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 Objections
Claim 14 “the kit container” should be “a kit container”
Claim 14 “and end section” should be “an end section”
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 14 and 17 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 14, “the end sections” lack proper antecedent basis. It appears (see claim objection above. That the claim only requires a single end section previously, making it unclear how many end sections are required by the claim. Further it is unclear if a second end section would require a ladder section, leg section, etc.
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 (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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moses (4,291,784).
Regarding claim 1, Moses discloses, a scaffold, comprising: two end section (5); the end sections each comprising a leg section (12 or 10 cumulatively) and a ladder section (10 opposite “the leg section” on same 5); the leg section comprising a vertical support (12) the leg section vertical support having an upper coupling member connecting point (where 20 and top 11a connect) distal to a lower coupling member connecting point (where lower 11 and 20 connect) the ladder section comprising two vertical supports (12a and 12) with; a plurality of rungs (11) extending between the two vertical supports the interior vertical support of the ladder section (12), being the ladder section vertical support positioned between the exterior vertical support of the ladder section and the leg section, having an upper coupling member (where 20 and top 11a connect) connecting point distal a lower coupling member (where lower 11 and 20 connect) connecting point two horizontal extension coupling members (portion of 20 marked as “X” in the figure below, one being on top 20 and the other 20 below it; alternatively 20) wherein one of the two horizontal extension coupling members (X or 20) is connected to the upper coupling member connecting point on the leg section and the upper coupling member connecting point on the interior vertical support of the ladder section and wherein one of the two horizontal extension coupling members is connected to the lower coupling member connecting point on the leg section and the lower coupling member connecting point on the interior vertical support of the ladder section (see at least fig. 1 and 4; showing 20 connecting the two sections at a top and bottom).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Moses discloses the upper and lower connecting points including horizontal connector comprising a protrusion (portion of 20 in the figure above which is marked as “A1” and would include the protrusion seen as at least 21 in figure 4; or alternatively 21; this would be the upper and lower A1 going in the same direction).
Claim(s) 6-8, 11-13, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (11,846, 107).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses, a plurality of ladder sections (fig. 1 discloses a ladder
section in each 12), each ladder section comprising a plurality of vertical supports (40 and 20A),
and a plurality of rungs (50) extending between at least two vertical supports; a plurality of
cross-brace members, each cross-brace member being composed of two elongated brace
members (pair of 144 at bottom figure 32), each elongated brace member having a length and
opposing ends, one opposing end being a cross-brace connecting end and the other opposing
end being an end section connecting end; the two elongated brace members of each cross-
brace member being coupled proximate each's cross-brace connecting end; and
a plurality of loose brace members (142 and/or pair of 144 at top of figure 32), each
loose brace member having a length and opposing ends, one opposing end being a cross-brace
connecting end and the other opposing end being an end section connecting end.
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses further comprising: a plurality of horizontal extension coupling members (30A and 30B or elements 60 in fig. 4A);
a plurality of connecting pins (at least 65, 67, 75, etc. in fig. 3); and wherein one of the two vertical supports of the ladder section contains at least two
latching members (100 fig.2) attached along its length.
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses, further comprising: a plurality of leg sections (figure
1), each leg section comprising a vertical support (20B), wherein the vertical support has a
length and opposing ends, and a plurality of horizontal connectors (30A and 30B or elements 60 in fig. 4A; the opposite of what is used for the two horizontal connectors in claim 7); and the leg section vertical supports having a plurality of latching members attached along its length.
PNG
media_image2.png
734
1074
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Smith discloses: a plurality of leg sections (left side of fig. 2, plurality shown in fig.1), each leg section comprising a vertical support (20B), wherein the vertical support has a length and opposing ends, and a plurality of horizontal connectors (30A and 30B or elements 60 in fig. 4A); and
a plurality of cross-brace members, each cross-brace member being composed of two elongated brace members (Y in figure above), each elongated brace member having a length and opposing ends, one opposing end being a cross-brace connecting end and the other opposing end being an end section connecting end; the two elongated brace members of each cross-brace member being coupled proximate each's cross-brace connecting end; and
a plurality of loose brace members (Z in figure above), each loose brace member having a length and opposing ends, one opposing end being a cross-brace connecting end and the other opposing end being an end section connecting end; wherein the length of the loose brace member is less than the length of the elongated brace member (length of Z is less than Y).
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses a plurality of ladder sections (fig. 1), each ladder section (right side of fig. 2) comprising a plurality of vertical supports, and a plurality of rungs (50) extending between at least two vertical supports (40 and 20A); the leg section vertical supports having two latching members (100) attached along its length.
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Smith discloses a hardware kit including a plurality of snap clips (at least 143) and a plurality of connection pins (at least 65, 85, and/or 100). Note that the term “hardware kit” provides no additional structural limitations other than providing the elements themselves and therefore is broadly and reasonably being considered a collection or plurality of elements which is disclosed by the prior art.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahlberg (1,830,017).
Regarding claim 6, Dahlberg discloses a scaffold kit comprising: a plurality of ladder sections (a pair of ladders 10 that are connected by a set of member 12), each ladder section comprising a plurality of vertical supports (each has pair 10a), a plurality of cross-brace members, each cross-brace member being composed of two elongated brace members (12), each elongated brace member having a length and opposing ends, one opposing end being a cross-brace connecting end (pairs of ends 12 that are close to a single 10a) and the other opposing end being an end section connecting end (opposite pair of ends of 12 that are close to the opposing 10a); the two elongated brace members of each cross-brace member being coupled proximate each's cross- brace connecting end (each connected end in close proximity to same 10a); and a plurality of loose brace members, each loose brace member (24) having a length and opposing ends, one opposing end being a cross-brace connecting end and the other opposing end being an end section connecting end (one end of 24 connects to 12 while the other connects to 10a) and a platform (20).
