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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application Number: 17/637,616 filed on 2/23/22 has a total of 13 claims pending for examination; there is/are 1 independent claims and 12 dependent claims, all of which are examined below.
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 1-5 and 7-14 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.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “a first pair of cooperating brackets secured to respective flat vertical bracket bars” in line 8 renders the claim indefinite since it’s not clear if “respective flat vertical bracket bars” is referring back to the instance of “first and second elongated flat vertical bracket bars” recited in line 5 (same instance?) or if it’s referring to a new instance of “flat vertical brackets” separate and distinct from the “first and second elongated flat vertical bracket bars” recited in line 5 and which may not be elongated.
With further regards to claim 1, the phrase “a second pair of cooperating brackets secured to respective flat vertical bracket bars” in lines 17-18 renders the claim indefinite since it’s not clear if “respective flat vertical bracket bars” is referring back to the instance of “first and second elongated flat vertical bracket bars” recited in line 5 (same instance?) or if it’s referring to a new instance of “flat vertical brackets” separate and distinct from the “first and second elongated flat vertical bracket bars” recited in line 5 and which may not be elongated.
With regards to claims 2-5 and 7-14, due to their direct or indirect dependence from claim 1, they suffer from the same deficiencies and are rejected under the same rationale.
Due to the vagueness and a lack of clear definiteness in the claims, the claims have been treated on their merits as best understood by the examiner.
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(s) 1-5, 9-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,779,304 to Murphy (hereinafter Murphy) in view of US Patent No. 5,232,254 to Teaff (hereinafter Teaff), in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20140373360 to Candler et al. (hereinafter Candler).
With regards to claim 1, Murphy teaches a guardrail safety system [figs 1A-1B] adapted for being temporarily installed at an elevated unfinished opening in a building under construction [column 1 lines 17-37, column 2 lines 2-19], the elevated unfinished opening [fig 1A] being defined by at least a floor [fig 1A – element under wall element is a floor] and opposing vertical sides of the building [fig 1A elements 4 on left and right side of element 6], said guardrail safety system comprising:
a first pair of cooperating brackets [figs 1A-1B elements 2] adapted for attachment to the opposing vertical sides of the building at the elevated unfinished opening [fig 1A elements 2 are installed at opposite sides of element 6], at least one of said brackets [figs 1A-1B elements 2] of said first pair comprising a first downward extending tab [fig 1B element 12] adapted to reside adjacent the floor of the building [ note functional language - the brackets are able to be installed adjacent the floor when for example covering door openings in elevated construction sites to prevent falls];
a first protective rail [fig 1A element 8] carried at respective opposite ends by said first pair of cooperating brackets [fig 1A element 8 shown to be held by elements 2], wherein said first tab [fig 1B element 12] functions to space said first protective rail [fig 1A element 8] above the floor [fig 1A – element under wall element is a floor] of the building at the elevated unfinished opening [by construction, fig 1B element 12 will always space fig 1A element 8 above floor];
Regarding the 2nd set of elements directed to a second pair of brackets and second protective rail spaced a distance from the 1st set of elements, Examiner notes that while Murphy’s fig 1A only discloses a first set of brackets and a first protective rail to protect workers from a window opening [fig 1A element 6], Murphy also discloses the invention being used for a door opening space [column 1 lines 22-24] and that it meets OSHA fall protection requirements [column 2 lines 52-53 and column 1 lines 65-67] as per rule 29 CFR 1926.502 [column 1 lines 46-48]. Said rule, in section b 2 (iv), recites “Other structural members (such as additional midrails and architectural panels) shall be installed such that there are no openings in the guardrail system that are more than 19 inches (.5 m) wide.” As such, in the event of using the guardrail safety system [figs 1A-1B] for a door opening space (which are normally 80 inches in height), it would necessarily have at least a 2nd set of every element (a second pair of brackets and second protective rail a spaced distance from the first set of elements) so as to meet the OSHA requirements which actually would call for at least 3 sets of elements spaced apart from each other in this case (80”/19”).
Murphy teaches all of the above but is silent as to the first and second downward extending tabs being lanyard tabs; a first flexible lanyard attached at one end to said first lanyard tab of said first pair of brackets and attached at an opposite end to said first protective rail; and a second flexible lanyard attached at one end to said second lanyard tab of said second pair of brackets and attached at an opposite end to said second protective rail.
