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 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears the word “minimize” in line 3 has been mistyped as “minimised”.
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(s) 1, 4, 8, 10 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Bond (GB 2456817).
Bond discloses:
1. A lapboard (62 figure 21) for a safety deck assembly (54, figure 18), the safety deck assembly (54) comprising a upper deck formed of one or more decking panels having a substantially planar upper surface (figure 18) and an elevated support assembly (12, 14, 40) comprising a number of elongate legs (12), a base (40) for each elongate leg to form a foot (figure 13), a head (14, figure 13) for each elongate leg to at least partially support a decking panel relative to an upper end of the leg (figure 13), the lapboard (58) comprising a substantially planar upper surface (figure 18) and at least one receiving opening (26, figure 3) formed in an underside of the lapboard (figure 3) to receive a portion of the head (figure 12; with bolt 18 being part of head 14) to locate the upper surface of the lapboard (62) substantially coplanar with the upper surface of the decking panels (figure 22), the lapboard being smaller in width than the one or more decking panels (figure 22).
4. A lapboard as claimed in claim 1 further comprising a plurality of strengthening ribs provided on an underside of the lapboard (panel 10 may be “ribbed underneath”, page 6, lines 4-5; note that lapboard 58 is disclosed as having the same construction as 10, therefore 58 may also be ribbed underneath).
8. A lapboard as claimed in claim 1 wherein a receiving opening is provided at each corner of the lapboard (each panel has a socket arrangement at each corner; page 3, lines 24-26).
10. A lapboard as claimed in claim 1 wherein a set of four receiving openings (26) is provided at each corner region of the underside of the lapboard with one of the four receiving openings located at a corner (see below, note that each formation 22 comprises a receiving opening 26 on the underside).
15. A lapboard as claimed in claim 1 wherein the lapboard (62, figure 21) is formed in a single piece (figure 21).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
16. A safety deck assembly (figure 18) comprising a upper deck formed of one or more decking panels (figure 18) having a substantially planar upper surface and an elevated support assembly (12, 14, 40; figure 13) comprising a number of elongate legs (12, figure 13), a base (40) for each elongate leg to form a foot (figure 13), a head (14) for each elongate leg to at least partially support a decking panel relative to an upper end of the leg (figure 13), and at least one lapboard (62, figure 22) as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
17. A safety deck assembly as claimed in claim 16 comprising a number of decking panels (52) to form a substantially planar deck spaced from a floor using the elongate legs (figure 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond alone. While Bond discloses the panels to be square and 1m x1m (page, 6, line 3-4) with the lapboard being rectangular and approximately 1m x 500mm (page 9, lines 21-24), and that the panels may be various shapes and sizes (page 10, lines 10-13), they do not specify the lapboard to have a width of approximately 800 mm two 900 mm.
However, as explained in MPEP 2144.04 IV, A. Changes in Size/Proportion (inserted below), adjusting the size of the panel is a recognized design choice, so long as the adjustment does not result in any change in performance/function. anyone of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that panel dimensions could be increased and/or decreased by the manufacturer, depending on material strength and/or the user demands, while staying within the scope of the invention.
MPEP 2144.04, IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS
A. Changes in Size/Proportion
In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Graceland (GB 2322400). While Bond discloses the underside of the platform to be ribbed (see claim 4 above) they do not disclose the particular arrangement and construction of the ribs.
However, Graceland teaches:
5. A lapboard as claimed in claim 4 wherein the strengthening ribs (unnumbered “upstanding plastic strips” forming the grade defining apertures 5) are provided in a regular array (underside of the platform having the same construction as the top, seen in figures 1 and 2, as the grid forms apertures 5 that passthrough, as seen in figures 4 and 5).
6. wherein the strengthening ribs extend substantially perpendicularly to an underside of the substantially planar upper surface (underside of the platform having the same construction as the top, seen in figures 1 and 2, as the grid forms apertures 5 that passthrough, as seen in figures 4 and 5).
7. wherein the strengthening ribs form a number of open cells on the underside of the lapboard (underside of the platform having the same construction as the top, seen in figures 1 and 2, as the grid forms apertures 5 that passthrough, as seen in figures 4 and 5).
9. wherein the at least one receiving opening is defined by one or more strengthening ribs provided on an underside of the lapboard (underside of the platform having the same construction as the top, seen in figures 1 and 2, as the grid forms apertures 5 that passthrough, as seen in figures 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the ribs on the underside of the lapboard of Bond, in an arrangement like that taught by Graceland, so as to provide additional strengthening and rigidity to the board, while keeping a lightweight construction.
Claim(s) 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of J. Mac (GB 2569021). Bond does not disclose wherein the base and the head have the same configuration used inverted relative to one another mounted relative to opposite ends of each of the elongate legs to form a foot at a lower end and a head at an upper end for locating the decking panels/lapboard.
However, J. Mac teaches:
18. wherein the base (lower 30, figure 2a) and the head (upper 30, figure 2a) have the same configuration (figure 2a) used inverted relative to one another (figure 2a) mounted relative to opposite ends of each of the elongate legs (20, figure 1a) to form a foot (lower 30) at a lower end and a head (upper 30) at an upper end for locating the decking panels/lapboard (figure 1a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the base and the head of Bond to have the same configuration, used inverted relative to one another, as taught by J. Mac, so as to provide simpler manufacturing and purchasing process, and a quicker and more straightforward assembly as the base and head are interchangeable, eliminating the steps of matching specific parts with specific ends of the legs.
With respect to the base and head construction, J. Mac further teaches:
19. A safety deck assembly as claimed in claim 18 wherein the base and the head each include a main opening defined by a receiving collar (35) to receive a portion of a respective elongate leg (figure 2a).
20. A safety deck assembly as claimed in claim 19 wherein the main opening is provided with a base wall (31) to support a respective end of the elongate leg (figure 2a).
21. A safety deck assembly as claimed in claim 20 wherein a number of bearing formations (32, figure 2a) are provided on the head (upper 30) spaced about the receiving collar (35) so that the bearing formations (32) support at least one decking panel/lapboard relative to the head (figure 1b).
22. A safety deck assembly as claimed in claim 21 wherein each bearing portion (32) has a support surface (33, figure 2a) to abut a portion of a decking panel/lapboard (page 14, lines 13-14, inserted below).
PNG
media_image2.png
169
966
media_image2.png
Greyscale
23. A safety deck assembly as claimed in claim 22 wherein the support surfaces (33) are planar (figure 2a) and spaced from the receiving collar (35, figure 2a).
24. A safety deck assembly as claimed in claim 21 wherein at least one of the bearing formations (32) of each head (30) is received, at least partially, in an opening in the underside of a decking board/lapboard to locate the decking board/lapboard relative to the head (figure 1b).
25. A safety deck assembly as claimed in claim 24 wherein the bearing formation (32) is received within the opening in the underside of a decking board/lapboard (figure 1b) to minimize lateral movement of the decking board/lapboard relative to the head (as can be seen in both figures 1a and 1b the bearings are provided with just enough space to receive quarters of the decking panels, preventing large gaps and therefore minimizing lateral movement of the panels relative to the head).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the base and the head of Bond to have the same configuration, used inverted relative to one another, as taught by J. Mac, so as to provide simpler manufacturing and purchasing process, and a quicker and more straightforward assembly as the base and head are interchangeable, eliminating the steps of matching specific parts with specific ends of the legs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634