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/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A: Figs. 4A-4B and 5A-5B
Species B: Figs. 7- 14B
The species are independent or distinct because species A utilizes a latch comprising two separate pins with two separate springs and where the top pin passes through the deck and rests in a recess in the top surface of the deck, while species B utilizes a single latch pin that passes through apertures in the side rails and adjusts position through an elongate channel 23a and rests a catch element onto the top surface of the deck sans needing to pass through the body of the deck.
In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 1 is generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The invention requires a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). In this case different text search queries are needed to find the features of the different latch pins and apertures and deck structure that can readily be seen in figures 4A/B, 5A/B versus 7-14B; for example, the first embodiment has a latch comprising two separate pins with two separate springs and the top pin passes through a hole in the deck and rests in a recess in the top surface of the deck, while the second embodiment has a single piece latch pin that passes through apertures in the side rails and adjusts position in a channel and rests a catch element onto the top surface of the deck sans needing to pass through the body of the deck.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them 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 species 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 species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with attorney David Bennett on 12/23/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species B, claims 1-5 and 8-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 6-7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference numeral 22c is used to refer to both the upper slot and the lower slot in the specification.
The upper slot is referred to with both numerals 23 and 22c, while 23 refers to both sleeve/slots and separately the upper slot.
There are discrepancies between the reference numerals used to refer to elements in fig. 10 versus numerals used to refer to the same elements in fig. 13.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a first set of latches” and “a second set of latches” claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of co-pending Application No. 18/376,631 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant App ‘767
co-pending App ‘631
A scaffold comprising:
first and second ladder frames;
an adjustable height platform configured to be supported between the first and second ladder frames at a user selected height in an adjustment range
17. A scaffold comprising: first and second ladder frames; an adjustable height platform configured to be supported between the first and second ladder frames at a user selected height in an adjustment range
the adjustable height platform comprising:
a pair of spaced-apart side rails extending between the ladder frames;
a deck supported on opposing sides by the side rails, the deck including at least one recess in a top surface of the deck adjacent one of the sides of the deck
the adjustable height platform comprising: a pair of spaced-apart side rail assemblies extending between the ladder frames; each side rail assembly comprising a side rail; a deck supported on opposing sides by the side rails, the deck including at least one recess in a top surface of the deck adjacent one of the edges of the deck
at least one latch rotatably mounted to each side rail and including a catch element for engagement with the recess in the top surface of the deck to secure the deck on the side rails
at least one twist latch assembly removably mounted to each side rail, each twist latch assembly comprising: a shaft; a locking tab (equivalent to the catch) configured for engagement with the recess in the top surface of the deck to secure the deck on the side rails
the latch is movable between a disengaged position allowing the deck to be installed or removed from the side rials and an engaged position in which the catch element extends over a top surface of the deck and engages with a respective one of the recesses in the deck so that the catch element is flush with or below the surface of the deck
each twist latch assembly extends through corresponding slots in a corresponding side rail and is rotatable between: a disengaged position where the locking tab does not overlap the deck allowing the deck to be installed or removed from the side rials; and an engaged position in which the locking tab extends over the top surface of the deck and engages with a respective one of the recesses in the deck so that the lock tab is flush with or below the top surface of the deck
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 establishes “opposing sides” (of the deck) in line 7, then refers back to this limitation as “side” in line 8, then again as “opposing sides” in claim 2; consistent reference to the same limitation is required throughout the claims.
The word “rails” appears to be mis-typed as “rials” in line 14 of claim 1.
Claim 1, line 15 recites “a top surface of the deck”; is it the same top surface established earlier in the claim in line 8?
Claim 1 line 16 recites “a respective one of the recesses”; which forces more than one, while the claim established the possibility of one recess in line 7-8 i.e., “at least one recess”.
Claim 2 recites “a pair of latches” in line 1-2, do these include the “at least one latch” established in line 10 of claim 1 from which claim 2 depends?
Claim 3 line 2 recites “the side rail” which one of the pair of spaced apart side rails is being referred to in this recitation?
Claim 3 recites “a deck” in line 3, is the same deck established in claim 1?
Claim 3 does not have a period “.” to end the claim.
Claim 4 establishes “a first set of latches” and “a second set of latches”; do one of those sets include the “at least one latch” established in line 10 of claim 1 from which claim 4 depends (via claim 3)?
Claim 5 end the claim with a colon “:” instead of a period “.”.
Above are non-limiting examples, applicant is required to review the rest of the claims for similar objectionable issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the limitations: “a first set of latches” and “a second set of latches” lacks antecedent basis in the specification.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 recites “the first set of latches extend vertically through the first support surface of the side rails when the side rails are in the first orientation; and the second set of latches extend vertically through the second support surfaces of the side rails when the side rails are in the second orientation”; aside from the drawing’s objections associated with claims 4 and 5, examiner points out that the limitation above while is broad enough to have both the first and second sets of latches extend vertically through the first and second support surface of the side rails in both orientations, examiner points out that the manner in which claim 5 is drafted appears to have only one set of latches extend vertically through only one surface in a given orientation, while as shown in elected figures 9 and 13, the latches extends through both support surfaces whether in the orientation shown in fig. 9 and 13 or if the rail is flipped upside down. Note that similar interpretation applies to claim 3; where both the first and second support surfaces of the rails support the deck in both orientations.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wyse, US (6471003).
In regards to claim 1 Wyse discloses:
A scaffold (10; fig. 1) comprising:
first and second ladder frames (near and far ladder frames formed by pair of legs 12s and cross bars 26s);
an adjustable height platform (platform 16 adjustable via apertures 28) configured to be supported between the first and second ladder frames (as shown in fig. 1) at a user selected height in an adjustment range (range of the holes 28; fig. 1), the adjustable height platform comprising:
a pair of spaced-apart side rails (14) extending between the ladder frames (fig. 1);
a deck (16) supported on opposing sides by the side rails (as shown in fig. 1), the deck including at least one recess in a top surface of the deck (recess 32 through which pin 20 passes as shown in fig. 3) adjacent one of the sides of the deck (two recess adjacent each edge of deck 16 as shown in fig. 1); and
at least one latch (latch 22, 70, 20; note that the latch is considered to have 22, pin 70 and pin 20 as part of the latch; fig. 3) rotatably mounted to each side rail (where 22 is rotatable with respect to 70 at least as spring 71 is compressed; fig. 3) and including a catch element (20, and can also include 70 and portions of 22) for engagement with the recess in the top surface of the deck to secure the deck on the side rails (20 passing through 32 and engaging top surface of 16; as shown in fig. 3); and
wherein the latch is movable between a disengaged position (when 22 is pulled away per compressing spring 71 and 20 is pulled out of 32) allowing the deck to be installed or removed from the side rials [rails] (when 22 is pulled away per compressing spring 71 and 20 is pulled out of 32) and an engaged position (position shown in fig. 3) in which the catch element extends over a top surface of the deck and engages with a respective one of the recesses in the deck so that the catch element is flush with or below the surface of the deck (at least 70, and portions of 22 engaging 70 are below the surface of 16; note that the claim does not require the entirety of the catch to be below the surface of the deck).
PNG
media_image1.png
843
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
642
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2 Wyse discloses the adjustable height platform comprises a pair of latches (set of 22/20/70 at four corners of platform 16 as shown in fig. 1) mounted to each side rail (two on each side of the platform; fig. 16), and a pair or corresponding recesses (respective recess receiving pins 20; fig. 1) adjacent each of the opposing sides of the deck for engagement with respective latches (fig. 1).
In regards to claim 3 Wyse discloses each side rail is configured to be supported between the ladder frames in first and second orientations (intended use limitation; orientation shown in fig. 1 and when the rails are turned 180 degrees about the horizontal plane), and wherein the side rail comprises first and second support surfaces (57 and 60) for supporting a deck (16) of the scaffold in the first and second orientations respectively[.]
In regards to claim 4 Wyse discloses a first set of latches (pair of catches 22/70/20 at one end of the deck) for holding the deck in place against the first support surfaces of the side rails in the first orientation (shown in fig. 1) and a second set of latches (pair of latches on opposite end of the deck 16) for holding the deck in place against the second support surfaces of the side rails in the second orientation (intended use limitation, also note that this is claimed broadly enough to include having the first and second sets of latches holding the deck against both first and second support surfaces in both orientations).
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 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gealy, US (9388588) in view of Hess, US (4427191).
In regards to claim 1 Gealy discloses:
A scaffold (entire assembly shown in fig. 2) comprising:
first and second ladder frames (end assemblies 2a and 2b);
an adjustable height platform (platform 4, 1a, 1b; adjustable via holes 17) configured to be supported between the first and second ladder frames (as shown in fig. 2) at a user selected height in an adjustment range (adjusted via holes 17), the adjustable height platform comprising:
a pair of spaced-apart side rails (first and second side brace assemblies 1a and 1b; fig. 2) extending between the ladder frames (fig. 1);
a deck (4) supported on opposing sides by the side rails (as shown in fig. 2) ... at least one latch (latch pins 5 which hold a deck 4 onto the side braces).
PNG
media_image3.png
613
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1 Gealy does not disclose the details of the latch i.e., the latch rotatably mounted to each side rail and including a catch element for engagement with the recess in the top surface of the deck to secure the deck on the side rails.