However, Teaff teaches a pair of brackets [Teaff figs 1-3 element 14, 16] that hold a protective rail [Teaff figs 1-2 element 18], one of the brackets [Teaff figs 1-3 element 16] comprising a downward extending lanyard tab [Teaff figs 1-3 element 38] having a flexible lanyard [Teaff figs 1-2 element 39] attached at one end to said lanyard tab of said pair of brackets [Teaff figs 1-3 element 38] and attached at an opposite end to said protective rail [Teaff figs 1-2 show element 38 coupled to element 18] for the benefit of tethering the protective rail so that it is retained within its proper position in the bracket slots [Teaff column 3 line 63 to column 4 line 9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Murphy and Teaff to have the first downward extending tab be a lanyard tab [Teaff figs 1-3 element 38] having a first flexible lanyard [Teaff figs 1-2 element 39] attached at one end to said first lanyard tab of said first pair of brackets [Teaff figs 1-3 element 38] and attached at an opposite end to said first protective rail [Teaff figs 1-2 show element 38 coupled to element 18] and the second downward extending tab be a lanyard tab [Teaff figs 1-3 element 38] having a second flexible lanyard [Teaff figs 1-2 element 39] attached at one end to said second lanyard tab of said second pair of brackets [Teaff figs 1-3 element 38] and attached at an opposite end to said second protective rail [Teaff figs 1-2 show element 38 coupled to element 18] for the benefit of tethering the protective rails so that they are retained within their proper positions in the bracket slots [Teaff column 3 line 63 to column 4 line 9].
The combination of Murphy and Teaff teaches all of the above but is silent as to
a first and second elongated flat vertical bracket bars adapted for mounting to respective inwardly facing surfaces of the opposing vertical sides of the building at the elevated unfinished opening; the first pair of cooperating brackets secured to respective flat vertical brackets bars at the opposing vertical sides, the second pair of cooperating brackets secured to respective flat vertical brackets bars at the opposing vertical sides, wherein said first and second protective rails extend perpendicular to said flat vertical bracket bars and are configured to span a distance between the inwardly facing surfaces of the opposing vertical sides of the building at the elevated unfinished opening.
However, Candler teaches first and second elongated flat vertical bracket bars [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’ – paragraphs 63-72] adapted for mounting to respective inwardly facing surfaces of the opposing vertical sides of the building at the elevated unfinished opening [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’ are mounted on elements 520a, 520b which are walls having inwardly facing surfaces];
a first pair of cooperating brackets [Candler figs 3-5 elements 32a, 32b, 32c] secured to respective flat vertical brackets bars [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’] at the opposing vertical sides [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’ are mounted on elements 520a, 520b],
a second pair of cooperating brackets [Candler figs 3-5 elements 32a’, 32b’, 32c’] secured to respective flat vertical brackets bars [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’] at the opposing vertical sides [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’ are mounted on elements 520a, 520b],
wherein a first [Candler figs 3-5 any one of elements 30a, 30b, 30c] and a second protective rails [Candler figs 3-5 any one of elements 30a, 30b, 30c] extend perpendicular to said flat vertical bracket bars [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’] and are configured to span a distance between the inwardly facing surfaces of the opposing vertical sides of the building at the elevated unfinished opening [Candler figs 3-5 any one of elements 30a, 30b, 30c span the distance between figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’] for the benefit of providing a safer guardrail system that doesn’t get loose easily and eliminates the need to repair damage to a slab which saves on costly labor [Candler paragraphs 64-65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Murphy, Teaff and Candler to have first and second elongated flat vertical bracket bars [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’ – paragraphs 63-72] adapted for mounting to respective inwardly facing surfaces of the opposing vertical sides of the building at the elevated unfinished opening [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’ are mounted on elements 520a, 520b which are walls having inwardly facing surfaces];
the first pair of cooperating brackets [Candler figs 3-5 elements 32a, 32b, 32c] secured to respective flat vertical brackets bars [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’] at the opposing vertical sides [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’ are mounted on elements 520a, 520b],
the second pair of cooperating brackets [Candler figs 3-5 elements 32a’, 32b’, 32c’] secured to respective flat vertical brackets bars [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’] at the opposing vertical sides [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’ are mounted on elements 520a, 520b],
wherein the first [Candler figs 3-5 any one of elements 30a, 30b, 30c] and the second protective rails [Candler figs 3-5 any one of elements 30a, 30b, 30c] extend perpendicular to said flat vertical bracket bars [Candler figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’] and are configured to span a distance between the inwardly facing surfaces of the opposing vertical sides of the building at the elevated unfinished opening [Candler figs 3-5 any one of elements 30a, 30b, 30c span the distance between figs 3-5 elements 22, 22’] for the benefit of providing a safer guardrail system that doesn’t get loose easily and eliminates the need to repair damage to a slab which saves on costly labor [Candler paragraphs 64-65].
With regards to claim 2 Murphy teaches a guardrail safety system [figs 1A-1B] according to claim 1, wherein each bracket [figs 1A-1B element 2] of said first pair has a generally U-shaped integrally formed structure [figs 1B, 4 element 2] comprising spaced apart sides walls [figs 1B elements 20, 14] and a bottom wall [fig 1B element 12].
