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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species B in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 20-22, 24 and 27-30 were identified to read on the elected embodiment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The claimed “wing portions” do not have a numeral in the specification that can be found in the drawings.
The “traverse member” in claim 2 does not have a numeral in the specification that can be found in the drawings. Similarly, there is no numeral in the specification to refer to “an inner or facing surface” in claim 3 and “an inner surface” in claim 6.
Numeral 14 is used to refer to both “diagonal” and “safety deck member” in the specification. Being claimed as two different limitations in claims 1 and 21 respectively.
Numeral 22 is used to refer to both “attachment opening” and “abutment wall” in the specification.
Numeral 39 is pointing to two different openings in two different components in fig. 10.
Photographic pictures of figures 24-30 are unclear; referring to section; 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (b).
Photographs.—
(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
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 Objections
Claims 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 20, 24, 29 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the other wing portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same issue occurs in claim 11.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the plane" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the convergent portion" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “at least one wing portion”; is it one of or in addition to the wing portions established in claim 1?
Claim 20 recites “a portion of a diagonal member”; are these the same portion and same diagonal member established in claim 1? And is the diagonal member of claim 20 different that the diagonal of claim 1. The same issue arises with respect to “safety deck member” and “angle” in claim 21. Note that claim 21 recites “a safety deck member at an angle to both the standard and the diagonal”; while both the “safety deck member” and “diagonal” are referred to with the same numeral (14) in the specification.
Claim 24 establishes the limitations: “at least two standards”, “at least one diagonal”, “at least one brace” and “an angle”, while claim 24 incorporates the entirety of claim 1 which includes at least part of each of these limitations.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the hollow outer leg member" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites “a first outer leg” is it different than “an outer lag” in line 3 of claim 27 from which claim 30 depends? Also claim 30 appear to be missing the word “that” to precede “is mounted”.
Above are none limiting examples of limitations claimed with inconsistent nomenclature and/or re-establishing limitations that have already been established.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuss, US (4200406).
In regards to claim 1 Fuss discloses:
A brace (joint connector/brace shown in fig. 2) for a safety deck, the brace comprising a pair of spaced apart wing portions (side walls 37 including extends 36, 38 and flanges 35; fig. 2) defining a receiving gap (opening 33) to receive (intended use) a portion of a standard (ridge beam as described in Col 3; LL 26-27; see highlighted excerpt below) therebetween and an abutment wall (at edges 32, 41, 34) provided relative to the receiving gap and against which the standard abuts when positioned within the receiving gap (when ridge beam is inserted, the ridge beam will abut against 32, 41 and 34), each of the wing portions is provided with at least one attachment opening (nails holes 24) to allow the use of (intended use) one or more locking pins (nails) to attach the brace (intended use) to the standard (“Nails can thus be nailed through these nail holes 24 into the beams, so that a firm connection between beam and joint connector is effected” Col 2; LL 61-64) and an engagement portion (either one of sleeves 30 and 31) oriented at a fixed diagonal angle (where opening to 33 is vertical the sleeves are at an angle with 33 as shown in fig. 2) to the spaced apart wing portions (fig. 2), the engagement portion to engage (intended use) a portion of a diagonal {one of rafters (not shown but described in specification)} to position (intended use) the portion of the diagonal relative to the portion of the standard (when both a rafter and a ridge beam are inserted), wherein the wing portions extend beyond the abutment wall (beyond 32, 41 and 34) to at least partially form the engagement portion (35s, 37, 36, 38 extend to form sleeves 30, 31; fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
158
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-13 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor, US (4325463).
In regards to claim 1 Taylor discloses:
A brace (brace including 14s, 16s, 18s, 26s shown in figs. 1, 3, 6) for a safety deck, the brace comprising a pair of spaced apart wing portions (14s, 18s) defining a receiving gap (gap into which 12 is received; fig. 1, 3, 6) to receive (intended use) a portion of a standard (12) therebetween and an abutment wall (wall connecting bottom edges of 14s; see annotated drawings below) provided relative to the receiving gap and against which the standard abuts when positioned within the receiving gap (bottom of 12 abuts abutment wall as shown in reproduced fig. 3 below), each of the wing portions is provided with at least one attachment opening (openings in 14s through which unnumbered fasteners passes; fig. 1) to allow the use of (intended use) one or more locking pins (unnumbered fasteners in 14; fig. 1) to attach (intended use) the brace to the standard and an engagement portion (either of bracket members 26) oriented at a fixed diagonal angle (angle between 26 and 14s) to the spaced apart wing portions (figs. 1, 3, 6), the engagement portion to engage (intended use) a portion of a diagonal (28) to position (intended use) the portion of the diagonal relative to the portion of the standard (as shown in figs. 1, 3, 6), wherein the wing portions extend beyond the abutment wall to at least partially form the engagement portion (18s extend down to form 26; fig. 1, 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
574
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 Taylor discloses the wing portions are configured as wings (14s, 18s; figs. 1, 3, 6), each having a free end (bottom ends) connected to a transverse member (24/30) or assembly at an end opposite the free end (figs. 1, 3, 6; note that recited ends need not be terminal ends).
In regards to claim 3 Taylor discloses each wing portion comprises an inner or facing surface (surface of 14 facing 12; fig. 3) which is planar and substantially parallel (as shown in figs. 1, 3, 6) with the inner or facing surface of the other wing portion (as shown in figs. 1, 3, 6).
In regards to claim 6 Taylor discloses the at least one attachment opening extends perpendicularly to the plane of an inner surface of the wing portion (openings in 14s through which unnumbered fasteners passes are perpendicular to 14s; as shown in fig. 1).
In regards to claim 10 Taylor discloses a transverse member mounting portion (protruding structure surrounding aperture 22; see annotated drawings below) provided on at least one wing portion (provided on both wigs see drawings below).
PNG
media_image4.png
425
653
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11 Taylor discloses the transverse member mounting portion extends in a direction transversely away from the other wing portion (protrusions on each 18 as shown in annotated drawings above protruding away from other 18).
In regards to claim 12 Taylor discloses the transverse member mounting portion is shaped to either receive (intended use) a portion of a scaffold member (24/30) or be received within a portion of a scaffold member.
In regards to claim 13 Taylor discloses at least one transverse pin opening (22) is provided into or through the transverse member mounting portion (fig. 3).
In regards to claim 20 Taylor discloses the engagement portion (26) includes an opening (opening bound by U-shaped body 32; fig. 7) into or through which a portion of a diagonal member (28) is received (as shown in figs. 1, 3, 6).
In regards to claim 21 Taylor discloses one or more further engagement portion (the other of bracket members 26s) to engage (intended use) a safety deck member at an angle to both the standard and the diagonal (note that safety deck member is not positively recited; however, one or both members 26 exhibits structure to “to engage a safety deck member at an angle to both the standard and the diagonal”).
In regards to claim 22 Taylor discloses at least one transverse pin opening (apertures in 26 as shown in fig. 7) is provided into or through any one or more engagement portion (fig. 7).
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seaver, US (2426418).
In regards to claims 7 and 8 Taylor does not disclose the at least one opening is keyhole shaped, having an at least partially circular main portion and a convergent entryway leading to a narrowed neck or pinch point between the convergent entryway and the main portion and the convergent portion of the at least one opening is oriented substantially vertically when the brace is in use.
Seaver teaches the at least one opening (26) is keyhole shaped (as shown in fig. 4), having an at least partially circular main portion (top portion of 26) and a convergent entryway (along slot 27) leading to a narrowed neck or pinch point (point between 27 and circular portion of 26) between the convergent entryway and the main portion (fig. 4) (claim 7).
the convergent portion of the at least one opening is oriented substantially vertically when the brace is in use (when 23 is oriented vertically as shown in fig. 1) (claim 8).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the narrow neck open slot design taught by Seaver for the opening receiving the fasters in members 14 of Taylor for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for ease of attach/detach of the standard 12 while having the material secure while installed in the brace/clamp.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 24 Taylor discloses A safety deck assembly (fig. 1; “a pair of elongated support rest bracket members”; abstract) comprising a standard (12), at least one diagonal (one of diagonals 28) and at least one brace (brace including 14s, 16s, 18s, 26s shown in figs. 1, 3, 6) as claimed in claim 1 (as detailed for claim 1 above) wherein the receiving gap (gap into which 12 is received; fig. 1, 3, 6) receives a portion of a first standard (12) therebetween, the first standard abuts the abutment wall (wall connecting bottoms edges of 14s) when positioned in the receiving gap (as shown in figs. 1, 3, 6), and the at least one diagonal is mounted to the engagement portion (28 mounted to 26) to define an angle of the at least one diagonal (angle between 12 and 28).
In regards to claim 24 Taylor does not disclose that the safety deck assembly comprising at least two standards.
However, it has been held that a duplication of parts such as the duplication of the standard in the receiving gap of the brace of Taylor has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. A duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1955). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to utilize at least two standards, e.g., side by side within the receiving gap of the brace of Taylor in the same manner as for the single standard 12, for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., where there is the need to hold / clamp a low thickness work piece vertically, where it would be sandwiched between the two standards; or in situations where the work/fabrication is being applied to the standard itself: to accommodate the work on the two work pieces simultaneously utilizing the same tool, motion and end results.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Rafi, US (6644712).
In regards to claim 27 Taylor does not teach each standard is an extendible length leg assembly formed of an inner leg member which is telescopically slidable relative to an outer leg member.
Rafi teaches an elongate 10 in the form of an extendible length leg assembly 10 as shown in fig. 2. formed of an inner leg member (section 9) which is telescopically slidable relative to an outer leg member (section 8; telescopically slidable as shown in fig. 2) (claim 27).
the outer leg member (8) is a lower leg member (considered lower at least since its thickness protrudes lower than section 9) and the inner leg member located for telescopic extension above the outer leg member (under the broadest reasonable interpretation; at least above the bottom portion of 8) (claim 28).
the upper end of each outer leg member (8) is typically provided with at least one pair of openings (19A) through opposed sidewalls of the [hollow] outer leg member (fig. 2) and a series of pairs of openings (19) are provided through opposed sidewalls of the inner leg member spaced over at least a portion of the inner leg member (along most of the length of section 9; fig. 2) (claim 29).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the telescoping feature of the standard taught by Rafi onto the standard of the brace of Taylor for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to adjust the overall length of the standard to best fit the clamping jaws 14, and/or to extend / retract to best accommodate a work piece being fitted within two standards.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is 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.
NOTE: that reference Fuss also covers some dependent claims, however, for brevity only claim 1 is detailed above. While dependent claims are covered under reference Taylor (as detailed above), applicant is advised to consider reference Fuss when considering rolling of any dependent claim into claim 1 in independent form.
NOTE: that several other references in the 892-form can read on at least claim 1 in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection. As none limiting examples: Krajec, US (6564903), Satur, US (9321169), Adamson, US (3988872) and Tracy, US (3333875). To best expedite prosecution, examiner recommends that applicant considers said references when amending the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO-892 form for list of cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIREF M MEKHAEIL whose telephone number is (571)270-5334. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7 Mon-Fri.
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 Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/S.M.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights