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 .
The amendment filed on 04 March 2026 in response to the non-final office action mailed on 05 November 2025 has been considered. Claim(s) 46-65 is/are pending. Claim(s) 1-45 has/have been canceled. Claim(s) 46-65 has/have been examined in this action.
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.
Claim 54 is 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.
Claim 54 recites the limitation "the telescoping support post" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 46, 47, 49, and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2468688 to Adams et al.
Regarding claim 46, Adams et al. disclose a support for a safety net proximate an edge of a floor of a building under construction (Fig.1), the support comprising: a support post (12) extending between an upper bracket (44) and a lower bracket (24).
Regarding claim 47, wherein the upper bracket and the lower bracket are secured respectively to an underside of an adjacent floor above (52) a supporting floor (50) on which the safety net is to be installed and to the supporting floor.
Regarding claim 49, wherein the support post comprises an upper section (20/22) and a lower section (18), wherein the upper and lower sections are sized to allow the upper section to slide telescopically (22 slides within 20 which is adjustable within 18) into the lower section.
Regarding claim 58, wherein safety net attachment elements (Page 6, lines 9-15; 35, 43) are provided at intervals along the lower section and upper section of the support post.
Claim(s) 46, 47, 49, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2009/0152431 A1 to Melic.
Regarding claim 46, Melic discloses a support (Fig.1) for a safety net proximate an edge of a floor of a building under construction (Fig.1), the support (22, Fig.3) comprising: a support post (22) extending between an upper bracket (32) and a lower bracket (30).
Regarding claim 47, wherein the upper bracket and the lower bracket are secured respectively to an underside of an adjacent floor (26) above a supporting floor (24) on which the safety net (28) is to be installed and to the supporting floor.
Regarding claim 49, wherein the support post comprises an upper section (34) and a lower section (36), wherein the upper and lower sections are sized to allow the upper section to slide telescopically (34 slides within 36) into the lower section.
Regarding claim 50, wherein the upper section and the lower section comprise lengths of right-angled hollow section (square tubes 34 and 36).
Claim(s) 46 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,129,197 to Preston.
Regarding claim 46, Preston discloses a support for a safety net (21) proximate an edge of a floor of a building under construction (Fig.1), the support comprising: a support post (6, 7, 8) extending between an upper bracket (12 installed on 11) and a lower bracket (12 installed on 9).
Regarding claim 48, wherein the respective upper and lower brackets are secured by bolts (13, 14) driven into concrete of the floor above and the supporting floor.
Claim(s) 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,734,467 to Weeden.
Regarding claim 46, Weeden discloses a support for a safety net (18) proximate an edge of a floor of a building under construction (Fig.3), the support comprising: a support post (72, 74) extending between an upper bracket (76) and a lower bracket (75).
Regarding claim 47, wherein the upper bracket and the lower bracket are secured respectively to an underside of an adjacent floor above (78) a supporting floor (77) on which the safety net is to be installed and to the supporting floor.
Regarding claim 48, wherein the respective upper and lower brackets are secured by bolts (bolts through 75 and 76, Fig.3) driven into concrete of the floor above and the supporting floor.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,129,197 to Preston.
Regarding claim 54, Preston discloses wherein the lower bracket comprises a section of angle iron (12, Fig.3) with a horizontal flange (horizontal portion of 12, Fig.3) provided with apertures (holes into which 14 is inserted) for bolting the lower bracket to the supporting floor (9), wherein a vertical flange (left vertical flange of 12, Fig.3) of the lower bracket is provided with a an aperture (hole into which the bolt 23 is inserted) to allow a lower end of the support post (7) to be secured to the lower bracket.
Preston discloses an aperture in the vertical flange but does not disclose a pair of apertures in the vertical flange.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided additional apertures in the vertical flange of the lower bracket so to provide a more secure connection between the lower bracket and the supporting post, thereby leading to a stronger safety net system which can resist higher forces.
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2468688 to Adams et al. in view of US 2006/0180390 A1 to Thaler.
Regarding claim 59, Adams does not disclose wherein the safety net attachment elements are in the form of carabiners welded to the RHS sections of the support post allowing for rapid attachment and removal of the safety net.
Thaler discloses wherein the net attachment elements are in the form of carabiners (68) for rapid attachment and removal of the net.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided carabiner type connectors along the length of the support post of Adams as taught by Thaler so enable a user to quickly attach the safety net apparatus to the support posts without the need for further fasteners or complicated attachment systems.
Claim(s) 49-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,129,197 to Preston in view of US 2019/0186158 A1 to Melic et al.
Regarding claim 49, Preston discloses wherein the support post comprises an upper section (upper half of 7) and a lower section (lower half of 7).
Preston does not disclose wherein the upper and lower sections are sized to allow the upper section to slide telescopically into the lower section.
Melic et al. disclose support posts having upper and lower sections which slide telescopically within one another (134, 136).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the support columns with the ability to telescope within one another so to enable the support columns to be installed between floors of varying heights without the need to manufacture different size support posts.
Regarding claim 50, Preston discloses wherein the upper section and the lower section comprise lengths of right-angled hollow section (17, Fig.2).
Regarding claim 51, Preston discloses wherein the upper bracket is in the form of a section of angle iron (12, Fig.3), and wherein a horizontal flange of the bracket is provided with a pair of apertures (apertures in 12 for bolts 14) for receiving securing bolts.
Claim(s) 60, 61, 63, and 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0186158 A1 to Melic et al. in view of US 4,129,197 to Preston.
Regarding claim 60, Melic et al. disclose a method of installing a safety net proximate an exposed edge of a building under construction (Fig.9), the method including steps of: driving securing bolts into a safety net supporting floor (54, Fig.6C); securing a lower bracket (53) respectively to the securing bolts of the safety net supporting floor; and securing an upper end of a safety net support post (top of 134) to the upper bracket (133) and a lower end of the safety net support post (bottom of 136) to the lower bracket (53).
Although Melic et al. discloses bolting the lower bracket to the floor, Melic does not specifically disclose bolting the upper bracket to the ceiling surface. Melic et al. does teach securing the bracket to the ceiling surface, but lacks the addition of bolts.
Preston discloses bolting both upper and lower brackets (14, Fig.3) to the surface in which the brackets are installed. Preston further disclosing both the upper and lower brackets having the same construction (12, upper floor 11 and lower floor 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided brackets to the upper and lower portions which are bolted to the supporting surfaces to ensure that the safety nets remain in place when undergoing large forces and do not become dislodged, thereby preventing injury or falling debris.
Regarding claim 61, Melic et al. disclose wherein the safety net support post comprises an upper section (134) and a lower section (136), wherein the upper and lower sections are sized to allow the upper section to slide telescopically (134 slides within 136) into the lower section.
Regarding claim 63, Preston discloses wherein a lower end of the lower section of the safety net support post is secured to flange of the lower bracket by bolts passing through apertures in the flange and through the lower end of the lower section (bolt 23, Fig.2).
Regarding claim 65, Melic et al. disclose wherein the upper and lower sections of the safety net support post are provided with safety net attachment elements (42, 49).
Claim(s) 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0186158 A1 to Melic et al. in view of US 4,129,197 to Preston in view of US 5,718,305 to Palmer.
Regarding claim 64, Melic et al. disclose wherein the upper and lower sections of the safety net support post are locked into a desired extension (132, Fig.13 and Fig.13B) but does not disclose the locking by a locking bolt passing through a collar at an upper end of the lower section, wherein the bolt is urged against a lower end of the upper section of the safety net support post.
Palmer discloses the locking by a locking bolt (42) passing through a collar (ring abutting 28) at an upper end of the lower section, wherein the bolt is urged against a lower end of the upper section of the safety net support post (Fig.3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the support post of Melic with a spring loaded locking bolt as taught by Palmer so to provide an easy to use but effective locking mechanism that doesn’t require movement of a lever or other moving mechanical biasing elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 52, 53, 55-57, and 62 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach the claims combination of elements forming the supporting post, specifically the addition of the upper bracket having the flange with the opening which supports the bolt in the hook portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant does not agree with the rejections but elects to expedite prosecution by filing a continuing application; therefore, the arguments are not deemed to be persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights