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 .
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, “a bracket at each end of the horizontal support member” (claim 10), note this is in addition to the “at least one bracket” in claim 1 as currently claimed. Every claim element 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 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 1-10 and 13-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitations “at least one bracket” and how this element differentiates from the other claimed elements, in particular being in along a common plane. The specification and figures indicate “100” (figure 3) as the bracket which is an arrow that points to a conglomeration of elements. The “the at least one bracket” is claimed separately and distinctly from the “horizontal support member”, “retaining member”, and in later claims “end plates” etc. By virtue of being sperate and distinct from theses elements they are not the same, and therefore it is unclear what elements specifically are required by the “at least one bracket” and how these the horizontal support member and the at least one bracket are configured to extend along a common plane.” Further it is unclear if the lateral brace would be a part of the at least one bracket or not. The claims will be examined as best understood, with the bracket comprised of the subcomponents including the horizontal support member, flexible retaining member etc.
Regarding claim 10 the issue of claim 1, above, are further compounded with an additional bracket being claimed. This claim will not be examined under prior art as it is unclear how two brackets would be possible at ends of the horizontal support with the amendments to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, “the at least one bracket” lacks proper antecedent basis. As explained above it is unclear what element(s) are specifically part of the bracket and therefore what the lateral brace needs to be spaced apart from.
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) 1-9, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisler (6,422,339) in view of Grant (20060070802).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Wisler discloses a system for forming a scaffolding comprising: at least one bracket securable to a vertical surface of a building; a horizontal support member supported by the at least one bracket (generally shown figure 2; note 112 above), the support member adapted to support a worker support platform (26) on a horizontal support surface (10d) thereof, the horizontal support member and at least one bracket configured to extend along a common plane (plane generally including 10a,b, and d); a lateral brace (10c) extending out of the common plane to the vertical surface of the building at a position spaced apart from the at least one bracket (10c extends the building in fig.1; note that the vertical surface of the building is positively required by the claim), but lacks specifically disclosing a flexible retaining member adapted to pass over a worker support platform supported on the horizontal support member so as to retain the worker support platform on the horizontal support surface.
Grant teaches that it is known in the art to use a flexible retaining member (50) adapted to pass over a worker support platform (46) supported on the horizontal support member (34) so as to retain the worker support platform on the horizontal support surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a flexible retaining member similar to that of Grant in the scaffolding system of Wisler to improve safety by reducing the chances of the support platform falling or slipping of the support member.
Regarding claims 2, Wisler discloses the at least one bracket includes first and second end plates (portion of 10a and outer lip of 10d which will sandwich 26; see fig. 3) with the horizontal support member extending therebetween.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Wisler discloses wherein the horizontal support member has an adjustable length (10d is “horizontally extendable support arm”).
Regarding claims 5-8, Wisler discloses end plates (12 and lip of 10d) with a wall plate (12) having bores (22) for securing to the vertical surface of a building and extending below (see 36 in figure 3) the horizontal member.
Regarding claim 9, Wisler discloses an angular brace (10c).
Regarding claim 13, Grant disclose the strap secored to either end of the horizontal member (see 48 in figure 3).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Wisler (6,422,339) in view of Grant (20060070802) in view of Mobbs (3419108).
Regarding claims 14 and 15 Wisler in view of Grant disclose the claimed invention as
described above, but fail to specifically disclose the flexible retaining member comprises straps
extending from each of the end plates secureable to each other with a connector and the
flexible retaining member has an adjustable length.
Mobbs teach that it is known in the art to use adjustable straps with an adjustable buckle (78 and 84; C4 L 3-5).
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 combination of Wisler and Grant to include the adjustable strap of Mobbs to increase versatility and allow for a variety of sized and shaped worker support platforms to be easily integrated into the scaffolding system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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.
It is also made of record that Garcia (5,799,750) also discloses the newly claimed lateral brace (see 47, figure 3) and could be used similar to Wisler in the rejection 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 DANIEL TROY whose telephone number is (571)270-3742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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 Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/DANIEL J TROY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637