured to be received by one or more hook apertures (punctures 7; fig. 4) of the securing location; and
a pair of opposing side walls (walls 17, 18) and a further wall (19) extending between the opposing side walls to define a tapering slot (slot defined by the space bound by 17, 18 and 19 being tapered due to the slanted outer edge of 20 facing face 6) for receipt of a fin of a decking member or beam and a further bracket (intended use where the space in bracket 16 can receive a fin); and
wherein each of the one or more hooks extends from, and is planar with, at least one of the opposing side walls (as shown in annotated drawings below)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon, FR (2519243) (IDS).
In regards to claim 18 Simon discloses:
A modular platform system (system shown in fig. 11) for use on a construction site (intended use), the system including a support member (vertical tubular element 1) and bracket (U-shaped profile 2, 16; fig. 4), wherein the support member includes at least one securing location (locations at 7; fig. 4) at which the bracket is securable to the support member (as shown in fig. 4), and the bracket includes:
one or more hooks (hooks formed by tabs 20 and notches 21; fig. 4) configured to be received by one or more hook apertures (punctures 7; fig. 4) of the securing location (as shown in fig. 4); and
a pair of opposing side walls (walls 17, 18) and a further wall (19) extending between the opposing side walls to define a tapering slot (slot defined by the space bound by 17, 18 and 19 being tapered due to the slanted outer edge of 20 facing face 6) for receipt of a fin of a decking member or beam (intended use where the space in bracket 16 can receive a fin) and
wherein each of the one or more hooks extends from, and is planar with, at least one of the opposing side walls (as shown in annotated drawings below).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon, FR (2519243) (IDS).
In regards to claim 26 Simon discloses:
A modular decking system bracket (U-shaped profile 2, 16; fig. 4) including:
one or more hooks (hooks formed by tabs 20 and notches 21; fig. 4) configured to be received by one or more hook apertures (punctures 7; fig. 4) of a securing location (locations at 7; fig. 4) of a support member (vertical tubular element 1) of a modular decking system (system shown in fig. 11); and
a pair of opposing side walls (walls 17, 18) and a further wall (19) extending between the opposing side walls to define a tapering slot (slot defined by the space bound by 17, 18 and 19 being tapered due to the slanted outer edge of 20 facing face 6) for receipt of a fin of a decking member or beam (intended use where the space in bracket 16 can receive a fin) and
wherein each of the one or more hooks extends from, and is planar with, at least one of the opposing side walls (as shown in annotated drawings below).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leblanc, US (7708317).
In regards to claim 11 Simon does not disclose a connection member with a cross-shaped cross-section configured to be at least partially received by the support member to enable the support member to be connected to a further support member.
Leblanc teaches a connection member (10; fig. 4) with a cross-shaped cross-section (as shown in fig. 4) configured to be at least partially received (intended use) by the support member (in the same manner it is received by one of pipes 12) to enable the support member to be connected to a further support member (11; such as shown in; fig. 3).
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 connection member taught by Leblanc onto the support member of Simon for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success and as motivated by Leblanc i.e., to provide for means to attach multiple support member end to end in the same manner shown in Leblanc fig. 3, 4.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuno, US (2015/0239489).
In regards to claim 14-16 (although Simon discloses the components made of metal and light metal which inherently can flex) Simon does not explicitly disclose the bracket is configured to be flexed such that the distance between the pair of side walls is changed resiliently, the pair of side walls are configured to be flexed towards each other for receipt of the or each hook by the or each hook aperture and the bracket defines a threaded aperture for receipt of a male threaded member of the bracket, such that extension of the male threaded member through the threaded aperture presses the male threaded member against one of the pair of side walls to flex the side walls apart from each other
Matsuno teaches:
the bracket (2, fig. 2; equated to bracket of Simon) is configured to be flexed such that the distance between the pair of opposing side walls is changed resiliently (as described in paragraph [0063]; highlighted excerpt below) (claim 14).
the pair of opposing side walls are configured to be flexed towards each other for receipt of the or each hook by the or each hook aperture (as their ability to flex, they are inherently “configured to be flexed towards each other”) (claim 15).
the bracket defines a threaded aperture (receiving threads 71c) for receipt of a male threaded member (71) of the bracket, such that extension of the male threaded member through the threaded aperture presses the male threaded member against one of the pair of side walls to flex the side walls apart from each other (as described in paragraph [0063]; highlighted excerpt below) (claim 16).
PNG
media_image5.png
281
696
media_image5.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 threaded member and aperture arrangement taught by Matsuno onto the bracket of Simon for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for means to adjust the width of the bracket to accommodate manufacturing tolerances of the receiving apertures, resulting as a natural occurrence of manufacturing thousands of the same element i.e., the support member.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Matsuno, US (2015/0239489).
In regards to claim 27-28 Simon discloses the one or more hooks extend from the pair of side walls (as shown in fig. 4).
In regards to claim 27-29 (although Simon discloses the components made of metal and light metal which inherently can flex) Simon does not explicitly disclose the side walls are configured to flex resiliently inwardly with respect to each other, the side walls are configured to flex resiliently outwardly with respect to each other and one of the pair of side walls includes a threaded aperture configured to receive a male threaded member such that extension of the male threaded member through the threaded aperture causes abutment of the male threaded member against the other of the pair of side walls to flex the side walls outwardly with respect to each other.
Matsuno teaches:
the opposing side walls are configured to flex resiliently inwardly with respect to each other (as their ability to flex as described in paragraph [0063]; highlighted excerpt below, they are inherently “configured to be flexed towards each other”) (claim 27).
the opposing side walls are configured to flex resiliently outwardly with respect to each other (as described in paragraph [0063]; highlighted excerpt below) (claim 28).
one of the pair of opposing side walls includes a threaded aperture (receiving threads 71c) configured to receive a male threaded member (71) such that extension of the male threaded member (71) through the threaded aperture causes abutment of the male threaded member against the other of the pair of opposing side walls to flex the opposing side walls outwardly with respect to each other (as described in paragraph [0063]; highlighted excerpt below) (claim 29).
PNG
media_image5.png
281
696
media_image5.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 threaded member and aperture arrangement taught by Matsuno onto the bracket of Simon for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for means to adjust the width of the bracket to accommodate manufacturing tolerances of the receiving apertures, resulting as a natural occurrence of manufacturing thousands of the same element i.e., the support member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Applicant argues “the slot formed in the arrangement of Figure 4 of Simon is not disclosed as being used "for receipt of a fin of a decking member or beam" as is required of the slot recited in each of independent claims 1, 17, 18 and 26. Hence, claims 1, 17, 18 and 26 are all novel over Simon”; examiner respectfully disagrees and provides that on one hand the tapering slot (slot defined by the space bound by 17, 18 and 19) of Simon indeed have the structure “for receipt of a fin of a decking member or beam” and secondly, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further on, applicant argues “the Examiner cannot argue that the slot of Simon is even "suitable for" this purpose because, in use, the Simon slot is entirely inaccessible and thus could not receive a fin of a decking member or beam. In use, the hooks 17, 18 of Simon slot into cutouts 7 to connect the crossbeam 2 to the post 1. As a result, the indicated slot is not available to receive any other member, let alone specifically "a fin of a decking member or beam," ... Inserting a fin of a decking member or beam within the slot of Simon would prevent the walls 17, 18 from engaging with the cutouts 7”; examiner also respectfully disagrees and presents that, there is nothing in the claim that requires the tapering slot to receive a fin of a decking member or beam while in use, or assembled configuration; applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “In use”) 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). Therefore, the tapering slot of Simon indeed exhibits structure for receipt of a fin of a decking member or beam at least in an unassembled configuration.
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
Prosecution Insights