Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/367,793

Modular Attachment to Construction Scaffold Systems

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 13, 2023
Examiner
BALLMAN, CHRISTOPHER D
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
359 granted / 468 resolved
+6.7% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
496
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.0%
+7.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 468 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Final Rejection 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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 10 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wescott (U.S. Patent 6,123,090) in view of Buonerba (U.S. Patent 8,132,686). Regarding claim 1, Wescott discloses a water collector and drain (FIG. 3) for a scaffolding 20 (“a supporting framework” Merriam-Webster), comprising: the scaffolding having at least one horizontal beam 30 and at least one vertical beam 23; a basin 50 (Col. 4 ln 8-10) coupled to the at least one horizontal beam, the fabric basin having an open end 52 and a concaved end (at 56); a drain exit 53 fluidly connected to the fabric basin at the concaved end; and a connection arrangement 60/65 for attaching the fabric basin to the at least one horizontal beam such that the open end at least partially extends past (FIG. 5) the horizontal beam of the scaffolding (FIG. 3-7, 9; Col. 5 ln 1-Col. 6 ln 62). Wescott is silent regarding the basin being fabric. However, Buonerba teaches a scaffold 16 having at least one horizontal beam 21 and at least one vertical beam 17; a fabric basin 26 coupled to the at least one horizontal beam by way of a clamp 74 (FIG. 5; Col. 2 ln 51-Col. 3 ln 36, Col. 3 ln 55-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Wescott by making the basin fabric and connecting it to the horizontal beam with a clamp, as taught by Buonerba, for the purpose of providing a basin with more flexibility, lower cost, and ease of storage while providing a suitable equivalent basin to the one disclosed. Regarding claim 2, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1. Westcott further discloses a filter 72 fluidly connected between the concaved end of the fabric basin and the drain exit (FIG. 6; Col. 7 ln 22-25). Regarding claim 3, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 2. Westcott further discloses the filter is replaceable (Col. 3 ln 14-16). Regarding claim 4, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1. Westcott further discloses a drain hose 90 fluidly connected to the drain exit (FIG. 3-6; Col. 6 ln 30-42). Regarding claim 5, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 4. Westcott further discloses the drain hose is coupled to the vertical beam of the scaffolding (FIG. 3, 4). Regarding claim 6, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1. Westcott/Buonerba further discloses the fabric basin further comprises: a beam clamp (Buonerba 74) for adjustably fixing to the at least one horizontal beam; at least one cable 60 (“a strong rope” Merriam-Webster) adjustably coupled to the beam clamp and adjustably coupled to the fabric basin at two ends; and at least one beam coupled to the fabric basin with the at least one cable (FIG. 5, 9; Col. 6 ln 5-34). Regarding claim 7, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 6. Westcott further discloses the at least one cable and at least one beam are adjustably coupled to rigidly support the fabric basin such that the open end is greater in square area than the concaved end (FIG. 6; Col. 6 ln 5-34). Regarding claim 9, Wescott discloses a rain water trap 50 and drain 90, comprising: a basin 50 (Col. 4 ln 8-10) having a collection end 52 and a funnel end (at 56); a drain pipe 90 fluidly connected to the fabric basin at the funnel end; and a connection arrangement 60/65 for attaching the fabric basin to a scaffolding framework 20 such that the collection end at least partially extends past (FIG. 5) at least one horizontal beam of the scaffolding (FIG. 3-7, 9; Col. 5 ln 1-Col. 6 ln 62). Wescott is silent regarding the basin being fabric. However, Buonerba teaches a scaffold 16 having at least one horizontal beam 21 and at least one vertical beam 17; a fabric basin 26 coupled to the at least one horizontal beam by way of a clamp 74 (FIG. 5; Col. 2 ln 51-Col. 3 ln 36, Col. 3 ln 55-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Wescott by making the basin fabric and connecting it to the horizontal beam with a clamp, as taught by Buonerba, for the purpose of providing a basin with more flexibility, lower cost, and ease of storage while providing a suitable equivalent basin to the one disclosed. Regarding claim 10, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 9. Westcott further discloses a filter 72 fluidly connected between the funnel end of the fabric basin and the drain pipe (FIG. 6; Col. 7 ln 22-25). Regarding claim 11, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 10. Westcott further discloses the filter is replaceable (Col. 3 ln 14-16). Regarding claim 12, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 9. Westcott further discloses a drain hose 90 fluidly connected to the funnel end (FIG. 3-6; Col. 6 ln 30-42). Regarding claim 13, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 12. Westcott further discloses the drain hose is coupled to a beam 23 of the scaffolding (FIG. 3-4). Regarding claim 14, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 9. Westcott/Buonerba further discloses the fabric basin further comprises: a beam clamp (Buonerba 74) for adjustably fixing to the at least one horizontal beam; at least one cable 60 (“a strong rope” Merriam-Webster) adjustably coupled to the beam clamp and adjustably coupled to the fabric basin at two ends; and at least one beam coupled to the fabric basin with the at least one cable (FIG. 5, 9; Col. 6 ln 5-34). Regarding claim 15, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 14. Westcott further discloses the at least one cable and at least one beam are adjustably coupled to rigidly support the fabric basin such that the