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
1. Newly submitted claim 26 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 26 is directed to an alternative embodiment of floating platform hole cover. Originally presented claims included claim 20, reciting “wherein at least one of the removable slabs has a hole for letting a thermocouple column through and a soft tarpaulin of a biological protection designed for fitting around the thermocouple column.” This embodiment is discussed at [0107-0109] and illustrated in Fig. 5. Newly presented claim 26 recites “wherein the floor includes non-removable slabs supported by the beams, holes for letting tools through being cut out in the non-removable slabs, each hole being covered by one of the removable slabs” (sic). The newly embodiment of the invention is discussed at [0132] and is illustrated in Fig. 7. The specification clearly denotes that this is a “second embodiment of the platform” ([0123]). Applicant states that new claim supported by [0102], but that portion of the specification is in direct opposition to what is recited in new claim 28.
2. 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 Accordingly, claims 26-29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
3. 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.
4. 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.
Status of Claims/Response to Arguments/Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 14-20 and 22-31 are pending in this application. Claims 26-29 are withdrawn.
6. The amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b).
7. Accordingly, independent claims 22 and 23 (and their dependents 14-20 and 30-31)are in condition for allowance.
8. New claims 24 and 25 are rejected below. New claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach the recited structural arrangement of telescopic struts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claim 25 is 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.
11. Regarding claim 25, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the same edge of the floor.” The floor, as claimed does not require any particular shape having edges nor does the claim positively introduce any floor edges. Furthermore, the recitation “on either side of the floor” is unclear. Are the sides the edges?
Claim Interpretation
12. Claim 24 is are directed to a floating platform intended for use in maintenance of a nuclear facility (“for maintenance of a nuclear facility”). The platform comprises “a floating support arrange to float on a water filling a pool of a nuclear facility.” A “floating support” by definition is “arrange to float on a water,” regardless of where the water is located. That is, any floating platform comprising floating supports arranged to float on water is capable of use for maintenance of a nuclear facility and is capable of floating on a water filling a pool of the nuclear facility. Thus, these recitations have not been afforded patentable weight for the purpose of applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP 2111.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
15. 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.
16. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews, US 5,241,572 in view of Millet et al., US 2010/0175607, in further view of Jennings et al., US 2005/0265510.
17. Regarding claim 24, Matthews discloses a floating platform (7) for maintenance of a nuclear facility (Fig. 1; column 1, lines 5-9), the platform comprising: a floor (see Figs. 1, 2); and a floating support arranged to float on a water filling a pool of the nuclear facility (see Figs. 1, 4), a peripheral edge of the floor resting on the floating support (see Fig. 2), wherein the floating support is annular an internally defines an opening (see Figs. 2 and 3), the floating platform further comprising a system for immobilizing the platform in a horizontal plane (see Fig. 4), the immobilizing system comprising a plurality of telescopic struts (13; column 2, lines 37-43).
Matthews is silent as to the details of its floor.
Millet teaches a floating platform ([0001]; Fig. 12), comprising: a floor (7) comprising beams (1) and removable slabs (15) supported by the beams (see Figs. 1-3 and [0033-4]); and a floating support (8, 9, 10) arranged to float on a water, a peripheral edge of the floor resting on the floating support (see Fig. 12), the floor completely closing an opening of the floating support, wherein the removable slabs cover 100% of a surface area of the opening (see Fig. 12).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the floor construction taught by Millet to the platform of Matthews for the predictable purpose of providing a transparent floor through which the pool of the nuclear facility could be observed by an operator on the platform (see Matthews Fig. 1 and Millet at [0006]).
Matthews’ struts are vertically telescopic. Jennings teaches a nuclear reactor maintenance platform ([0002]) comprising a system for immobilizing the platform in a horizontal plane, the immobilization system comprising a plurality of horizontal longitudinally telescopic struts (12), each strut being arranged to bear against a wall of the nuclear facility (Fig. 11, [0039], [0043]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to apply the platform immobilization system taught by Jennings to the platform of Matthew so as to enable adjustment of the platform’s position throughout the reactor pool ([0043]).
Finality
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 SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646