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 .
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.
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.
Claims 8-9, 11-12 and 15 are 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 11-12, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "window-like" renders the claim indefinite because it is it is a relative term.
Regarding claim 15, the phrases "clear dimensions" and “standardized” render the claim indefinite because they are relative terms.
Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependency from claim 8.
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 1-4, 6-9, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (2,118,467) in view of Penote (3,445,129).
Jones discloses:
Claim 1: A connector for a modular scaffold, comprising:
a connector tube (Fig. 1; C15/C16) which, for connection to at least one vertical post (Fig. 1; a) has at least at one end; and
a connector element (Fig. 1; C1-C4) which has at least one receiving recess (Fig. 1; the inner curvatures of C1-C4) for connection to at least one horizontal beam (Fig. 1; b) and/or a diagonal brace, wherein the connector element is fastened to the connector tube either indirectly via an extension arm or directly on the outer circumference (Fig. 1; C1-C4 are fastened directly to the outer circumference of C15/C16).
Jones fails to disclose a connector tube with an enlarged external and/or internal diameter.
However, Penote discloses a connector tube with an enlarged external and/or internal diameter (Fig. 4; see detail).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
407
media_image1.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 modify the connector tube of Jones to include the enlarged external diameter, as taught by Penote, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would help facilitate insertion of a vertical post.
Claim 2: Jones discloses the connector according to claim 1, wherein, the connector element is disc-shaped and oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the connector tube (Fig. 1; C1-C4 are depicted as a curved disc shape and are oriented perpendicular to C15/C16).
Claim 3: Jones discloses the connector according to claim 1, wherein, the connector element has a plurality of receiving recesses (Fig. 1; the inner curvatures of C1-C4).
Claim 4: Jones discloses the connector according to claim 1, wherein the connector element is formed as a rosette surrounding the connector tube (Fig. 1; C1-C4 form a rosette around C15/C16) or is attached at the end to a bracket which is attached at the other end to the outer circumference of the connector tube.
Claim 6: Jones discloses the connector according to claim 1, wherein on the outer circumferential side of the connector tube at least two cantilevers (Fig. 3; C13 and C14) of identical design and each radially aligned are fastened at a defined angular distance from one another (Fig. 3; C13 and C14 are aligned 180° apart).
Claim 7: Jones and Penote disclose the connector according to claim 1, wherein the tube section with enlarged outer and/or inner diameter (Penote - Fig. 4; see detail) has a plurality of shell-side locking recesses (Jones - Fig. 1; where C12 threads into).
Claim 8: Jones and Penote disclose the connector according to claim 1, wherein the tube section with enlarged outer and/or inner diameter (Penote - Fig. 4; see detail) has at the end a plurality, of for example, axially extending elongated guide elements (Jones - Fig. 3; C18 and C19), which are arranged at equal distance from each other (Jones - Fig. 3; C18 and C19 are arranged at equal distances from each other).
Claim 9: Jones discloses the connector according to claim 8, wherein, the elongate guide elements are formed at least in regions from the tube section itself (Fig. 1; C18 and C19 are formed from C16/C17) and/or are reinforced by additional material in the radial direction.
Claim 13: Jones and Penote disclose a modular scaffolding with at least one connector according to claim 1 and at least one vertical post (Jones - Fig. 1; a upper), which is inserted at the end into the tube section (Jones - Fig. 1; C15/C16) with enlarged outer and/or inner diameter (Penote - Fig. 4; see detail) of the connector tube for detachable connection to the connector (Jones - Fig. 1; C15/C16 has a larger diameter than a).
Claim 14: Jones discloses the modular scaffold according to claim 13 wherein, the connector tube of the connector is detachably connected at the other end to a spindle or to a further vertical post (Fig. 1; a lower).
Claim 15: Jones discloses a method of manufacturing a modular scaffold using a connector according to claim 1 as a scaffold node which, in the case of a system change within the modular scaffold, is used to maintain predetermined grid dimensions and to maintain predetermined clear dimensions which are required for the use of standardized scaffold components, including standardized horizontal beams and/or standardized diagonal braces (Fig. 1; by adjusting the position of C15/C16 via C12).
Claim 16: Jones discloses a use of a connector as a scaffold node within a modular scaffold for maintaining predetermined grid dimensions and for preserving predetermined clear dimensions, wherein two vertical posts (Fig. 1; a upper/lower) or one vertical post and a spindle are preferably connected with the aid of the connector (Fig. 1; the assembly of C15/C16).
Claim 17: Penote discloses the connector according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the connector tube has the tube section at both ends.
While Penote fails to disclose the tube section at both ends, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the number of tube sections, since it has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. The examiner contends that the addition of another tube section would not produce an unexpected result, as it would not change the purpose or function of the connector. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) – Duplication of Parts.
Claim 18: Jones discloses the connector according to claim 3, wherein:
the plurality of receiving recesses comprises one of:
four (Fig. 1; the inner curvatures of C1-C4), six, or eight receiving recesses; and
the plurality of receiving recesses are arranged at equal angular distance from one another (Fig. 1; the inner curvatures of C1-C4 are at equal angular distances from one another).
Claim 20: Jones discloses the connector according to claim 7, wherein:
the plurality of shell-side locking recesses comprises two recesses (Fig. 1; where C12 threads into); and
the plurality of shell-side locking recesses are arranged on a circumferential line (Fig. 1; where C12 threads into) and/or at equal angular distance from one another.
While Jones fails to disclose four recesses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the number of recesses on the connector, since it has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. The examiner contends that the addition of two more recesses would not produce an unexpected result, as it would not change the purpose or function of the connector. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) – Duplication of Parts.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (2,118,467) in view of Penote (3,445,129), in view of Rogers (2010/0025556).
Claim 10: Jones and Penote disclose the connector according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a pin is formed inside the tube section with enlarged outer and/or inner diameter, which pin is arranged concentrically with respect to the tube section.
However, Rogers discloses a pin (Fig. 3; 4) is formed inside the tube section with enlarged outer and/or inner diameter, which pin is arranged concentrically with respect to the tube section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector tube of Jones to include the pin, as taught by Rogers, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would help guide the insertion of a vertical post.
Claim 11: Rogers discloses the connector according to claim 10 wherein, the pin has a plurality of, for example four, shell-side locking recesses (Fig. 4; 35-36), which are arranged on a circumferential line and/or at equal angular distance from each other (Fig. 4; 35-36 are depicted as arranged on a circumferential line and equal distance from each other).
Claim 12: Jones and Rogers disclose the connector according to claim 10, wherein, the pin (Rogers - Fig. 3; 4) protrudes beyond the tube section (Jones - Fig. 1; C15/C16) and/or protrudes into an area of the tube section which has window-like recesses, for example for forming the elongate guide elements, so that the locking recesses are accessible from the outside.
Once combined Jones and Rogers disclose the pin, of Rogers, protruding beyond the tube section, of Jones.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (2,118,467) in view of Penote (3,445,129), in view of Richards (2022/0213701).
Claim 5: Jones discloses the connector according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the extension arm has at least one further receiving recess aligned transversely to the at least one receiving recess of the connector element.
However, Richards discloses receiving recesses aligned transversely (Fig. 11; 132, Para. 0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extension arm of Jones to include the transverse recesses, as taught by Richards, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow fastening means to be used (Para. [0068]).
Claim 19: Richards discloses the connector according to claim 5, wherein the at least one further receiving recess is in the form of an eyelet or eye (Fig. 11; 132).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635