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Murphy, Teaff and Candler teaches a guardrail safety system according to claim 2, wherein said lanyard tab [Murphy fig 1B element 12 - Teaff figs 1-3 element 38] depends from an underside of the bottom wall [Murphy fig 1B element 12] of said bracket [figs 1A-1B elements 2] of said first pair, combined under the same rationale as above.
With regards to claim 4, Murphy teaches a guardrail safety system according to claim 1, wherein each bracket [figs 1A-1B element 2] of said second pair has a generally U-shaped integrally formed structure [figs 1B, 4 element 2] comprising spaced apart sides walls [figs 1B elements 20, 14] and a bottom wall [fig 1B element 12].
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Murphy, Teaff and Candler teaches a guardrail safety system according to claim 4, wherein said lanyard tab [Murphy fig 1B element 12 - Teaff figs 1-3 element 38] depends from an underside [Murphy fig 1B element 12] of the bottom wall [figs 1A-1B elements 2] of said bracket of said second pair [second pair addressed above under claim 1 rejection], combined under the same rationale as above.
With regards to claim 9, Murphy teaches a guardrail safety system according to claim 1, wherein said first and second protective rails [figs 1A-1B element 8] are freely removable from respective first and second pairs of brackets [column 2 lines 57-61].
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Murphy, Teaff and Candler teaches a guardrail safety system according to claim 1, wherein said first [Murphy fig 1A element 8] and second protective rails [Murphy fig 1A element 8 as explained above in claim 1 rejection] are each tethered only at one end to said brackets [Teaff figs 1-3 element 38] by respective lanyards [Teaff figs 1-2 element 39], combined under the same rationale as above.
With regards to claim 11, Murphy teaches a guardrail safety system according to claim 1, wherein said brackets of said first and second pairs comprise a plurality of preformed fastener holes [figs 1A-1B elements 10 includes apertures 16, 18 for mounting each respective bracket element 2 to wall elements 4 via the use of fasteners - column 3 lines 1-12].
With regards to claim 12, it calls for a third set of elements directed to a third pair of brackets, a third protective rail and a third flexible lanyard – please see claim 1 rejection above (Murphy in view of Teaff) addressing a 2nd and 3rd set of elements when having larger openings, combined under the same rationale as above.
With regards to claim 14, Murphy teaches a guardrail safety system according to claim 12, wherein one bracket of each of said first, second and third pairs [figs 1A-1B element 2] is integrally formed with an elongated flat vertical bracket bar [figs 1A-1B element 10] adapted for mounting to one of the vertical sides of the building at the elevated unfinished opening [figs 1A-1B elements 10 mounts each respective bracket element 2 to wall elements 4 via the use of fasteners - column 3 lines 1-12].
Claim(s) 7-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,779,304 to Murphy (hereinafter Murphy) in view of US Patent No. 5,232,254 to Teaff (hereinafter Teaff) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20140373360 to Candler et al. (hereinafter Candler) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20090206312 to Franklin (hereinafter Franklin).
With regards to claim 7 and 13, the combination of Murphy, Teaff and Candler teaches all of the above but is silent as to wherein said first, second and third protective rails are equally spaced and adapted to extend parallel to one another at the elevated unfinished opening of the building.
However, Franklin teaches first, second and third protective rails are equally spaced and adapted to extend parallel to one another at an elevated unfinished opening of a building [Franklin figs 3, 9 elements 11-13 - paragraphs 1, 14, 21] for the benefit of providing rails that meets OSHA code [Franklin paragraphs 1, 14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Murphy, Teaff, Candler and Frankling to have said first, second and third protective rails be equally spaced and adapted to extend parallel to one another at the elevated unfinished opening of the building [Franklin figs 3, 9 elements 11-13 - paragraphs 1, 14, 21] for the benefit of providing rails that meets OSHA code [Franklin paragraphs 1, 14].
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Murphy, Teaff and Candler teaches all of the above but is silent to wherein each of said first and second protective rails comprises an OSHA safety color (interpreted as yellow, orange or red as per specification paragraphs 12 and 33).
However, Franklin teaches safety rails [Franklin figs 3, 9 elements 11-13 and 22 - paragraphs 14, 19, 21] painted an OSHA safety color [Franklin elements 11-13 and 22 are painted orange - paragraph 21] for the benefit of providing highly visible rails so that they catch a person’s eye and increase safety [Franklin paragraph 21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Murphy, Teaff and Frankling to have each of said first and second protective rails [Franklin figs 3, 9 elements 11-13 and 22 - paragraphs 14, 19, 21] comprises an OSHA safety color [Franklin elements 11-13 and 22 are painted orange - paragraph 21] for the benefit of providing highly visible rails so that they catch a person’s eye and increase safety [Franklin paragraph 21].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
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 DAVID E MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4152. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 8:30am-5pm.
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 P Cahn can be reached on (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.
DEM
/DAVID E MARTINEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634