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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-19, as originally filed 09 NOV. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of “Elected claims are drawn to a system described throughout the specification and shown well in most all the Figures 1 through 11, except Figures 7 A-G. These figures for Invention I are described in the detailed specification including Operations in Paragraphs [0036] through [0071] with the exceptions of Paragraph [0045] and [0048].” in the reply filed on 09 NOV. 25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the major Component portion for Invention I (the system) are the types of components or very similar components as needed to complete the stairway for Invention II… a search of the system will show the various stairways for multi-floored systems. Respectfully, these two related systems and stairway would not likely require added strain or added efforts by the Examiner.”
This is not found persuasive because the method claim 19 requires steps which would not necessarily be found in a search for the product of claim 1-18, specifically at least the steps of “Attaching… by lifting… and rolling”, “assembled… on the ground and… lifted… and connected”, “attached in an order specified… torsion lock drops”, and “sliding a pair of adjustable stair legs into the leg pockets” (Cl. 19) require a different field of invention, namely a distinct method which is unnecessarily related to —and unlikely to be retrieved by a search for— the product claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09 NOV. 25.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (see at least “PRIOR ART [0015]” p. 12-19 of 83) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities:
FIG. 2E: is/are each actually two (2) separate figures which should be labeled as such.
FIG. 2F: is/are each actually eight (8) separate figures which should be labeled as such.
“FIGURE 2E Repeated” is a distinct figure which should be labeled individually, and is/are each actually two (2) separate figures which should be labeled as such;
“ALL FIGURE 2G” is a distinct figure which should be labeled individually, and is/are each actually five (5) separate figures which should be labeled as such;
FIG. 3A: is/are each actually four (4) separate figures which should be labeled as such; the text is extraneous and should be deleted (see 37 CFR 1.84 (o))
FIG. 3B-3C; 4D-4E, 5A-5B, 6A-6C: the lead line(s) extending from reference characters “49”, “65”, “35”, “39” should not extend to different drawings (see 37 CFR 1.84 (i))
FIG. 5E: is/are each actually three (3) separate figures which should be labeled as such.
FIG. 6I: is/are each actually four (4) separate figures which should be labeled as such
FIG. 6J: is/are each actually three (3) separate figures which should be labeled as such.
FIG. 6K: is/are each actually five (5) separate figures which should be labeled as such.
FIG. 7C: is/are each actually ten (10) separate figures which should be labeled as such.
FIG. 8B: is/are each actually four (4) separate figures which should be labeled as such
FIG. 8C-8D; lead lines should not extend to different drawings (see 37 CFR 1.84 (i))
FIG. 8Ea-8F; lead lines should not extend to different drawings (see 37 CFR 1.84 (i))
FIG. 8F: is/are each actually four (4) separate figures which should be labeled as such
FIG. 8H-8I; lead lines should not extend to different drawings (see 37 CFR 1.84 (i))
FIG. 10A: is/are each actually four (4) separate figures which should be labeled as such; lead lines should not extend to different drawings (see 37 CFR 1.84 (i))
FIG. 12O-12Q: is/are each separate figures which should be labeled as such; lead lines should not extend to different drawings (see 37 CFR 1.84 (i))
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, therefore the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Cl. 6 ln. 4; Cl. 18 ln. 4: “bottom setting” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 9 ln. 7: a “torsion lock” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 10 ln. 5: “the top area” has not been explicitly pointed out
Cl. 11 ln. 4: a “hanger bracket for connecting to a wall structure” has not been explicitly pointed out (it is unclear how “connecting to a wall” is accomplished)
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3-18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 1, Cl. 8, Cl. 9, Cl. 10, Cl. 14: the uses of “Quickset” and “Quicset” should be harmonized (note: the specification also varyingly uses “Quicset”, “Quickset” and “quickset”);
Cl. 1 ln. 11: after “perimeter” insert --thereof--
Cl. 1 ln. 15; Cl. 3; Cl. 4; Cl. 6; Cl. 15; Cl. 16; Cl. 17; Cl. 18: replace “Reuseable Decking” with --Reconfigurable Structural--, no “Reuseable Decking” was introduced
Cl. 1 ln. 16: after “maintains a modular relationship to” replace “the mating wall structures” with --a mating wall structure-- as no “mating wall” has been heretofore introduced.
