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 Objections
Claims 1-20 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “one or more collapsible brackets” in each of the independent claims 1, 14 and 20 (and throughout the claims wherever the limitation appears) should be changed to “two or more collapsible brackets” as one bracket alone is not capable of supporting one or more planks in an extended configuration.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-9, 12-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slezak (GB 2510881) in view of SO (US pub 2016/0032600).
Slezak discloses:
1. A scaffolding system (figure 1) comprising:
a plurality of tower extensions (4, 5 figure 1);
one or more fixing members (8, figure 1) coupled to the plurality of tower extensions (figure 1);
a first platform (lower platform 9, figure 1) and a second platform (upper platform 9, figure 1) adjustably connected to the plurality of tower extensions (figure 1), wherein:
the first platform (lower platform 9 was parentheses is positioned below the second platform (upper platform 9) and separation distance between the first platform and the second platform is fixed by the one or more fixing members (8, figure 1)
a length of the first platform and a length of the second platform are adjustable (support platforms 9 are telescopic in a longitudinal direction, figure 1), and
a position of the first and second platforms along the plurality of tower extensions is manually adjustable (by fixing support elements 8 at different heights along 4 & 5); and
an extendable wall (1, figure 1) connected to an outer edge of the first platform and an outer edge of the second platform that is directly above the outer edge of the first platform (figure 1), wherein a length of the wall that is parallel to the outer edges of the first and second platforms is adjustable (via adjustment of movable panels 7b with respect to fixed panel 7a).
PNG
media_image1.png
800
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Slezak does not disclose: a width of the first and second platforms to be adjustable, or the first platform and the second platform comprise one or more collapsable brackets along an outer edge of the first platform and the second platform, wherein the brackets are configured to extend the width of the first platform or the second platform by receiving one or more planks in an extended configuration, and wherein the brackets are coupled to one or more extension beams to move in a length direction as the length of the first platform or the second platform is adjusted.
However, SO teaches: a width of the platform (30, figure 3) to be adjustable (with the addition of 40, 65; figures 2-3); and the platforms (30) comprise one or more collapsable (fig 2 vs fig 5, see below) brackets (supporting arms/frame 40; figure 4) along an outer edge of the first platforms (figure 3-5), wherein the brackets are configured to extend the width of the first platform or the second platform by receiving one or more planks (65, figure 3) in an extended configuration (figure 3), and wherein the brackets are coupled to one or more extension beams (frames of additional platforms 30 added on the longitudinal direction; figure 3) to be moved in a length direction as the length of the first platform or the second platform is adjusted (figure 3; frames/arms of 40 can be added on or moved as platforms 30 are built/extended in the longitudinal direction).
PNG
media_image2.png
565
654
media_image2.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 provide the first and second platforms of Slezak with collapsible brackets as taught by SO, so as to be able to adjust the width of platforms along the length thereof, and as the platforms are extended, providing additional working surfaces and/or further securing the worksite by closing the gaps where workers and/or tools may fall through.
Slezak further discloses:
2. The scaffolding system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tower extensions comprise a first tower extension (4) and a second tower extension (5), wherein:
a first side edge of the first platform and a first side edge of the second platform are adjustably connected to the first tower extension (figure 1); and
a second side edge of the first platform and a second side edge of the second platform are adjustably connected to the second tower extension (figure 1).
3. The scaffolding system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of tower extensions (4, 5) comprises at least one tower leg (figure 1), and wherein the at least one tower leg of each of the plurality of tower extensions comprises a plurality of holes that are spaced along the height of the at least one tower leg (figure 2) and configured to receive fasteners to anchor the first platform and the second platform to the tower extension (figure 2).
With respect to claims 4 & 5 and the claimed lateral distance between the first tower extension and the second tower extension, and a height of each tower extension of the plurality of tower extensions, examiner notes that such limitations are a matter of obvious design choice. As explained in MPEP 2144.04, IV. A. Changes in Size/Proportion, "the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device", and "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process SO scaled." Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to space and dimension the plurality of tower exertions of Slezak, as needed to provide a stable and safely assembled scaffolding system for the job at hand.
