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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/30/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 1 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
In the previous claim set dated 6/11/2025 and already acted upon in the final action dated 7/7/2025, independent amended claim 1 and newly introduced independent claim 21 were not properly restrictable from each other due to their complete overlap in scope. Examiner was therefore required to act on both independent claims and their corresponding scope. Examiner considers the amended claims 1 & 21 submitted 9/8/2025 are now properly restrictable from each other under (e.g. see MPEP 806.05(c), refer to combination/subcombination, and/or additionally, plural combinations requiring the same combination).
Regarding combination/subcombination basis, amended claim 1 no longer requires the “hangs from” a ceiling aspect which still remains in amended claim 21, while also further necessitating an elevated floor structure with a plurality of pass-throughs, which does not appear to be required in amended claim 21. Amended claims 1 & 21 would require different search strategies/queries to account for their nonoverlapping structural elements as indicated, which constitutes a search burden (see MPEP 808.02, Establishing Burden, (c) A different field of search).
Regarding plural combinations requiring the same subcombination, Examiner considers if the currently amended claims 1 & 21 of the claim set dated 9/8/2025 had been presented previously in the claim set dated 6/11/2025, Examiner would have been able to restrict between: 1) currently amended claim 1 as the first combination group, and 2) previously amended claims 1 & 21 of claim set dated 6/11/2025 and currently amended claim 21 as the second combination group. Originally filed claim 21 functions as the shared subcombination. The same nonoverlapping reasons indicated for the combination/subcombination basis directly above would apply here, as well as the search burden.
Because currently amended claim 21 is consistent with and overlapping with the previously examined claims 1 & 21 of the claim set dated 6/11/2025 due to maintaining all the previous limitations including the “hanging” requirement, while currently amended claim 1 is not due to reasons indicated above, amended claim 21 is considered to be constructively elected over amended claim 1.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-13, & 15 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Examiner considers arguments pertaining to claim 1 and associated dependents as rendered moot in view of the restriction applied above, resulting in the additional withdrawal of claims 1, 3-13, & 15.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/8/2025, with respect to the previous objections to claim 21 (see FP #7-8 of final action dated 6/11/2025) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 21 to obviate the issues. The previous objections to claim 21 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2025 regarding the previous 112(a) rejection of claim 21 (see FP #11 of final action dated 6/11/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues amendment to claim 21 obviates the issue.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner refers to the 112(a) rejection below, and more particularly, the spacing/clearance issue which would appear to allow for vertical movement (presuming sufficient force were applied).
Claim Objections
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 9, indent over the “wherein the upper level structure…” clause. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 12, amend “laterally extending” to “laterally-extending”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 12, amend “laterally extending” to “longitudinally-extending”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 10, amend “vertically fixed mezzanine structure” to “vertically-fixed mezzanine structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: on line 12, amend “vertically fixed mezzanine structure” to “vertically-fixed mezzanine structure”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites the mezzanine structure is “a vertically fixed mezzanine structure”. Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s disclosure (see Applicant’s Figures 6 & 8, upper level structure 16, cables or hanging pillars 20, horizontal beams 26, cross beams 46, mezzanine support 62, hook shaped members 64. [0034]-[0039]). Examiner is not clear to support for upper level structure 16 being “vertically fixed”. Applicant describes one particular fastening which includes use of a mezzanine support which has a hook shaped members which slide onto beams 26 and/or 46 (see Applicant’s [0036]). Examiner does not consider the disclosure of hook shaped members to conclude a “vertically fixed” mezzanine support. For instance, there appears to be a spacing/clearance below the bottom of beams 26 and/or 46, such that it appears that the hook shaped members 64 could technically move upwards with sufficient force to overcome gravitational forces. Applicant must either clarify for Examiner support of how the upper level structure 16 is “vertically fixed”, or amend.
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 & 21 is/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.
Claims 14 & 21 recites the limitation "the supportive component" in lines 7 & 6, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims introduce “at least one supportive component”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC LORENZI whose telephone number is (571)270-7586 and fax number is (571)270-8586. The examiner can normally be reached from 9-5 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Gordon Baldwin at 571-272-5166. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MARC LORENZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718