Cl. 1 ln. 17: after “and wherein” insert --the--
Cl. 1 ln. 18: after “platform configurations” insert --and--
Cl. 1 ln. 17: after “and wherein” insert --the--
Cl. 1 ln. 17: after “and wherein” insert --the--
Cl. 3 ln. 3: replace “Metals” with --metals--
Cl. 4 ln. 2: after “described in claim” replace “4” with --3-- as this claim would otherwise depend from itself
Cl. 5 ln. 2: after “described in claim” replace “4” with --3-- as this claim requires features only disclosed in claim 3
Cl. 5 ln. 3: after “consisting of” replace “poly urethanes” with --polyurethanes--
Cl. 5 ln. 4: after “nylons” replace “Poly Vinyl Chlorides” with --polyvinylchlorides--
Cl. 6 ln. 3; Cl. 18 ln. 3: replace “system walls” with --wall structures--
Cl. 6 ln. 4-5: after “floor surface and/or” insert --a-- before “deck surface” as no “deck surface” has been heretofore introduced
Cl. 6 ln. 5: after “deck surface and the” replace “walls” with --wall structures--
Cl. 6 ln. 5: after “hanging outside” replace “the” with --a--
Cl. 7 ln. 2: after “1 wherein” replace “the” with --a--
Cl. 8 ln. 5: after “column foot,” replace “a” with --an inner-- before “stiffener”
Cl. 8 ln. 6: after “column extension” insert --assembly--
Cl. 9 ln. 5: after “support with” insert --a--
Cl. 10 ln. 4: after “column and beam” insert --of the columns and beams-- (note the columns and beams previously in Cl. 1)
Cl. 10 ln. 5: replace “the” with --a-- before “top area” (note drawing objections; it is unclear if this is intended to suggest a top or a top area)
Cl. 11 ln. 2: replace “is further comprising” with --further comprises--
Cl. 12 ln. 2: after “claim 1 wherein” insert --a--:
Cl. 12 ln. 3-4: after “handrail or” replace “guard rail” with --guardrail--
Cl. 13 ln. 3: after “consisting of” insert --an--
Cl. 14 ln. 7: after “horizontal pre-manufactured beams“ insert --,-- (a comma)
Cl. 14 ln. 7-8: after “each” insert --of-- before “said”
Cl. 14 ln. 7-8: after “said” replace “beam” with --beams--
Cl. 14 ln. 9: after “with holes for” insert --a--
Cl. 14 ln. 10: after “support with” insert --a--
Cl. 14 ln. 10: after “shoulder bolt” replace “64)” with --(64)-- as reference characters must be embraced by brackets (see MPEP 608.01(m))
Cl. 14 ln. 13: after “Quicset for” delete “each”
Cl. 14 ln. 14: after “column,” insert --wherein--
Cl. 14 ln. 14: after “includes” delete --with--
Cl. 14 ln. 15: after “structural bolts and nuts to attach to” replace “a column and beam” with --one of the column and beams--
Cl. 14 ln. 24-25: after “panel at a perimeter” insert --thereof,--
Cl. 14 ln. 26: after “covers,” insert --and/or--
Cl. 14 ln. 26-27: after “slots for a handrail or” replace “guard rail” with --guardrail--
Cl. 14 ln. 27: after “and a set of hanging” replace “bracket” with --brackets-- ”
Cl. 14 ln. 31-32: after “lower landings,” replace “guard rails” with --guardrails--
Cl. 14 ln. 37: after “maintains a modular relationship to” replace “the” with --a--
Cl. 14 ln. 37-38: after “mating wall” replace “structures” with --structure--
Cl. 15 ln. 2: after “described in claim” replace “15” with --14-- as this claim would otherwise depend from itself
Cl. 16 ln. 2: after “described in claim” replace “16” with --15-- as this claim would otherwise depend from itself
Cl. 17 ln. 2: after “described in claim” replace “16” with --15-- as this claim requires features only disclosed in claim 15
Cl. 18 ln. 2: after “described in claim” replace “15” with --14-- as this claim requires features only disclosed in claim 14
Cl. 18 ln. 6: after “hanging outside“ replace “the” with --a--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 7 ln. 4-5 : after “configurations from a” the recitation(s) of “deck…. deck panel” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear if “deck panel” is distinct from the previously introduced “deck”, or how these are related.