8. The scaffolding system of claim 1, wherein a deck portion (work surface of 9) of the first platform and a deck portion (work surface which 9) of the second platform are configured to be removable (platforms 9 are disclosed as being adapted to support work surfaces; additionally, see planks spanning frames of 9 in figure 1).
9. The scaffolding system of claim 1, wherein a side edge of the first platform and a side edge of the second platform are configured to receive timber (intended use/capable of) in order to increase the length of the first platform or to increase the length of the second platform (intended use/capable of).
12. The scaffolding system of claim 1, wherein the extendable wall (1, figure 1) comprises a plurality of sliding panels (7b) configured to at least partially overlap (page 9, last paragraph, discusses an embodiment where a number of movable panels 7b are arranged so they partially or entirely overlap one another).
13. The scaffolding system of claim 1, comprising one or more side walls connected to a side edge of the first platform or a side edge of the second platform (figure 1).
SO further teaches:
6. The scaffolding system of claim 1, wherein each tower extension (figure 3) of the plurality of tower extensions (figure 3) comprises two parallel bars (10, figure 3) coupled to each other by a plurality of rungs (unnumbered cross rails best seen in figure 6), wherein each rung of the plurality of rungs forms a 90° angle with the two parallel bars (figure 6).
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 plurality of tower extensions of Slezak with a plurality of rungs extending between the parallel bars of the tower extensions, as taught by SO, so as to provide a more versatile scaffolding system, providing additional stepping and/or gripping surfaces for users navigating the scaffolding system.
Re: claim 7. the plurality of rungs are equally spaced along the two parallel bars (figure 6). While SO does not disclose the exact spacing between rungs examiner again refers to MPEP 2144.04, IV. A. Changes in Size/Proportion and the obviousness of adjusting the dimensions. It should also be noted that there would be a limited amount of useful spacings between rungs, as too small a spacing would not allow a user's hand or foot to grip or step there between, and too large a spacing would be difficult for a user to reach and step from one rung to the next, or not provide adequate safety against falling.
Re: claim 14: Slezak discloses:
14. A method for adjusting a scaffolding system, the method comprising:
adjustably connecting (via fasteners) a first platform (lower platform 9, figure 1) and a second platform (upper platform 9) to a plurality of tower extensions such that the first platform is positioned below the second platform (figure 1);
connecting a plurality fixing members (support members 8 at either end of the platforms 9) to the first platform, the second platform, and the plurality of tower extensions (figure 1) to fix a separation distance between the first platform and the second platform (figure 1);
manually adjusting a position of a first platform and a position of a second platform along a plurality of tower extensions (securing support elements 8 and pltforms 9 at their select heights);
adjusting a length of the first platform and a length of the second platform telescoping platforms 9),
connecting an extendable wall (1, figure 1) to an outer edge of the first platform and an outer edge of the second platform that is directly above the outer edge of the first platform (figure 1); and
adjusting a length of the extendable wall that is parallel to the outer edges of the first and second platforms based on the adjustments to the length and width of the first platform and the second platform (sliding moveable panels 7b to match or exceed the length of platforms 9; figure 1).
Slezak does not disclose: adjusting a width of the platforms, or the first platform and the second platform comprise one or more collapsable brackets along an outer edge of the first platform and the second platform, wherein the brackets are configured to extend the width of the first platform or the second platform by receiving one or more planks in an extended configuration, and wherein the brackets are coupled to one or more extension beams to move in a length direction as the length of the first platform or the second platform is adjusted.
However, SO teaches: adjusting a width (addition of 40, 65; figures 2-3) of the platform (30, figure 3); and the platforms (30) comprise one or more collapsable brackets (supporting arms/frame 40; figure 4) along an outer edge of the first platforms (figure 3-5), wherein the brackets are configured to extend the width of the first platform or the second platform by receiving one or more planks (65, figure 3) in an extended configuration (figure 3), and wherein the brackets are coupled to one or more extension beams (frames of additional platforms 30 added on the longitudinal direction; figure 3) to be moved in a length direction as the length of the first platform or the second platform is adjusted (figure 3; frames/arms of 40 can be added on or moved as platforms 30 are built/extended in the longitudinal direction).
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 first and second platforms of Slezak with collapsible brackets as taught by SO, so as to be able to adjust the width of platforms along the length thereof, and as the platforms are extended, providing additional working surfaces and/or further securing the worksite by closing the gaps where workers and/or tools may fall through.
Slezak further disclose:
15. The method of claim 14, comprising connecting a first side wall (7b) to a side edge of the first platform and a second side wall (another of plurality of 7b) to a side edge of the second platform (figure 1).
With respect to claim 16 and the claimed distance between platforms, examiner notes that such limitations are a matter of obvious design choice. As explained in MPEP 2144.04, IV. A. Changes in Size/Proportion, "the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device", and "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process SO scaled."
18. The method of claim 14, wherein adjusting the length of the first platform or a the length of the second platform comprises attaching timber to a side edge of the first platform or a side edge of the second platform in order to increase the length of the first platform or to increase the length of the second platform (addition of or removal of unnumbered planks atop platforms 9 as seen in figure 1; while the planks are not disclosed as "timber", examiner refers to MPEP 2144.07 wherein it is explained “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle”. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use flooring of whatever material best suits their needs and is readily available).
Claim(s) 10-11, 17, 19 and 20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slezak in view of SO as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Basham (US 4,262,773). Slezak in view of SO do not teach a plurality of arms connected to the plurality of tower extensions, and wherein each arm of the plurality of arms is configured to connect to a structure, wherein an inclination of each arm of the plurality of arms with respect to the structure is configured to be adjustable; or wherein the first and second platforms are coupled to one or more ropes, wherein the positions of the first and second platforms along the plurality of tower extensions are configured to be manually adjusted using a winch configured to control the one or more ropes.
However, re: claims 10 and 19, Basham teaches: comprising a plurality of arms (telescoping sections of standoff brace 93, figure 5) connected to the plurality of tower extensions (figure 5), and wherein each arm of the plurality of arms is configured to connect to a structure (directly and directly, depending on telescoping section), wherein an inclination of each arm of the plurality of arms with respect to the structure is configured to be adjustable (figure 5).
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 scaffolding system of Slezak in view of SO with a plurality of angularly adjustable arms connected to the plurality of tower extensions, as taught by Basham, so as to provide securing means between the scaffolding system and adjacent structure, stabilizing the scaffolding system, and therefore providing safety to those working at elevation, as well as those there below.
Additionally, with respect to claims 11, 17 and 20, Basham teaches: wherein the first (35, figure 1) and second platforms (49, figure 1) are coupled to one or more ropes (65, figure 1), wherein the positions of the first and second platforms along the plurality of tower extensions are configured to be manually adjusted using a winch (63, figure 1) configured to control the one or more ropes (figure 1). Regarding the plurality of ropes claimed in claim 17 and 20, Basham teaches two or more scaffolding assemblies can be used together with a board resting on the two platforms to provide a continuous walkway (col. 4, lines 44-48); the two or more assemblies therefore providing a plurality of ropes (65) for manually adjusting the platforms by use of the incorporated winches (63) of each scaffold tower.
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 scaffolding system of Slezak in view of SO, with a plurality of ropes for manually adjusting the position of the platforms along the tower extensions, through use of a winch, as taught by Basham, so as to provide user assistance in smoothly lifting and lowering the platforms along the tower extensions.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the previous drawing objections, the examiner and applicant discussed the objections during the interview of June 1, 2026, with applicant explaining the connections, and examiner acknowledging what was shown in agreeing to drop the objection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously applied prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights