DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13-14 are pending.
Claims 2-3, 9 and 11-13 are cancelled.
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badstieber (US 5,160,640) in view of Lee (US 2016/0319558).
Re claim 1, Badstieber discloses a frame (2) of a formwork panel (1), the frame (2) comprising:
at least one stiffener profile (4) formed between two opposite edges (left/right edges of 2) of the frame (2) and having a slanted profile (Fig. 2), the at least one stiffener profile (4) comprising:
a first edge (left edge of 4 and 5) adjacent to (Fig. 2) a flat portion (flat surface of 3) of the formwork panel (1); and
a second edge (right edge of 4 and 5 proximate 4a) distal from the first edge (left edge of 4), wherein a surface (side surfaces of 4 in Fig. 2) of the at least one stiffener profile (4) is sloping outwards from (Fig. 2, from 3 towards 8a for example) the first edge (left edge of 4) towards the second edge (right edge of 4) to form the slanted profile (Fig. 4), wherein the angle (Fig. 2) of the slanted profile (Fig. 2) is defined as the angle (Fig. 2) between the surface (side surfaces of 4) and a normal (Fig. 2) to the flat portion (flat surface of 3) of the formwork panel (1),
at least one in-built brace connector (8) formed on at least one anchor strut (bottommost element 4) having a surface (top surface of bottommost element 4) facing the at least one stiffener profile (such as element 4 which is 2nd from the bottom), the at least one in-built brace connector (8) is located on the surface (top surface of bottommost element 4), wherein the at least one in-built brace connector (8) comprises a first wall (left wall of 8) and a second wall (right wall of 8),
but fails to disclose wherein the first wall and the second wall are oriented parallel to each other and oriented orthogonally with respect to the surface of the at least one anchor strut, the first wall comprises a first slot and the second wall comprises a second slot, wherein the second slot is aligned with the first slot to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface such that a central axis of the first slot coincides with a central axis of the second slot, and wherein the central axis of the first slot and the central axis of the second slot are parallel to a length of the surface of the at least one anchor strut, wherein an angle of the slanted profile is selected such that any residual matter falling on the at least one stiffener profile slides off of the surface, wherein the angle of the slanted profile of the at least one stiffener profile is 45°.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein the first wall and the second wall are oriented parallel to each other and oriented orthogonally with respect to the surface of the at least one anchor strut in shape (in other words, by sidewalls of 8 being straight instead of angled) in order to simplify design and manufacture by eliminating the need for non-square angling of walls thereof. It has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In addition, Lee discloses least one in-built brace connector (30-1) with the first wall (35) comprises a first slot (33) and the second wall (36) comprises a second slot (33), wherein the second slot (33) is aligned with (Fig. 4) the first slot (33) to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface (33 and 33 are capable of receiving an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface, as this is a statement of intended use) such that a central axis (of 33) of the first slot (33) coincides with (Fig. 4) a central axis (of 33) of the second slot (33), and wherein the central axis (of 33) of the first slot (33) and the central axis (of 33) of the second slot (33) are parallel to a length (Fig. 2) of the surface (of 30) of the at least one anchor strut (30).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein the first wall comprises a first slot and the second wall comprises a second slot, wherein the second slot is aligned with the first slot to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface such that a central axis of the first slot coincides with a central axis of the second slot, and wherein the central axis of the first slot and the central axis of the second slot are parallel to a length of the surface of the at least one anchor strut as disclosed by Lee in order to connect with additional equipment ([0031]) such as a handrail, lifting ring, bracing, or worktable ([0044]).
In addition, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein the angle of the slanted profile of the at least one stiffener profile is 45° in order to optimize distribution of stresses and/or loads through the stiffener.
Re claim 10, Badstieber discloses a formwork panel (2) comprising:
a flat portion (3); and
a frame (2) adapted to be coupled with (Fig. 2) the flat portion (3), the frame (2) comprising:
at least one stiffener profile (4) formed between two opposite edges (left/right edges of 2) of the frame (2) and having a slanted profile (Fig. 2), the at least one stiffener profile (4) comprising:
a first edge (left edge of 4 and 5) adjacent to (Fig. 2) a flat portion (flat surface of 3) of the formwork panel (1); and
a second edge (right edge of 4 and 5 proximate 4a) distal from the first edge (left edge of 4), wherein a surface (side surfaces of 4 in Fig. 2) of the at least one stiffener profile (4) is sloping outwards from (Fig. 2, from 3 towards 8a for example) the first edge (left edge of 4) towards the second edge (right edge of 4) to form the slanted profile (Fig. 4), wherein the angle (Fig. 2) of the slanted profile (Fig. 2) is defined as the angle (Fig. 2) between the surface (side surfaces of 4) and a normal (Fig. 2) to the flat portion (flat surface of 3) of the formwork panel (1); and
at least one in-built brace connector (8) formed on at least one anchor strut (bottommost element 4) having a surface (top surface of bottommost element 4) facing the at least one stiffener profile (such as element 4 which is 2nd from the bottom), the at least one in-built brace connector (8) is located on the surface (top surface of bottommost element 4), wherein the at least one in-built brace connector (8) comprises a first wall (left wall of 8) and a second wall (right wall of 8),
but fails to disclose wherein the first wall and the second wall are oriented parallel to each other and oriented orthogonally with respect to the surface of the at least one anchor strut, the first wall comprises a first slot and the second wall comprises a second slot, wherein the second slot is aligned with the first slot to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface such that a central axis of the first slot coincides with a central axis of the second slot, and wherein the central axis of the first slot and the central axis of the second slot are parallel to a length of the surface of the at least one anchor strut, wherein an angle of the slanted profile is selected such that any residual matter falling on the at least one stiffener profile slides off of the surface, wherein the angle of the slanted profile of the at least one stiffener profile is 45°.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Badstieber wherein the first wall and the second wall are oriented parallel to each other and oriented orthogonally with respect to the surface of the at least one anchor strut in shape (in other words, by sidewalls of 8 being straight instead of angled) in order to simplify design and manufacture by eliminating the need for non-square angling of walls thereof. It has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In addition, Lee discloses least one in-built brace connector (30-1) with the first wall (35) comprises a first slot (33) and the second wall (36) comprises a second slot (33), wherein the second slot (33) is aligned with (Fig. 4) the first slot (33) to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface (33 and 33 are capable of receiving an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface, as this is a statement of intended use) such that a central axis (of 33) of the first slot (33) coincides with (Fig. 4) a central axis (of 33) of the second slot (33), and wherein the central axis (of 33) of the first slot (33) and the central axis (of 33) of the second slot (33) are parallel to a length (Fig. 2) of the surface (of 30) of the at least one anchor strut (30).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Badstieber wherein the first wall comprises a first slot and the second wall comprises a second slot, wherein the second slot is aligned with the first slot to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface such that a central axis of the first slot coincides with a central axis of the second slot, and wherein the central axis of the first slot and the central axis of the second slot are parallel to a length of the surface of the at least one anchor strut as disclosed by Lee in order to connect with additional equipment ([0031]) such as a handrail, lifting ring, bracing, or worktable ([0044]).
In addition, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein an angle of the slanted profile is selected such that any residual matter falling on the at least one stiffener profile slides off of the surface, wherein the angle of the slanted profile of the at least one stiffener profile is 45° in order to optimize distribution of stresses and/or loads through the stiffener.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badstieber (US 5,160,640) in view of Lee (US 2016/0319558) and Nelson (US 10,718,094).
Re claim 1, Badstieber discloses a frame (2) of a formwork panel (1), the frame (2) comprising:
at least one stiffener profile (4) formed between two opposite edges (left/right edges of 2) of the frame (2) and having a slanted profile (Fig. 2), the at least one stiffener profile (4) comprising:
a first edge (left edge of 4 and 5) adjacent to (Fig. 2) a flat portion (flat surface of 3) of the formwork panel (1); and
a second edge (right edge of 4 and 5 proximate 4a) distal from the first edge (left edge of 4), wherein a surface (side surfaces of 4 in Fig. 2) of the at least one stiffener profile (4) is sloping outwards from (Fig. 2, from 3 towards 8a for example) the first edge (left edge of 4) towards the second edge (right edge of 4) to form the slanted profile (Fig. 4), wherein the angle (Fig. 2) of the slanted profile (Fig. 2) is defined as the angle (Fig. 2) between the surface (side surfaces of 4) and a normal (Fig. 2) to the flat portion (flat surface of 3) of the formwork panel (1),
at least one in-built brace connector (8) formed on at least one anchor strut (bottommost element 4) having a surface (top surface of bottommost element 4) facing the at least one stiffener profile (such as element 4 which is 2nd from the bottom), the at least one in-built brace connector (8) is located on the surface (top surface of bottommost element 4), wherein the at least one in-built brace connector (8) comprises a first wall (left wall of 8) and a second wall (right wall of 8),
but fails to disclose wherein the first wall and the second wall are oriented parallel to each other and oriented orthogonally with respect to the surface of the at least one anchor strut, the first wall comprises a first slot and the second wall comprises a second slot, wherein the second slot is aligned with the first slot to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface such that a central axis of the first slot coincides with a central axis of the second slot, and wherein the central axis of the first slot and the central axis of the second slot are parallel to a length of the surface of the at least one anchor strut, wherein an angle of the slanted profile is selected such that any residual matter falling on the at least one stiffener profile slides off of the surface, wherein the angle of the slanted profile of the at least one stiffener profile is 45°.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein the first wall and the second wall are oriented parallel to each other and oriented orthogonally with respect to the surface of the at least one anchor strut in shape (in other words, by sidewalls of 8 being straight instead of angled) in order to simplify design and manufacture by eliminating the need for non-square angling of walls thereof. It has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In addition, Lee discloses least one in-built brace connector (30-1) with the first wall (35) comprises a first slot (33) and the second wall (36) comprises a second slot (33), wherein the second slot (33) is aligned with (Fig. 4) the first slot (33) to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface (33 and 33 are capable of receiving an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface, as this is a statement of intended use) such that a central axis (of 33) of the first slot (33) coincides with (Fig. 4) a central axis (of 33) of the second slot (33), and wherein the central axis (of 33) of the first slot (33) and the central axis (of 33) of the second slot (33) are parallel to a length (Fig. 2) of the surface (of 30) of the at least one anchor strut (30).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein the first wall comprises a first slot and the second wall comprises a second slot, wherein the second slot is aligned with the first slot to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface such that a central axis of the first slot coincides with a central axis of the second slot, and wherein the central axis of the first slot and the central axis of the second slot are parallel to a length of the surface of the at least one anchor strut as disclosed by Lee in order to connect with additional equipment ([0031]) such as a handrail, lifting ring, bracing, or worktable ([0044]).
In addition, Nelson discloses wherein an angle (α) of the slanted profile (26) is selected such that any residual matter falling on the at least one stiffener profile slides off of the surface (as below, because the angle is within the claimed range, it follows that residual matter would fall off), wherein the angle (α) of the slanted profile (26) of the at least one stiffener profile (12) is selected (Col 3 lines 57-60 disclosing α as 90-104 degrees; and as defined previously, the claimed angle is taken normal from 24; subtracting 90 degrees from this disclosed angle would provide the claimed angle and thus, Nelson discloses a range of 0-14°).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein an angle of the slanted profile is selected such that any residual matter falling on the at least one stiffener profile slides off of the surface as disclosed by Nelson in order to optimize distribution of stresses and/or loads through the stiffener. In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
In addition, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein the angle of the slanted profile is 45 degrees as evidenced to be a result effective variable by Nelson (Col 3 lines 57-60 disclosing α as 90-104 degrees; and as defined previously, the claimed angle is taken normal from 24; subtracting 90 degrees from this disclosed angle would provide the claimed angle and thus, Nelson discloses a range of 0-14°) in order to optimize distribution of stresses and/or loads through the stiffener. In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Re claim 8, Badstieber discloses the frame of claim 1, wherein the at least one anchor strut (5) formed between two opposite edge (left and right edges of 2) of the frame (2), the at least one anchor strut (5) further comprising a plurality of slots (402) (9) adapted to receive a connector assembly (Col 4 lines 36-41) for connecting the frame (2) with another frame (Col 4 lines 36-41) positioned opposite to the frame (2; and as this is a statement of intended use).