Further, in line 4, it appears “and handrail combination” should be replaced by --handrail assemblies in combination--; clarification is required.
Cl. 10 ln. 4-5: the recitation(s) of ”male Quicset” and “female Quicset” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear if these are in addition to the previously “Quicset for each connection” (Cl. 1) or if a new “Quicset” —or one or more pairs thereof— are being introduced.
Cl. 11 ln. 3-4: after ”deck panel to” the recitation(s) of ”the beams and slots” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear which of the “beam” is being referring to and/or how “slots” are a component of the claim. Clarification is required.
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)(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.
Claim 1, 9, 8, 12-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson US 4691484 A.
As per claim 1 Wilson teaches a Metrideck Rapid Deployment and Reconfigurable Structural system (“SYSTEM” title; see FIGS. 2 and 4) made of durable materials and comprising:
(a) a set of at least four vertical columns (legs 34, FIG. 2, 4), each column (legs 34, FIG. 2, 4) with a set of attachment features (“lag bolts 38 are provided for threaded entry through holes 36 and 38” 3:62);
(b) a set of at least four horizontal pre-manufactured beams (see lower-right facing member comprising holes 38, apertures 105, and lower left facing member comprising holes 38, FIG. 2; also two opposing members not shown)) each said beam (see lower-right facing member comprising holes 38, apertures 105, and lower left facing member comprising holes 38, FIG. 2) with a set of attachment features (see holes at distal ends 31 of the hand rails 32, FIG. 2; these are recognized as attaching the beams as above identified);
(c) a Quicset (unidentified bolts for engaging apertures 105, FIG. 2; see also Cl. 11: ”expansion board members are constructed with apertures… facilitating the receipt… lag bolts therethrough”) for each connection of each said beam (see lower-right facing member comprising holes 38, apertures 105, and lower left facing member comprising holes 38, FIG. 2) and each vertical column (legs 34, FIG. 2, 4);
(d) at least one deck panel (platform 12, FIG. 2, 4);
(e) a series of curbing (side panel 14, end panel 16, boards 101, FIG. 4) which encircles the at least one deck panel (platform 12, FIG. 2, 4) at a perimeter --thereof-- (see 14, 16, 101, FIG. 4; these are recognized to surround the platforms as broadly claimed);
(f) a stair system (steps 18, FIG. 2, 4); and
(g) a set of straight and/or curved handrail/guardrail configurations (see at least handrails 32, 32, FIG. 2) wherein the Metrideck Rapid Deployment and [[Reuseable Decking]] --Reconfigurable Structural-- system (“SYSTEM” title; see FIGS. 2 and 4) maintains a modular relationship (see FIG. 3; this is recognized as teaching the cited assembly maintains a modular relationship with structure 50 because it can be removed) to [[the]] --a-- mating wall structures and
wherein --the-- Metrideck Rapid Deployment and Reconfigurable Structural system provides multiple platform configurations provides a higher strength to weight ratio compared to other rapid deployment decking systems (“security of one deck is not compromised by assembly to any of a plurality of decks” 5:20; “any of a plurality” is recognized as multiple configurations as broadly claimed; also “truss sections are fixedly preasembled for affording structural integrity thereto” abstract ln. 17; this is recognized as teaching “a higher strength to weight ratio” as broadly claimed).
As per claim 6 Wilson teaches the Metrideck Rapid Deployment and [[Reuseable Decking]] --Reconfigurable Structural-- system (“SYSTEM” title; see FIGS. 2 and 4) described in claim 1 wherein the modular relationship (see FIG. 3; this is recognized as teaching the cited assembly maintains a modular relationship with structure 50 because it can be removed) to the mating system walls (wall of structure 50, FIG. 3) is selected from the group consisting of walls with a bottom setting contiguous to a floor surface (see structure 50 contiguous with platform 12, FIG. 3) and/or deck surface and the walls are hanging outside [[the]] --a-- deck perimeter .
As per claim 8 Wilson teaches the Metrideck Rapid Deployment and Reconfigurable Structural system (“SYSTEM” title; see FIGS. 2 and 4) described in claim 1 wherein the set of attachment features (“lag bolts 38 are provided for threaded entry through holes 36 and 38” 3:62) for the vertical columns (legs 34, FIG. 2, 4) are selected from the group consisting of holes for attachment bolts (the above identified “holes 36 and 38” are recognized as being “for attachment” as broadly claimed), holes for a female Quicset, an adjustable column foot, a stiffener, a wire management hole, and a column extension --assembly-- .
As per claim 12 Wilson teaches the Metrideck Rapid Deployment and Reconfigurable Structural system (“SYSTEM” title; see FIGS. 2 and 4) described in claim 1 wherein --a-- set of attachments for the curbing (side panel 14, end panel 16, boards 101, FIG. 4) is selected from the group consisting of corners (69,70), covers (panel 16 is considered a cover, FIG. 3), slots for a handrail or [[guard rail]] --guardrail--, roto locks (67,68), and a [hanging bracket ] for straight and curved walls (77,78).
As per claim 13 Wilson teaches the Metrideck Rapid Deployment and Reconfigurable Structural system (“SYSTEM” title; see FIGS. 2 and 4) described in claim 1 wherein the stair system (steps 18, FIG. 2, 4) includes components selected from the group consisting of upper and lower stair assembly, upper and lower landings, [[guard rails]] --guardrails--, and support structures, fasteners, treads (treads, FIG. 3), and tread noses.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-5 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Jackson et al. US 10316509 B2 (Jackson).
As per claim 2 the primary reference of Wilson teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose:
the columns further comprise an inner stiffener.
Jackson teaches such an integrally formed stiffener for an openwork, specifically:
the columns further comprise an inner stiffener (see “second formed member may be constructed in a second “L” shape, and when constructed the attached first and second “L” shaped members form a “t” shape providing rigidity to the structure 100.” 4:32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Wilson by including the stiffener as taught by Jackson to strengthen members where an increased resistance to buckling is required, such as under a heavily loaded area.
As per claim 3 the primary reference of Wilson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the durable materials are selected from the group consisting of Metals, reinforced plastics, and composite materials.
Jackson teaches such materials, specifically:
wherein the durable materials are selected from the group consisting of Metals, reinforced plastics, and composite materials (“steel that has been powder-coated to resist weather… or any other component of the beam and post system… materials other than steel… plastic, or other metals.” 7:35-46; all forms of steel are considered alloys).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Wilson by substituting steel as taught by Jackson to strengthen and thereby improve the value of the assembly .
As per claim 4-5 Wilson in view of Jackson teaches the limitations according to claim 3 and Jackson further discloses (Cl. 4) wherein the metals are selected from the group consisting of steel alloys, aluminum, and titanium (see “steel that has been powder-coated to resist weather… or any other component of the beam and post system… materials other than steel… plastic, or other metals.” 7:35-46; all forms of steel are considered alloys); and (Cl. 5) wherein the reinforced plastics are selected from the group consisting of poly urethanes, nylons, Poly Vinyl Chlorides, cast, and injection molded acrylics, and other reinforced polymers manufactured with reinforcing fibers (see “any other component of the beam and post system… composite laminates (e.g. carbon fiber)” 7:41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Wilson in view of Jackson substituting the chosen materials as being one of steel alloy or reinforced polymers as taught by Jackson in order to visibly provide assurance to an end user the assembly is compatible with increased loads.
As per claim 9 the primary reference of Wilson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
the set of attachment features for the beams are selected from the group consisting of a beam to column attachment plate with holes for male Quickset, an intermediate beam support with --a-- shoulder bolt, an intermediate beam attachment plate, a beam end, a set of beam lightening openings, and a torsion lock .
Jackson teaches finishing features enabling the assembly to be used interoperably with an extended system, specifically:
the set of attachment features for the beams are selected from the group consisting of a beam to column attachment plate with holes for male Quickset, an intermediate beam support with --a-- shoulder bolt, an intermediate beam attachment plate, a beam end (knee brace 114, FIG. 2; this is recognized as a “beam end” because it transfers loads from the end of the vertically, horizontally, and cross-wise extending beam ends), a set of beam lightening openings, and a torsion lock .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Wilson by including the beam end connecting knee brace as taught by Jackson in order to provide additional structural support by resisting twisting motion between a vertical, horizontal, and cross-wise extending confluence of beams..
Claim 7 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson.
As per claims 7 and 11 the primary reference of Wilson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and further discloses the deck can be expanded (see “ Expansion, in accordance with the present invention, does not compromise the structural integrity… Additional sections are simply secured… boards 101 are provided for placement between the legs 34 of each deck section 12 for facilitating flush engagement with the abutting deck section… for securement of one deck structural member to the other… bi-directional expansion of the deck system can be incorporated… other deck sections which in and of themselves are self-sustaining… assembly to any of a plurality of decks” 4:62-5:22), and used with members of any size (see “not dependent upon the size” 5:38) and further comprises a bracket for connecting to a wall structure (see uppermost member 34. FIG. 3) but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 7) the component configuration can permit at least 14 structural configurations from a single M14 beam, column, deck --panel--, and handrail combination with the addition of one 1m by 1m deck panel; and
(Cl. 11) the at least one deck panel [[is further comprising]] --further comprises-- hardware to attach the deck panel to the beams and slots to attach a hanger bracket for connecting to a wall structure.
It has been held that: “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82, USPQ2d at 1396; also Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would teach substituting a deck panel of any size —including “1m by 1m”— and using a vertical member to attach the assembly to a wall structure, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the assembly by including a larger deck panel and using the vertical member as a hanging bracket
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Simmons US 8453414 B2.
As per claim 10 the primary reference of Wilson teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the Quicset includes with a pair of threaded structural bolts and nuts to attach to a column and beam,
a male Quicset attached to an end of the beam and a female Quicset attached to the top area of the column
wherein both the male and female Quicset have mating dovetails to provide a tight interlock without the need for tools or fasteners during an initial assembly of the column and beam.
Simmons teaches interconnect structures, specifically:
wherein the Quicset includes with a pair of threaded structural bolts and nuts to attach to a column and beam (see “Assembly 74, as seen in FIG. 4, includes a bolt … with an elongate shank” 7:48),
a male Quicset (upper right member 62, FIG. 4; note male member extending into collar 54) attached to an end of the beam (beam 42, FIG. 4) and a female Quicset (collar 54, FIG. 6) attached to the top area of the column (column 28, FIG. 4)
wherein both the male and female Quicset have mating dovetails to provide a tight interlock without the need for tools or fasteners during an initial assembly of the column and beam (see FIG. 4; these are recognized as capable of providing an interlock at least by virtue of their dovetail shapes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Wilson by including the dovetail beam to column members as taught by Simmons in order to impart an omni-directional functional symmetry between the so-connected members and thereby resist collapse of the assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14-18 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Examiner notes that a thorough search was performed and the prior art of record has been cited; the Examiner did not find a reference or combination of references that distinctly disclosed or fairly suggested a modification to arrive at a reconfigurable deck system which combines
a beam to column attachment plate and an intermediate beam attachment plates between columns equipped with mating dovetails between columns and beams and Quicsets for each connection; and
a deck panel with curbing and handrails capable of connecting the assembly to a nominal stair system with a series of locks.
The Examiner believes that the combination of all of the elements as specifically claimed would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art without relying on hindsight. Thus, the claims 14-18 are allowable over the prior art references of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 D MATTEI can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635