Regarding claim 7-9, Dahlberg discloses a plurality of horizontal extension coupling members (11) longer in length than some of the horizontal connectors (13 and/or 16), a plurality of connecting pins (15 and/or 17).
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moses (4,291,784) in view of Smith (11,846,107).
Regarding claim 3, Moses discloses the two horizontal extension coupling members (upper and lower “X” in figure above) each less in length than the two horizontal connectors on the leg section (the length of “X” is less than “A1”).
Alternatively, when the two horizontal extension coupling members are designated as 20 and the two horizontal connectors on the leg section are designated as 21, the claimed relative sizes would not be specifically disclosed, however the examiner takes official notice that it is known in the art of scaffolding to use different size/proportions (also see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, modify Moses to be the claimed size/proportions, this would offer the versatility of having the scaffold fit into smaller spaces, such as inside a house for painting. It is further noted that shortening element 20 to be smaller than 21 would yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Moses discloses cross braces (25) movably connected at point (25a), but fails to specifically disclose elongated braces movably connected proximate the connecting end.
PNG
media_image2.png
734
1074
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Smith that it is known in the art to use elongated brace members (fig. 32) with elongated brace member (144 and 142 combined “Y” in the figure above) having movable connections (148) proximate an end (148 is proximate to 143 at “Z” vs the bottom connection end of 144 similar to that disclosed in applicant’s fig. 4B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the cross braces of Moses with the cross braces of Smith since it has been held that the substitution of one know element for another is obvious if it yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141 III (B)). It is further noted that using the cross brace of Smith would offer the advantage of being separable and easier to transport.
Regarding claims 4-6, Smith discloses a first and second loose brace (“Z”) with a length less than the elongated brace (“Y”).
Regarding claims 7-9 Moses discloses the use of pins (C2 L1) and the other elements as explained above.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Smith discloses the cross braces pivotally connected (at least C3 L59) and the member being capable of being uncoupled (143).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (11,846, 107) in view of Jucukano (3,345,655) or Moses (4,291,784) in view of Smith (11,846,107) in view of Jucukano (3,345,655).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art as explained above fails to specifically disclose at least eight horizontal extension coupling members.
Jucukano teaches that it is known for a scaffold kit to include plurality of duplicate modules attached together (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention filing to modify the scaffold kit of Smith or Moses and Smith to include multiple modular units resulting in eight horizontal extension coupling members since it has been held that the mere duplication of part does not have patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B). It would further be obvious to use multiple scaffold modules allow work on larger areas, which is well known in the art (see Jucukano C2 L61-64).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 14, Smith et al. (11,846, 107) in view of Ledford et al. (12,123,210)
Regarding claim 14, Smith disclose a building step constructing the scaffold comprising:
assembling an end section (at least 310); opening a cross brace (C14 L4-8); and installing step (at least 330). Smith discloses transporting the elements loose to a work site (C14 L19) and it would appear to be inherent that this would be done with some sort of container rather than each piece individually, however a container is not specifically disclosed.
Ledford teach that it is known in the art to use a scaffold container (at least abstract and figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention filing to use a scaffold container similar to that disclosed by Ledford to transport the scaffold of Smith to provide an easy and efficient transportation container for the scaffold to move to different job sites.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 14, Smith et al. (11,846, 107) in view of Ledford et al. (12,123,210) in further view of Cutrone et al. (2019/0024393).
Smith and Ledford disclose the method as described previously, but lack specifically disclosing horizontal elements of different lengths.
Cutrone teach that it is known to use horizontal elements of different lengths (see at least figure 6 where 920 is replaced with 2130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention filing to use modular sizes of different length, similar to Cutrone, to achieve modularity and arrive at a desired length (para [0039] Cutrone) which would increase the versatility of the scaffold and allow it to be used in a variety of settings.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 14, Smith et al. (11,846, 107) in view of Cutrone et al. (2019/0024393).
Smith and disclose the device as described previously, but lack specifically disclosing horizontal elements of different lengths.
Cutrone teach that it is known to use horizontal elements of different lengths (see at least figure 6 where 920 is replaced with 2130) in a kit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention filing to use modular sizes of different length, similar to Cutrone, to achieve modularity and arrive at a desired length (para [0039] Cutrone) which would increase the versatility of the scaffold and allow it to be used in a variety of settings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 in view of Smith and Dahlberg have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Smith Dahlberg fails to teach having a cross-brace with elongated brace members that are longer than the loose brace members, this is not persuasive for the rejection of claims 6-9 as this limitation is not included in those claims and therefore the rejection has been maintained. Regarding the other claims in view of Smith see the interpretation applied above in view of the claim amendments having “Y” and “Z” in the annotated figure to disclose the claimed lengths.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Juculano does not teach a kit. The examiner disagrees, the scaffold disclosed in the prior art above are broadly and reasonably considered “kits” as that is the nature of scaffolds to one of ordinary skill in the art. Scaffolds are assembled at job sites often using different configurations and sizes to meet needs of specific situation (e.g. two scaffold ends vs four to accommodate a longer wall to paint). The parts are disclosed as separable connections and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that scaffolds would not be transported to a job site as a single assembled unit. Regarding claim 10, to are no limitation claiming a “fit” or size manipulation as argued, the claim only says “kit” in the preamble. It is further noted that four upright “end” elements placed together and taught by Juculano would result in eight horizontal extension coupling members.
All other arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights