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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because paragraph [0091] of the specification discloses “clamp brackets 218” being shown in Figure 13B. However, looking at Figure 13B, the leaders for reference numeral 218 lead to the girders, not the clamps.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [0087] and [0088] disclose “chain falls 108, 110”. Looking at Figure 13A, elements 108 and 110 are clearly holding chains 102 and 104 in tension horizontally. The function of 108, 110 shown is not what a chain fall does; a chain fall is used for lifting (vertical pulling). What is shown as 108, 110 appears to actually be a winch (horizontal pulling).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite “girder”. Applicant’s specification (paragraph [0094]) discloses that the girders are illustrated in the figures to be I-beams, but can be any form of beam. For purposes of examination, the limitation of “girder” will be considered as any long, sturdy structural component.
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 2 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “chain fall” in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean “an implement for horizontal pulling,” while the accepted meaning is “an implement for vertical lifting.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It appears, since elements 108 and 110 are connected to the first and second elongate flexible lines pulling horizontally, that 108 and 110 should be winches. This is what will be assumed for purposes of examination.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and recites “wherein the adjustable-length jack assembly includes a variable-length pipe strut.” However, claim 4 requires a double-acting hydraulic cylinder. A double-acting hydraulic cylinder is an alternative to a variable-length pipe strut, and as such, claim 5 does not further limit claim 4. It will be assumed that Applicant intended for claim 5 to depend from claim 2 for purposes of examination.
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and recites “wherein the adjustable-length jack assembly includes a variable-length pipe strut.” However, claim 13 requires a double-acting hydraulic cylinder. A double-acting hydraulic cylinder is an alternative to a variable-length pipe strut, and as such, claim 14 does not further limit claim 13. It will be assumed that Applicant intended for claim 14 to depend from claim 11 for purposes of examination.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kreller, US 10,196,830 B2.
Regarding claim 10, Kreller teaches an adjustable cross-frame assembly capable of being used for installing cross-frames between girders, the adjustable cross-frame assembly comprising:
a first elongate rigid beam (top 22; Figures 1-2) coupled to a first portion (top) of a first girder (21) and to a first portion of a second girder (other 21), the first elongate rigid beam extending in a direction approximately parallel with a plane intersecting the first and second girders (evident from Figure 4 which shows a top view of the assembly);
a second elongate rigid beam (bottom 22; Figures 1-2) coupled to a second portion (bottom) of the first girder (21) and to a second portion of the second girder (other 21), the second elongate rigid beam extending in a direction approximately parallel with the plane; and
an adjustable-length jack assembly (diagonal assembly including turnbuckle 65 as shown in Figures 1 and 2) coupled to the first portion of the first girder and to the second portion of the second girder, the adjustable-length jack assembly extending in a direction approximately parallel with the plane (shown in Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 16, as shown in Figures 1-2, each of the first and second girders (21 and other 21) includes plates (36.1, 36.2; the plates on the interior sides of the girders 21) coupled thereto, and each of the first elongate rigid beam, the second elongate rigid beam, and the adjustable-length jack assembly is coupled to one or more of the plates.
Regarding claim 17, as shown in Figures 1-2, it is clear that the first portion of the first girder includes an upper third of the first girder, the first portion of the second girder includes an upper third of the second girder, the second portion of the first girder includes the lower third of the first girder, and the second portion of the second girder includes the lower third of the second girder.
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.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreller as applied to claim 10 above in view of Hood et al., US 3,861,634.
Regarding claim 11, while Kreller fails to disclose that each of the first and second elongate rigid beams includes a threaded rod, Hood teaches a supporting structure in construction and discloses a horizontal beam with threaded shanks (70+78+80 in Figure 2). 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 first and second elongate rigid beams to include a threaded rod in view of Hood’s disclosure to be extendable for greater versatility.
Regarding claim 14, while the resulting combination includes a turnbuckle to vary a length of the diagonal brace (the adjustable-length jack assembly) but fails to disclose the adjustable-length jack assembly includes a variable-length pipe strut, Hood further teaches a diagonal brace comprising a variable-length pipe strut (110+112; Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the adjustable-length jack assembly of the resulting combination with a variable-length pipe strut in view of Hood’s disclosure to “permit adjustment of their lengths” (column 6 lines 4-17) as an alternate adjustable-length mechanism.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreller in view of Hood as applied to claim 11, further in view of Lotto et al., US 4,017,932.
Regarding claim 12, while the resulting combination includes an adjustable-length jack assembly but fails to disclose a hydraulic jack, Lotto teaches a bridge and discloses using double-action hydraulic jacks to extend out the bridge elements (Abstract; column 1 line 36). 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 adjustable-length jack assembly of the resulting combination to substitute the turnbuckle of the resulting combination with a double-action hydraulic jack in view of Lotto’s disclosure for extending out, therefore holding in tension, which would provide the function for tension on the first and second elongate flexible lines of the resulting combination.
Regarding claim 13, the resulting combination from claim 12 includes the hydraulic jack including a double-acting hydraulic cylinder, since a double-action hydraulic jack is the same.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreller as applied above, alone.
Regarding claim 15, Kreller discloses the adjustable-length jack assembly being connected with clamp brackets (Kreller’s 61.2, 62.2; Figure 1) to be removably coupled to the first and second girders (detachably bolted; Kreller’s Abstract). Kreller discloses a connection to a plate on each of the girders to be clamp-like that is formed unitarily with the first and second elongate rigid beams (Figure 1), and discloses that the parts are hingedly and detachably bolted to one another (Abstract). Since it has been held that making separable is a matter of obviousness (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)), 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 first and second elongate rigid beams to include separate clamp brackets based on obvious design choice. The resulting combination includes the clamp brackets being configured to be removably coupled to the first and second girders.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreller, US 10,196,830 B2 in view of Gollnow, US 2,878,498.
Regarding claim 1, Kreller teaches an adjustable cross-frame assembly capable of being used for installing cross-frames between girders, the adjustable cross-frame assembly comprising:
a first elongate member (top 22) coupled in tension to a first portion of a first girder (top of 21) and to a first portion of a second girder (top of other 21), the first elongate member extending in a direction approximately parallel with a plane intersecting the first and second girders (evident from Figure 4 which shows a top view); and
a second elongate member (bottom 22) coupled in tension to a second portion of the first girder (bottom of 21) and to a second portion of the second girder (bottom of other 21), the second elongate member extending in a direction approximately parallel with the plane (evident from Figure 4 which shows a top view); and
an adjustable-length jack assembly (diagonal assembly including turnbuckle 65 as shown in Figures 1 and 2) coupled to the first portion of the first girder and to the second portion of the second girder (shown in Figures 1 and 2), the adjustable-length jack assembly extending in a direction approximately parallel with the plane (shown in Figures 1 and 2).
While Kreller fails to explicitly disclose that the first and second elongate members are flexible lines, Gollnow teaches a bridge construction and discloses that the upper and lower chords (analogous with the first and second elongate members), if only placed under tension, can be rigid (Gollnow’s column 4 lines 10-17; Figure 6). Alternatively, the upper and lower chords can be ropes (column 2 lines 56-60; Figure 1), which are flexible. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kreller’s first and second elongate members to be flexible ropes in view of Gollnow’s disclosure that these similar upper and lower elongate members can be either rigid or flexible.
Regarding claim 2, Gollnow discloses the upper chord and lower chord to be held in tension so that the upper and lower chords are taut (Figure 1). Gollnow further discloses that ropes or cables can be held in tension with winches (column 2 line 65; column 3 line 56). 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 first and second elongate flexible lines of the resulting combination to be connected to a first “chain fall”/winch and a second “chain fall”/winch to be able to hold the first and second elongate flexible lines in tension.
Regarding claim 6, while the resulting combination only discloses the first and second elongate flexible lines include wire ropes but fails to disclose a cable, the Examiner takes Official Notice that cables are old and well-known and wire ropes and cables are known alternatives. 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 first and second elongate flexible lines to be cables since they are commonly available and a known alternative to wire ropes.
Regarding claim 7, the resulting combination includes the adjustable-length jack assembly being bolted to both of the first and second girders (Kreller’s Abstract). While the resulting combination fails to disclose each of the first and second elongate flexible lines are bolted to both of the first and second girders, in view of Kreller disclosing the parts are bolted together (Abstract), 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 resulting combination to have each of the first and second elongate flexible lines be bolted to both of the first and second girders as a connection mechanism suggested by Kreller.
Regarding claim 8, Kreller shows each of the first and second girders including plates coupled thereto (36.1, 36.2; the plates on the interior sides of the girders 21) and the adjustable-length jack assembly being coupled to one or more of the plates, and the resulting combination makes obvious that each of the first and second elongate flexible lines are coupled to the one or more plates in view of Kreller’s arrangement as shown in Figure 1 (horizontal members 22 are also connected to the plates, the horizontal members modified to be the first and second elongate flexible members in the resulting combination).
Regarding claim 9, the resulting combination includes the adjustable-length jack assembly being connected with clamp brackets (Kreller’s 61.2, 62.2; Figure 1) to be removably coupled to the first and second girders (detachably bolted; Kreller’s Abstract). Kreller discloses a connection to a plate on each of the girders to be clamp-like that is formed unitarily with the horizontal members (Figure 1), and discloses that the parts are hingedly and detachably bolted to one another (Abstract). Since it has been held that making separable is a matter of obviousness (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)), 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 first and second elongate flexible lines of the resulting combination to be connected to clamp brackets configured to be removably coupled to the first and second girders based on obvious design choice.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreller and Gollnow as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Lotto et al., US 4,017,932.
Regarding claim 3, while the resulting combination includes an adjustable-length jack assembly but fails to disclose a hydraulic jack, Lotto teaches a bridge and discloses using double-action hydraulic jacks to extend out the bridge elements (Abstract; column 1 line 36). 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 adjustable-length jack assembly of the resulting combination to substitute the turnbuckle of the resulting combination with a double-action hydraulic jack in view of Lotto’s disclosure for extending out, therefore holding in tension, which would provide the function for tension on the first and second elongate flexible lines of the resulting combination.
Regarding claim 4, the resulting combination from claim 3 includes the hydraulic jack including a double-acting hydraulic cylinder, since a double-action hydraulic jack is the same.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreller and Gollnow as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Hood et al., US 3,861,634.
Regarding claim 5, while the resulting combination includes a turnbuckle to vary a length of the diagonal brace (the adjustable-length jack assembly) but fails to disclose the adjustable-length jack assembly includes a variable-length pipe strut, Hood teaches a supporting structure in construction and discloses a diagonal brace comprising a variable-length pipe strut (110+112; Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the adjustable-length jack assembly of the resulting combination with a variable-length pipe strut in view of Hood’s disclosure to “permit adjustment of their lengths” (column 6 lines 4-17) as an alternate adjustable-length mechanism.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-22 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Hamilton, US 2,266,549 is cited for teaching a bridge wherein the members under tension can be suitable flexible members such as cables or rigid members such as beams. Weiss, US 509,781 is cited for teaching a bridge element comprising a beam being a threaded rod.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674