Hess teaches the deck (boards 91 along with collectively the plurality of top jaw members 5s is considered the deck in Hess; where a person can stand; fig. 5) including at least one recess (57) in a top surface of the deck (top surface of 5; fig. 3) adjacent one of the sides of the deck (recess on both sides; fig. 5); and
at least one latch (41) rotatably mounted to each side rail (rotatable at tubular cylinder 43) and including a catch element (61) for engagement with the recess in the top surface of the deck to secure the deck on the side rails (in the secured configuration shown in fig. 1); and
wherein the latch is movable between a disengaged position (position shown in fig. 3) allowing the deck to be installed or removed from the side rials [rails] (where two interpretations apply i.e., boards 91 would be removable as well as at least the end of 5 that is coupled by 41) and an engaged position (position shown in figs. 1 and 5) in which the catch element extends over a top surface of the deck (figs. 1 and 5) and engages with a respective one of the recesses (figs. 1 and 5) in the deck so that the catch element is flush with or below the surface of the deck (at least the bottom surface of 61 flush with top surface of 5; note that the claim does not require the top most surface of the catch to be flush with the surface of the deck).
PNG
media_image4.png
416
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 latching mechanism taught by Hess to hold the deck onto the side braces of Gealy, since Gealy does not describe the details of the latching nature of latch pin 5; one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the latching mechanism of Hess for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to provide for an easy attach/detach mechanism to secure the deck to the side braces and remove when in need for replacement, cleaning, maintenance or refurbishing.
In regards to claim 2 Gealy as modified by Hess teaches the adjustable height platform comprises a pair of latches (plurality of latches as shown in fig. 5; Hess) mounted to each side rail (fig. 5), and a pair or corresponding recesses (respective recesses 57) adjacent each of the opposing sides of the deck for engagement with respective latches (fig. 5).
In regards to claim 3 Gealy as modified by Hess teaches each side rail is configured to be supported between the ladder frames in first and second orientations (intended use limitation; orientation shown in fig. 2 Gealy and when the rails are turned 180 degrees about the horizontal plane), and wherein the side rail comprises first and second support surfaces (top and bottom surface of bottom jaw 7) for supporting a deck of the scaffold in the first and second orientations respectively (intended use, also note that this is claimed broadly enough to include having the first and second support surfaces support the side rails in both orientations) [.]
In regards to claim 4 Gealy as modified by Hess teaches a first set of latches (set of 2 closer to viewer; fig. 5; Hess) for holding the deck in place against the first support surfaces of the side rails in the first orientation (intended use limitation; fig. 5; Hess) and a second set of latches (set of 2 farther from viewer; fig. 5; Hess) for holding the deck in place against the second support surfaces of the side rails in the second orientation (intended use limitation, also note that this is claimed broadly enough to include having both the first and second sets of latches holding the deck against both first and second support surfaces in both orientations).
In regards to claim 5 Gealy as modified by Hess teaches the first set of latches and second of latches are mounted internally in the side rails (at least a portion of 41 is inside bottom jaw 7; fig. 3; Hess); the first set of latches extend vertically through the first support surface of the side rails when the side rails are in the first orientation (41 extending vertically through 7; fig. 1; Hess); and the second set of latches extend vertically through the second support surfaces of the side rails when the side rails are in the second orientation (when 91s are turned 180 degrees and the bottom jaws are flipped, note that bottom jaws can function the same when flipped upside down): [.]
In regards to claim 8 Gealy as modified by Hess teaches each side rail further includes first and second vertically aligned slots (slots 51, 53; fig. 3; Hess) formed in respective opposing surfaces of the side rails (figs. 1-3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gealy and Hess as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Stegath, US (5099953).
In regards to claim 9 Gealy as modified by Hess teaches each latch further comprises a shaft (41; Hess) connected to the catch element (61; Hess) ... wherein each latch (41; Hess) is configured to be removably engaged with the first and second slots (51, 53; fig. 3; Hess) of a respective one of the side rails (7) in both the first and second orientations (intended use limitation, each latch removably engage 91 as shown in fig. 5 and when rotated 180 along horizontal plane).
In regards to claim 9 Gealy and Hess do not teach a biasing member.
Stegath teaches a biasing member (74) to bias the catch element (70 of locking pin 52/60) into engagement with the deck (46) and secure the deck against one of the support surfaces of a respective one of the side rails depending on the orientation (intended use limitation).
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 biasing member taught by Stegath onto the locking tab of the locking pin of Hess for the predictable result with reasonable expectation of success i.e., to maintain the engagement of the lock pin 41/43/61/59 in the engaged position prior to the tightening of handle 59, since several of the assemblies shown in fig. 3 is used as shown in fig. 5, a worker would want to place all assemblies in the engaged position, and then go back to tightening their respective handles during which it would be advantageous to have the pins maintained in the engaged position. One of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the pin 52/60 with the stop 70 in the manner shown in Stegath i.e., by pulling onto handle 76 to easily place the pin into the slots then letting go to have the spring 74 pull down on the pin and hence create resistance (between 61 and upper surface of 5) against the pivoting of the pin out of engagement with slots 55/57 of Hess. Subsequently, the modification above teaches the biasing member (74; Stegath) to bias a locking tab (70 of locking pin 52/60; Stegath) into engagement with the deck and secure the deck against one of the support surfaces (Hess) of the side rail depending on the orientation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening 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
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634