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 Notes
Claims 10-12 are currently listed as depending from 4-6 respectively. Recognizing that this made 5-7 and 10-12 duplicate claims, the examiner reached out to applicant’s representative, Mr. David Bennet to ask if the dependency was correct or if the claims should depend sequential from claim 9. Mr. Bennet acknowledged the typo in the dependency and noted that claims 10-12 should depend from 9-11 respectively.
Examiner confirmed that for examination purposes claim 10 depends from 9; claim 11 from 10; claim 12 from 11.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “comprises configured to” appears to be a typographical error.
Claims 9 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: there is no antecedent basis for either “the first stud posts” or “the third stud posts”.
Claim 10 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: there is no antecedent basis for “the third stud posts”.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is no antecedent basis for “the button lock”.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pardella (US 5,326,337).
Pardella discloses:
1. A safety rail system for a scaffold (figure 1), the safety rail system comprising:
at least two vertical posts (figure 4), each including a lower member (41, 43, figure 4) mountable to the scaffold (figure 3) and an upper member (42, 44, figure 4) configured to detachably connect to the lower member in both a first rotational orientation (figure 4) and a second rotational orientation (with 42,44 rotated 180o from first orientation; i.e. rotated about its vertical axis);
a first stud post (41) adjacent an upper end of the lower member (43) of the vertical post (figure 4);
a second stud post (42) adjacent a lower end of the upper member (44) of the vertical post (figure 4) and configured such that the second stud post extends generally perpendicular to the first stud post in both the first and second rotational orientations respectively (figure 15);
a side rail (51 or 53, figure 4) extending between the vertical posts (figure 4) and configured such that opposite ends of the side rail are selectively engageable with either the first stud posts (41) on respective ones of the vertical posts (figure 14) or the second stud posts (42) on respective ones of the vertical posts (figure 14).
2. The safety rail system of claim 1, further comprising a third stud post (41 at top end of 44) extending from an upper end of the upper member (44) of the post (figure 4), and wherein opposing ends of the side rail (51 or 53) are selectively engageable with the third stud post (figure 4).
3. The safety rail system of claim 2, wherein the third stud posts extend axially (vertically) from the upper ends of the upper members of the vertical posts (figure 4).
4. The safety rail system of clam 1, wherein each side rail comprises configured to engage respective ones of the vertical posts and a connecting member detachably connected to the two end segments to from a single rail (figure 1).
8. The safety rail system of claim 1, wherein each of the first, second and third stud posts includes a latch (99, figure 14) to prevent the side rails from disengaging with the stud posts (figure 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9-11,14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martinez (US 2023/0407650).
Martinez discloses:
9. A safety rail system for a scaffold (figure 1), the safety rail system comprising: at least two vertical posts (vertical end frames 11; figure 1) configured to be mounted to a scaffold (figure 1);
a rail (20) extending between the vertical posts (figure 1) and configured such that opposite ends (30) of the side rail (figure 2) are selectively engageable (@ 35) with either the first stud posts on respective ones of the vertical posts or the second stud posts on respective ones of the vertical posts (posts disclosed in [0035] but not shown in figures);
wherein the rail (20) comprises two end segments (30) configured to engage respective ones of the vertical posts ([0035]) and a connecting member (22) detachably connected to the two end segments to from a single rail (figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
220
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
10. The safety rail system of claim 9, wherein each end segment includes a flattened outer end (30, figure 2) having an opening (35) therein for engagement with one of the first, second or third stud posts ([0035]), and a straight tubular end insertable into one end of the connecting member (figure 2).
11. The safety rail system of claim 10, wherein each end segment further comprising a button lock (button 26 option) on the straight tubular end and engageable with an opening (23) in the connecting member (figure 4).
14. The safety rail system of claim 9, wherein the rail (20) extends diagonally between the vertical posts (figure 1).
15. A scaffold (figure 1) comprising: at least two vertical posts (end frames 11);
a cross-brace (20) extending between the vertical posts (figure 1) and configured such that opposite ends (30, figure 2) of the side rail [cross brace] are selectively engageable (@ 35) with either the first stud posts on respective ones of the vertical posts or the second stud posts on respective ones of the vertical posts (posts disclosed in [0035] but not shown in figures);
wherein the cross-brace (20) comprises two end segments (30, figure 2) configured to engage respective ones of the vertical posts ([0035]) and one or more intermediate members (22, figure 2) connected between the two end segments (30) to form a single structural member (figure 1).
16. The scaffold of claim 15, wherein each end segment includes a flattened outer end (@30, figure 2) having an opening (35) therein for engagement with one of the first, second or third stud posts ([0035]), and a straight tubular end insertable into one end of an intermediate member (figure 2).
17. The scaffold of claims 16, wherein each cross-brace comprises a single connecting member (22) connected between two end segments (figure 2).
19. The scaffold of claims 16, wherein each cross-brace comprises a central member (22) and two connecting members (30, 30) connected in series between two end segments (figure 2).
20. The scaffold of claim 15, wherein the cross-brace (20) extends diagonally between the vertical posts (figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pardella as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Todokoro (US 9,868,008). Pardella does not disclose wherein each end segment includes a flattened outer end having an opening therein for engagement with one of the first, second or third stud posts, and a straight tubular end insertable into one end of the connecting member; wherein each end segment further comprising a button lock on the straight tubular end and engageable with an opening in the connecting member; or wherein the connecting member further comprises an internal stop disposed within each end of the connecting member to limit axial movement of the connecting member relative to the end segments in the event of a failure of the button lock.
However, Todokoro teaches;
5. The safety rail system of claim 4, wherein each end segment (33, figure 3) includes a flattened outer end (33b, figure 5A) having an opening therein (mouth of 33b) for engagement (figure 8A) with one of the first, second or third stud posts (32, figure 4), and a straight tubular end (33a, figure 3) insertable into one end of the connecting member (figure 3).
6. The safety rail system of claim 5, wherein each end segment (33) further comprising a button lock (33a2) on the straight tubular end (figure 5A) and engageable with an opening (180, figure 3) in the connecting member (figure 2).
7. The safety rail system of claim 6, wherein the connecting member (when 34 is included as part of the connecting member) further comprises an internal stop (34b, figure 6B) disposed within each end of the connecting member to limit axial movement of the connecting member relative to the end segments in the event of a failure of the button lock (figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the safety rail system of Pardella with the end segment construction, button lock and internal stop, all as taught by Todokoro, so as to provide a more secure connection between the end segments and connecting member, by including additional interlocking members and redundancy against accidental separation of parts, creating a safer climbing system, while still allowing for easy transition to a compact arrangement for transportation and/or storage.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Levizzani (US 3,122,385).
Martinez does not disclose wherein the rail (20) extends generally horizontally between the vertical posts.
However, Levizzani teach:
13. The safety rail system of claim 9, wherein the rail (6) extends generally horizontally (figure 2) between the vertical posts (5).
PNG
media_image3.png
250
232
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the rails of Martinez, either horizontally or diagonally, as taught by Levizzani, so as to accommodate for different spacing between vertical members, or any bracing or railing needs along platforms or work areas of the scaffolding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 18 are 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.
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