collection end is greater in square area than the funnel end (FIG. 6; Col. 6 ln 5-34). Regarding claim 17, Wescott discloses a water collection and drainage attachment (FIG. 3) for a scaffold 20 (“a supporting framework” Merriam-Webster), comprising: the scaffold having at least one horizontal beam 30 and at least one vertical beam 23; a basin 50 (Col. 4 ln 8-10) coupled to the at least one horizontal beam, the fabric basin having an open end 52 and a concaved end (at 56); a drain exit 53 fluidly connected to the fabric basin at the concaved end; and a connection arrangement 60/65 for attaching the fabric basin to the at least one horizontal beam such that the open end at least partially extends past (FIG. 5) the horizontal beam of the scaffold (FIG. 3-7, 9; Col. 5 ln 1-Col. 6 ln 62). Wescott is silent regarding the basin being fabric. However, Buonerba teaches a scaffold 16 having at least one horizontal beam 21 and at least one vertical beam 17; a fabric basin 26 coupled to the at least one horizontal beam by way of a clamp 74 (FIG. 5; Col. 2 ln 51-Col. 3 ln 36, Col. 3 ln 55-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Wescott by making the basin fabric and connecting it to the horizontal beam with a clamp, as taught by Buonerba, for the purpose of providing a basin with more flexibility, lower cost, and ease of storage while providing a suitable equivalent basin to the one disclosed. Regarding claim 18, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 17. Westcott/Buonerba further discloses the fabric basin further comprises: a beam clamp (Buonerba 74) for adjustably fixing to the at least one horizontal beam; at least one cable 60 (“a strong rope” Merriam-Webster) adjustably coupled to the beam clamp and adjustably coupled to the fabric basin at two ends; and at least one beam coupled to the fabric basin with the at least one cable (FIG. 5, 9; Col. 6 ln 5-34). Regarding claim 19, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 18. Westcott further discloses the at least one cable and at least one beam are adjustably coupled to rigidly support the fabric basin such that the open end is greater in square area than the concaved end (FIG. 6; Col. 6 ln 5-34). Regarding claim 20, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 19. Westcott further discloses the fabric basin further comprises a ridged structure 71 at the edges of the fabric basin configured to maintain the open ends shape (FIG. 6; Col. 6 ln 54-62). Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wescott in view of Buonerba in further view of Belilty (U.S. Patent 11,220,807). Regarding claim 8, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 1. Wescott is silent regarding a storage tank fluidly connected to the fabric basin. However, Belilty teaches a storage tank 30 fluidly connected to the fabric basin 10 (FIG. 1A-1B; Col. 3 ln 12-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Wescott by adding a storage tank at the end of the drain tube connected to the fabric basin, as taught by Belilty, for the purpose of collecting the rain water for use or removal at a different area. Regarding claim 16, Wescott, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above from claim 9. Wescott is silent regarding a storage tank fluidly connected to the fabric basin. However, Belilty teaches a storage tank 30 fluidly connected to the fabric basin 10 (FIG. 1A-1B; Col. 3 ln 12-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to modify Wescott by adding a storage tank at the end of the drain tube connected to the fabric basin, as taught by Belilty, for the purpose of collecting the rain water for use or removal at a different area. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that none of the references refer to a scaffolding. Applicant states that Wescott is directed toward an apparatus for transporting water. However, as stated above, a scaffold is “a supporting framework” as defined by Merriam-Webster. Wescott discloses a “frame” 20. Examiner is not persuaded by applicant’s argument. Wescott very clearly discloses a water collector in container/catch basin 50 that is for a scaffolding in the form of frame 20. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Next applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose a fabric basin that extends past a horizontal bar to collect rainwater. As stated in the rejection above at page 3, Wescott discloses a catch basin 50 that overhangs at least partially past the horizontal beam of the scaffolding as shown in Figure 5. Examiner agrees that Wescott does not discloses the basin being fabric. However, Buonerba teaches a fabric basin 26 for holding water. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to change the material that the catch basin is made of for the purpose of providing a basin with more flexibility, lower cost, and ease of storage while providing a suitable equivalent basin to the one disclosed. Applicant has not stated any reason as to why a modification to the material of the catch basin of Wescott would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not 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 CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00. 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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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. /CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753 /CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 13, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595864
APPARATUS FOR NOISE REDUCTION IN VALVES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584563
SANITARY VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578022
A PNEUMATIC VALVE WITH FLEXI-SEALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565935
BALL VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12565736
STATIC MIXER FOR ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP (ESP) HIGH GAS/OIL RATIO (GOR) COMPLETIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+20.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 468 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month