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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterson in US Patent 1929325 in view of Grumberg in US Publication 2015/0041252.
Regarding Claim 1, Masterson teaches a monorail assembly comprising: a first scaffold system comprising at least one framework member (B) being an elongated structure having and upper chord (the upper chord opposite 1) and a bottom chord (1) and a plurality of panel points (any point along the bottom chord) along the bottom chord; at least one monorail beam (T); and at least one bracket structure (comprising at least two brackets 9) configured to secure to the at least one framework member and to the at least one monorail beam, the bracket structure having a wall (such as 17) positioned on a side of the framework member configured to extend across at least two panel points of the at least framework member, wherein the wall defines at least two openings (the windows at 11) configured to align with at least two panel points.
Masterson is silent on the use of a framework with diagonal members. Grumberg teaches a framework member (140) including an upper chord (32), a bottom chord (33), a plurality of diagonal support members (38) and a plurality of panel points along the bottom chord, wherein each panel point is at a point at which two of the plurality of diagonal support members meet along the bottom chord. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Masterson by using a framework member as taught by Grumberg in order to provide a stronger and lighter framework member.
Masterson, as modified, is silent on the length of the wall of the bracket structure with respect to the size of the Grumberg device. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wall of the bracket structure of Masterson, as modified, by using a length of the wall that is sized to extend across at least two panel points of the modified framework member in order to provide suitable support for the monorail beam, since such a change would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized a being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 2, Masterson, as modified, teaches that the at least one monorail beam does not contact the at least one framework member when secured to the at least one bracket structure.
Regarding Claim 4, Masterson, as modified, teaches at least one joist bracket (3) and wherein the connection of the at least one monorail beam to the at least one framework member is accomplished by the connection of the at least one joist bracket and at least one bracket structure.
Regarding Claim 3, Masterson, as modified, teaches at least one joist bracket (3) which is connected to the at least one monorail beam and the at least one bracket structure.
Regarding Claim 6, Masterson, as modified, teaches at least two trolley structures (C) slidingly secured to the first scaffold system via the at least one monorail beam and configured to secure a second scaffold system (40/42).
Regarding Claim 8, Masterson, as modified, teaches that the first scaffold system comprises at least two framework members (see Fig. 1).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterson, as modified, as applied to Claim 8 above in view of Preusser in US Publication 2001/0037914. Masterson, as modified, is silent on the use of a stop member on the monorail beam. Preusser teaches a monorail assembly comprising at least one monorail beam (10) comprising at least one end stop (65) secured to the at least one monorail beam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Masterson, as modified, by using a monorail with a stop as taught by Preusser in order to prevent unwanted disengagement of the components.
Claims 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterson in US Patent 1929325 in view of Grumberg in US Publication 2015/0041252 and Melton in US Patent 3643761.
Regarding Claim 9, Masterson teaches a monorail system comprising: a first scaffold system comprising at least one framework member (B) being an elongated structure having and upper chord (the upper chord opposite 1) and a bottom chord (1) and a plurality of panel points (any point along the bottom chord) along the bottom chord, a monorail assembly (T) secured to the first scaffold system and comprising at least one monorail beam; and at least one bracket structure (comprising at least two brackets 9), the bracket structure having a wall (such as 17) positioned on a side of the framework member configured to extend across at least two panel points of the at least framework member, wherein the wall defines at least two openings (the windows at 11) configured to align with at least two panel points, a second scaffold system (40/42) suspended from the at least one monorail beam and at least one trolley structure (C) slidingly secured to the first scaffold system via the at least one monorail beam, the trolley structure configured to move the second scaffold system laterally along the at least one monorail beam.
Masterson is silent on the use of a framework with diagonal members. Grumberg teaches a framework member (140) including an upper chord (32), a bottom chord (33), a plurality of diagonal support members (38) and a plurality of panel points along the bottom chord, wherein each panel point is at a point at which two of the plurality of diagonal support members meet along the bottom chord. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Masterson by using a framework member as taught by Grumberg in order to provide a stronger and lighter framework member.
Masterson, as modified, teaches that the trolley structure is movable vertically with respect to the monorail beam, but fails to teach a motor. Melton teaches a trolley structure (15) and scaffold system (20) attached to a monorail beam (14) and a hoist motor (18) coupled with the trolley structure, the hoist motor to move the scaffold system vertically with respect to the monorail beam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Masterson by adding a hoist motor as taught by Melton in order to provide easy means of adjusting the scaffold.
Regarding Claim 11, Masterson, as modified, teaches that the first scaffold system is a suspended articulating scaffold system.
Regarding Claim 12, Masterson, as modified, teaches that the monorail assembly further comprises at least one bracket structure (9) configured to secure to the first scaffold system.
Regarding Claim 13, Masterson, as modified, teaches that the second scaffold system is a monorail car (insofar as the second scaffold moves along the monorail).
Regarding Claim 14, Masterson, as modified, teaches that the second scaffold system is a suspension scaffold (insofar as the second scaffold is suspended).
Regarding Claim 15, Masterson, as modified, teaches at least two trolley structures (C) slidingly secured to the first scaffold system via the at least one monorail beam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding the “windows” recited in Claims 1 and, 9: the bracket structure of Masterson (deemed to include at least two of the brackets 9) plainly teaches windows 11 in the sidewalls thereof. Such windows can inherently be located to align with the panel points. The claims do not require that the framework member be visible through the windows, only that they align with the panel points. As such, Masterson is deemed sufficient to teach these limitations in the claims.
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 NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636