Re claim 10, Badstieber discloses a formwork panel (2) comprising:
a flat portion (3); and
a frame (2) adapted to be coupled with (Fig. 2) the flat portion (3), the frame (2) comprising:
at least one stiffener profile (4) formed between two opposite edges (left/right edges of 2) of the frame (2) and having a slanted profile (Fig. 2), the at least one stiffener profile (4) comprising:
a first edge (left edge of 4 and 5) adjacent to (Fig. 2) a flat portion (flat surface of 3) of the formwork panel (1); and
a second edge (right edge of 4 and 5 proximate 4a) distal from the first edge (left edge of 4), wherein a surface (side surfaces of 4 in Fig. 2) of the at least one stiffener profile (4) is sloping outwards from (Fig. 2, from 3 towards 8a for example) the first edge (left edge of 4) towards the second edge (right edge of 4) to form the slanted profile (Fig. 4), wherein the angle (Fig. 2) of the slanted profile (Fig. 2) is defined as the angle (Fig. 2) between the surface (side surfaces of 4) and a normal (Fig. 2) to the flat portion (flat surface of 3) of the formwork panel (1); and
at least one in-built brace connector (8) formed on at least one anchor strut (bottommost element 4) having a surface (top surface of bottommost element 4) facing the at least one stiffener profile (such as element 4 which is 2nd from the bottom), the at least one in-built brace connector (8) is located on the surface (top surface of bottommost element 4), wherein the at least one in-built brace connector (8) comprises a first wall (left wall of 8) and a second wall (right wall of 8),
but fails to disclose wherein the first wall and the second wall are oriented parallel to each other and oriented orthogonally with respect to the surface of the at least one anchor strut, the first wall comprises a first slot and the second wall comprises a second slot, wherein the second slot is aligned with the first slot to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface such that a central axis of the first slot coincides with a central axis of the second slot, and wherein the central axis of the first slot and the central axis of the second slot are parallel to a length of the surface of the at least one anchor strut, wherein an angle of the slanted profile is selected such that any residual matter falling on the at least one stiffener profile slides off of the surface, wherein the angle of the slanted profile of the at least one stiffener profile is 45°.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Badstieber wherein the first wall and the second wall are oriented parallel to each other and oriented orthogonally with respect to the surface of the at least one anchor strut in shape (in other words, by sidewalls of 8 being straight instead of angled) in order to simplify design and manufacture by eliminating the need for non-square angling of walls thereof. It has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In addition, Lee discloses least one in-built brace connector (30-1) with the first wall (35) comprises a first slot (33) and the second wall (36) comprises a second slot (33), wherein the second slot (33) is aligned with (Fig. 4) the first slot (33) to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface (33 and 33 are capable of receiving an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface, as this is a statement of intended use) such that a central axis (of 33) of the first slot (33) coincides with (Fig. 4) a central axis (of 33) of the second slot (33), and wherein the central axis (of 33) of the first slot (33) and the central axis (of 33) of the second slot (33) are parallel to a length (Fig. 2) of the surface (of 30) of the at least one anchor strut (30).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Badstieber wherein the first wall comprises a first slot and the second wall comprises a second slot, wherein the second slot is aligned with the first slot to receive an alignment system for connecting the frame with a supporting surface such that a central axis of the first slot coincides with a central axis of the second slot, and wherein the central axis of the first slot and the central axis of the second slot are parallel to a length of the surface of the at least one anchor strut as disclosed by Lee in order to connect with additional equipment ([0031]) such as a handrail, lifting ring, bracing, or worktable ([0044]).
In addition, Nelson discloses wherein an angle (α) of the slanted profile (26) is selected such that any residual matter falling on the at least one stiffener profile slides off of the surface (as below, because the angle is within the claimed range, it follows that residual matter would fall off), wherein the angle (α) of the slanted profile (26) of the at least one stiffener profile (12) is selected (Col 3 lines 57-60 disclosing α as 90-104 degrees; and as defined previously, the claimed angle is taken normal from 24; subtracting 90 degrees from this disclosed angle would provide the claimed angle and thus, Nelson discloses a range of 0-14°).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein an angle of the slanted profile is selected such that any residual matter falling on the at least one stiffener profile slides off of the surface as disclosed by Nelson in order to optimize distribution of stresses and/or loads through the stiffener. In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
In addition, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein the angle of the slanted profile is 45 degrees as evidenced to be a result effective variable by Nelson (Col 3 lines 57-60 disclosing α as 90-104 degrees; and as defined previously, the claimed angle is taken normal from 24; subtracting 90 degrees from this disclosed angle would provide the claimed angle and thus, Nelson discloses a range of 0-14°) in order to optimize distribution of stresses and/or loads through the stiffener. In addition, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badstieber (US 5,160,640) in view of Lee (US 2016/0319558), Nelson (US 10,718,094) and Cluyse (US 2,963,763).
Re claim 4, Badstieber as modified discloses the frame of in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one stiffener profile is a V-shaped profile.
However, Cluyse discloses wherein the at least one stiffener profile (12) is a V-shaped profile (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein the at least one stiffener profile is a V-shaped profile in shape in order to simplify design and manufacture, as a V-shape is simpler to form (a single bend) than the shape of Badstieber. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 14, Badstieber as modified discloses the formwork panel of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one stiffener profile is a V-shaped profile.
However, Cluyse discloses wherein the at least one stiffener profile (12) is a V-shaped profile (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Badstieber wherein the at least one stiffener profile is a V-shaped profile in shape in order to simplify design and manufacture, as a V-shape is simpler to form (a single bend) than the shape of Badstieber. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Claim(s) 5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badstieber (US 5,160,640) in view of Lee (US 2016/0319558), Nelson (US 10,718,094) and Rademacher (US 2003/0001070).
Re claim 5, Badstieber as modified discloses the frame of in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one stiffener profile is a W-shaped profile.
However, Rademacher discloses wherein the at least one stiffener profile (14B) is a W-shaped profile ([0034]).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein the at least one stiffener profile is a W-shaped profile in shape in order to provide additional material for additional strength, rigidity, and load distribution, as the load distribution of a W-shape is different, and stronger in some directions, than that of Badstieber. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 13, Badstieber as modified discloses the formwork panel of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one stiffener profile is a W-shaped profile.
However, Rademacher discloses wherein the at least one stiffener profile (14B) is a W-shaped profile ([0034]).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formwork panel of Badstieber wherein the at least one stiffener profile is a W-shaped profile in shape in order to provide additional material for additional strength, rigidity, and load distribution, as the load distribution of a W-shape is different, and stronger in some directions, than that of Badstieber. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badstieber (US 5,160,640) in view of Lee (US 2016/0319558), Nelson (US 10,718,094) and Naccarato et al (“Naccarato”) (US 2014/0157706).
Re claim 6, Badstieber as modified discloses the frame of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one stiffener profile is powder-coated.
However, Naccarato discloses wherein the at least one stiffener profile (100) is powder-coated ([0036]).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein the at least one stiffener profile is powder-coated as disclosed by Naccarato in order to inhibit corrosion ([0036]).
Re claim 7, Badstieber as modified discloses the frame of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one stiffener profile is painted.
However, Naccarato discloses wherein the at least one stiffener profile (100) is painted ([0036]).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Badstieber wherein the at least one stiffener profile (204) is painted as disclosed by Naccarato in order to inhibit corrosion ([0036]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are persuasive. Rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues again that the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed angle being 45 degrees. As in the last response, Applicant contends that the claimed angle has not been shown to be a result effective variable. This argument was addressed in the 7/16/25 Non-Final Rejection, and is repeated below (with additional comments therein).
Applicant argues that Badstieber fails to disclose the amended features of claim 1. Applicant argues that Badstieber cannot be modified in the manner described because the change in size is not recognized as a result-effective variable. With respect to Badstieber itself, no change in size, proportion or optimization of ranges is relied upon. Regardless, such result-effective variables are disclosed and relied upon by Nelson. In other words, Badstieber is modified by Nelson, which evidences that is known that the claimed angle is a result effective variable. Rejections pertaining solely to Badstieber and Lee (thus, lacking Nelson) do not rely on any modification utilizing result effective variable case law.
Applicant next argues that the reasoning provided in the Office Action is knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure. It is difficult to understand that a person of ordinary skill would not be able to reduce weight and optimize reinforcement without absent Applicant’s own disclosure. These benefits have been sought after and achieved without Applicant’s disclosure.
Next, Applicant argues that Nelson does not disclose the claimed angle of 45 degrees. It is noted that per the above, Nelson is not cited as disclosing the claimed angle. However, Nelson is relied upon (in addition to other features) as showing that the claimed angle is a result effective variable. Motivation for the proposed modification is further provided above.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the remaining claims are addressed by the above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635