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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 10/16/25. Accordingly the application has been amended.
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 1-2,4 and all claims depending therefrom 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.
Claim 1 recites “the purlin” throughout the claim, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites “at least one purlin” and that convention should remain consistent throughout the claim for clarity.
The claim recites “said/the slotted purlin holders” throughout, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has support for “one or more purlin holders”, consistent terminology should be used throughout the claim for clarity.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper surface" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites “comprises at least one slot” in line 16, it is unclear if this is the same as or in addition to the “longitudinal slots” previously recited in line 9 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claim.
The claim recites “the at least one slot” in lines 16 and again in line 19, it is unclear to which previous recitation of “slot” this is referring causing confusion regarding the scope of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one or more slotted purlin holder" in 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the seat" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface of one of the slots" in lines 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the external edge" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “at a bearing point” in line 26, it is unclear if this is the same as or in addition to the “a bearing point” previously recited in line 14 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the slot” in line 26, it is unclear to which previously recitation of “slot” this is referring causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the resting condition" in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the depth and width dimensions" in line 38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the necessary space" and “the purlin holder in line 39. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites “the purlin” in line 40, it is unclear to which previous recitation of purlin this is referring causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
The claim recites “are configured there to be the necessary space in order to remove” it is unclear what is encompassed by this limitation as it is unclear how or what provides the necessary configuration and it is unclear what is encompassed by “the necessary space” causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
The claim recites in lines 10-11 that the “purlin comprising a flat lower surface supportable on the upper surface of the one or more purlin holders” and “a descending extension configured as a bearing point in the slot of said slotted purlin holders” in lines 14-15. It is unclear how both the flat lower surface are supported on the upper surface and the descending extension is a bearing point in the slot (of the upper surface, line 8-9) causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Lines 16-18 appear to be redundant with the recitations of lines 7-9 and 13-14 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention as it is unclear if they are referring to the same feature or in addition to the previously recited limitations.
Accordingly the claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2,4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baron (20190010716).
Claim 1. EP1375781 discloses a support system for roof formworks comprising:
-one or more purlin holders (4), the upper surface of the one or more purlin holders having longitudinal slots (at 25), each of the one or more purlin holders having two ends; and
- at least one purlin (5) defined by a profile, the at least on purlin comprising a flat lower surface (at 31a) supportable on the upper surface of the one or more purlin holders (as seen in figure 2);
-at least one support element (8) for the one or more purlin holders wherein at least one end of the profile of the purlin comprises a terminal having a descending extension (at 32b) configured as a bearing point in the slot of said slotted purlin holders (as seen in figure 2):
wherein the slotted purlin holder comprises at least one slot (at 25), the at least one slot is in the longitudinal direction in the upper surface and configured to receive the descending extension of the terminal of the purlin (as seen in figure 2),
wherein the terminal of the at least one purlin is resting in the at least one slot of the slotted purlin holder (as seen in figure 2),
wherein one end of one of the one or more slotted purlin holder is resting in one of the at least one support element (as seen in figure 2), such that the seat provides continuity as a bearing point of the terminal of the one or more purlins for the surface of one of the slots of the slotted purlin holder wherein the external edge of the descending extension of the one or more purlins forms an angle less than 900 at a bearing point in the slot (as seen in figures 8,19-25), while the descending extension is configured to remove the purlin from the slotted purlin holder by pivoting the descending extension downwards with respect to said external edge of the descending extension without the purlin raising the roof formwork (as seen in figures 19-25 and noted throughout the disclosure);
wherein the length of the descending extension of the purlin, in the resting condition in the slot, is configured so that the lower surface of the profile is at the same level as the upper surface of the purlin holder (as seen in figure 24),
wherein the terminal has a base (21a) defined by an inner corner adjacent to the profile and an outer corner longitudinally opposite from the inner corner, the descending extension being in the outer corner (as noted in the disclosure and seen in the figures where there is a corner at each end), and
wherein the base having a lower face comprising a groove (formed under 31a) in the lower face , transverse to the longitudinal direction of the profile and located between the inner corner and the outer corner, the depth and width dimensions are configured there to be the necessary space in order to remove the one or more purlin from the purlin holder by pivoting the purlin downwards with respect to said outer edge without the purlin raising the roof formwork (as seen in figures 19-25 and noted throughout the disclosure).
Claim 2. The support system according to claim 1, wherein the descending extension having an external edge that forms an angle less than 90 (as seen in figure 8), at the bearing point in the slot, while the extension is configured so that the purlin is removable from the slotted upper surface of the purlin holder by pivoting the extension downwards with respect to said external edge without the purlin raising the supported formwork (as seen in figures 19-25).
Claim 4. The purlin according to claim 1, wherein the terminal has an outer face and an upper corner, the upper corner of the outer face of the terminal is rounded (as seen in at 32,32a, 29a,32b of figure 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 at 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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635