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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
para. [0003], second line, “(technical) fall” should be removed;
para. [0003], third line, “(fall protection)” should be removed;
para. [0009], fourth line from the bottom of page 2, “are now” should be replaced with “is”;
para. [0012], second line, “verge” should be replaced with –edge—;
para. [0012], third line, “verge” should be replaced with –edge—;
para. [0019], first line, “verge” should be replaced with –edge—; and,
para. [0019], second to last line, “verge” should be replaced with –edge—.
The above are merely non-limiting examples (see also, e.g. paras. [0031], [0033], etc.), the applicant is required to find and correct the issues above as well as other similar issues not specifically pointed out.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“Fall protection” should be replaced with ---A fall protection system--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“Fall protection” should be replaced with –The fall protection system--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “providing a fixed connection” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 11 is indefinite because it merely recites a use, specifically, use of a fall protection for fall protection, without also “reciting any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced”, see MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Borst (EP4299851).
Re claim 1, fall protection for buildings (Fig. 1) comprising vertical bars (6) attached to a substructure (50) of building superstructures (20, 21, 22); fastening means (16) providing a fixed connection between the vertical bars (6) and the substructure (50); and one or more cross-bars (18) attached to the vertical bars (6), the one or more cross-bars being attached to at least two vertical bars (see Fig. 1).
Re claim 2, fall protection for buildings according to claim 1, wherein the building superstructures (20, 21, 22) are roof superstructures (para. [0039]: “the module support 21 has a bore on its underside 24 as a roof fastening device 32.”).
Re claim 3, fall protection for buildings according to claim 1, wherein the fastening means connect the substructure and the vertical bars of different cross- section, different shape and/or different size (see para. [0019] of the MT of Borst et al. “In further embodiments, the at least two insertion openings are of different sizes and/or have different shapes. Preferably, a module support is designed symmetrically to a mirror axis that runs perpendicular to the roof surface, so that identical insertion openings are arranged next to each other. This allows, for example, for simpler manufacturing of the module supports”).
Re claim 4, fall protection for buildings according to claim 2, wherein the substructure for roof superstructures is one or more profile rails for solar installations (para. [0037] of MT of Borst et al.: “Photovoltaic modules 60 are placed on the module supports 20, 20', 21, 22).
Re claim 5, fall protection for buildings according to claim 1, wherein the vertical bars are secured in the fastening means with a securing bolt (para. [0019] of MT of Borst: “In preferred embodiments, an insertion opening has a thread or other fastening device”).
Re claim 6, fall protection for buildings according to claim 1, wherein the one or more cross-bars (18) are attached to the vertical bars by means of connections (see Fig. 1, clearly the knee rail 8 and the handrail 18 are attached to the vertical bars 6 by means of connections).
Re claim 8, fall protection for buildings according to claim 1, wherein two or three cross-bars are attached to the vertical bars (see Fig. 3, two cross-bars 18 and 19 are attached to the vertical bars 6).
Re claim 9, fall protection for buildings according to claim 2, wherein the fall protection is located in the region of the verge (see claim objection above, verge defined being as the edge b, see para. [0050] and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s specification) of the roof (see Fig. 1 and also para. [0031] of the MT of Borst et al., “In a preferred embodiment, the roof system has a fall protection device, in particular a railing, wherein the fall protection device is arranged, in particular continuously, at several fall edges of the roof surface, in particular enclosing building corners”).
Re claim 10, fall protection for buildings of claim 4, wherein the solar installation is a photovoltaic (PV) installation (see Fig. 1 and para. [0035] of the MT of Borst: “Fig. 1 a schematic, perspective view of a roof system with photovoltaic modules mounted on it”).
Re claim 11, use of a fall protection for buildings according to claim 1, for fall protection (see Fig. 1).
Re claim 12, use of a fall protection for buildings according to claim 11, wherein the fall protection is used at the verge (see claim objection above, verge defined being as the edge b, see para. [0050] and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s specification) of a roof (see Fig. 1 and also para. [0031] of the MT of Borst et al., “In a preferred embodiment, the roof system has a fall protection device, in particular a railing, wherein the fall protection device is arranged, in particular continuously, at several fall edges of the roof surface, in particular enclosing building corners”).
Re claim 13, a method of attaching a fall protection to buildings, the method comprising:
fastening of a vertical bar (6) by means of fastening means (16) to a substructure (50) of building superstructures (20, 21, 22) present on the building;
fastening at least one further vertical bar (6) by means of a further fastening means (20, 21, 22) to a further part of the substructure (50);
attaching one or more cross-bars (8, 18) to the vertical bars.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borst et al. (EP4299851) in view of Merrill (US1706801)
Re claim 7, Borst et al. fail to disclose fall protection for buildings according to claim 1, wherein the one or more cross-bars are connected to further cross-bars by means of pipe connectors. However, such pipe connectors are notorious in the art of fall protection. For example, Merrill teaches a scaffolding pipe connector. It 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 to have included the scaffolding pipe connector of Merrill in the fall protection system of Borst et al. in order for “pipes to be clamped in position and forming a connected portion of a scaffolding or similar structure” (see lines 64-67 of Merrill).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borst et al. (EP4299851).
Re claim 14, Borst et al. fail to disclose the method of attaching a fall protection to buildings according to claim 13, wherein the one or more cross-bars are attached to the first vertical bar directly after step a), before step b) is performed. However, per MPEP 2144.04.IV.C, changes in the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Accordingly, it 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 to attach one or more cross-bars to the first vertical bar before attaching at least further vertical bar in a method according to Borst et al. in order to make a routine change in the sequence of process steps.
Re claim 15, Borst et al. fail to disclose the method of attaching a fall protection to buildings according to claim 13, comprising the step of attaching a further vertical bar and attaching one or more cross-bars to the further and the last attached vertical bar, optionally repeating the step one or more times. However, per MPEP 2144.04.IV.C, changes in the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Accordingly, it 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 to attach one or more cross-bars to the first vertical bar before attaching a further vertical bar and attaching one or more cross-bars to the further and the last attached vertical bar, optionally repeating the step one or more times in a method according to Borst et al. in order to make a routine change in the sequence of process steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 5.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617. 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.
/BAP/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634