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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2023 was filed and the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention (“Grapple For Formwork Panels”) is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradley (4262952).
RE claim 23 and 25, Bradley (4262952) discloses a grapple for panels (see Figs. 1-8) comprising: a scissor arm assembly (22, 20) (see Exhibit A) extending along a longitudinal axis and having a proximate side and a distal side; the distal side having two arms (22, 22); the scissor arm assembly being movable between an open position (see Figs. 1 & 3) and a closed position (Fig. 5); a mounting bracket (26) pivotably receiving the proximate side of the scissor assembly; and a pair of jaw members (20, 20), each secured to a respective one of the two arms; each jaw member having a contact portion (48) with teeth (46, 46, 86, 86) (See Figs. 16) (see from Col. 4, line 62, to Col. 5, line 4) extending from the contact portion and having a portion that is slanted towards the mounting bracket and so as to define an acute angle with the longitudinal axis; each pair of jaw members further having a deflector guide (see Exhibit A) extending from the contact portion both longitudinally in a direction away from the mounting bracket and [AltContent: textbox (Mounting Bracket (26) )]laterally away from the other jaw member.
[AltContent: arrow]Exhibit A
[AltContent: textbox (Protruding teeth )][AltContent: textbox (Deflector guide away from the mounting bracket(26))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Contact Portion )]
RE claim 24, Figs. 1-8 of Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) show the scissor arm is at least one or two stage scissor arm.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) in view of Chang et al. (US 2004/0212206).
RE claims 1 and 16, Bradley’s Grapple (4262952), as presented above, discloses a grapple for formwork panels (See Figs. 1-8) comprising: a scissor arm assembly that is movable between retracted and extended positions (See Figs. 1-8) along a longitudinal axis; the scissor arm assembly including a pair of first arms (22, 22) (see Figs. 1, 3, and 5) , each having proximate and distal ends, that are joined together for relative first pivotal movement about a first transversal axis, and a pair of second arms (20, 20), each having proximate and distal ends and being pivotably mounted at its distal end to a respective one of the pair of first arms at the proximate end thereof; a mounting bracket (26) that pivotably receives both second arms via their proximate ends; and a pair of jaw members, each secured to a respective one of the first arms (22, 22) near the distal end thereof; each of the jaw members including a panel-contacting portion (48, 48) that is secured to the respective first arm for contacting with the panel-contacting portion of the other jaw member when the scissor arm assembly is in its extended position; each panel contacting portion (48) having proximate and distal sides; the distal side being further to the second arms than the proximate end (see Exhibit A); each of the jaw members further including a slanted guide portion (see Exhibit A); extending outwardly from the distal side of the panel-contacting portion so as to define a reflex angle therewith and so that both guide portions together define a wider opening of the pair of jaw members (see Figs. 1 and 3); each panel-contacting portion being further provided with teeth (46, 46) the pair of jaw members from the wider opening when the scissor arm assembly is in its extended position, but does not specifically show the teeth having a beveled tip. However, Fig. 4 of Chang et al. (US 2004/0212206) teaches a beveled tip (101) to firmly grasp an object. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a beveled tip on the Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) as taught by Chang et al. (US 2004/0212206) to firmly the intended object to a user.
RE claims 2-4, Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) teaches each of the first arms (22, 22) are substantially L-shaped (see Figs. 1 and 3) (RE claim 2), wherein the second arms (20, are straight (RE claim 3, and wherein a first one of the first arms (22, 22) includes two first elongated parallel plates (see Figs. 7 and 8) that pivotably receives a first one of the second arms therebetween; a second one of the second arms (20, 20) includes two second elongated parallel plates (see Figs. 7 and 8) that pivotably receives a second one of the first arms therebetween.
RE claims 7 and 8, Figs. 1, 3, 7, and 8 of Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) show that at least one of the jaw members (22, 22) is removably mounted to the respective one of the first arms via bolts (54, 56) and at least one of the jaw members includes a mounting portion (26) secured to the respective one of the first arms and a removable portion, removably mounted to the mounting portion via a fastener or a bolt (52).
RE claims 9-11. Figs. 1, 3, 7, and 8 of Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) also teaches the mounting portion is a mounting plate (60) (see Figs. 7 and 8), and the removable portion is a substantially V-shaped (48 and 86) (see Figs. 3 & 4) wherein the V-shaped removable portion includes a) the panel-contacting portion (48), which is attached to the mounting plate, and b) the slanted guide portion (see Exhibit A) that extends outwardly from the panel-contacting portion so as to define the reflex angle therewith wherein the mounting portion includes a flat rectangular receptacle (26) and the removable portion includes a plate (12, 20) (See Figs. 7 and 8), which defines the panel-contacting portion, and that is complementary mountable in the rectangular receptacle.
RE claim 18, Figs. 1, 3, 7, and 8 of Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) show the scissor arm assembly is configured so that respective portions of the first arms between the first transversal axis and the distal ends thereof is substantially parallel (see Figs. 7 and 8) when the scissor arm is in its extended position.
RE claims 19-21, Figs. 1, 3, 7, and 8 of Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) show at least one of i) the pair of jaw members and ii) portions of the first arms near the distal ends thereof are different, or wherein lengths of the portions of the first arms between the first transversal axis and the distal ends thereof are different for both first arms, or wherein at least one of lengths or the reflex angle of the slanted guide portion are different for both first arms depending on the view point.
RE claim 22, Figs. 1, 3, 7, and 8 of Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) teach triangular-shaped teeth (46).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) and Chang et al. (US 2004/0212206) and further in view of Dickey et al. (5,364,147).
Bradley’s Grapple (4262952), as presented above, does not specifically show one of the first arms includes a handle near the distal end thereof wherein the handle is position on the at least one of the first arms on a side thereof opposite the jaw member. However, Figs. 1, 2, and 3 of Dickey et al. (5,364,147) teach a handle (36) being mounted on one of the crossed arms (22, 24). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a handle on the side of second arms (22, 22) of the Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) as taught by Dickey et al. (5,364,147) to provide a means to control the arms movement stabilizing the gripping process in case of an emergency or a need to control the gripping arms.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) and Chang et al. (US 2004/0212206) and further in view of Seaberg (3,759,564).
Bradley’s Grapple (4262952), as presented above, shows a shackle (26), but does not specifically show a Y-bracket, but Fig. 2 of Seaberg (3,759,564) teaches a Y-bracket.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a Y-bracket on the pivot pins of the Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) as taught by Seaberg (3,759,564) to firmly secure the pivoting members.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) and Chang et al. (US 2004/0212206) and further in view of Francischelli et al. (7,963,963).
Bradley’s Grapple (4262952), as presented above, does not specifically show a pivot pin having two longitudinal ends and are secured at least one its two longitudinal ends by a washer and a C-clip. However, Fig. 4 of Francischelli et al. (7,963,963) teaches a pivot pin secured at a washer (520) and a C-clip (524). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a washer (520) and a C-clip (524) on the pivot pins of the Bradley’s Grapple (4262952) as taught by Francischelli et al. (7,963,963) to firmly secure the pivoting members.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JACK BRESLAV ‘177, Claassen; George R. ‘622, Claassen; George R. ‘025, and SKOWRON EDMUND A ‘521 show a scissors gripping arms.
Cook; Carol A. and MILLER GARRETT H disclose cross arms and a gripping plate.
Solomon; William J. and Lusty; Robert H. provide a sideway gripping plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30 PM.
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, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-6911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654