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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5, line 24, “he” should be replaced with –the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to
for an excessive word count of 190,
for the inclusion of implied language, specifically, “This invention relates to”, and,
for the inclusion of legal phraseology, specifically, multiple instances of “comprising”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6, the second incidence of “insert” should be replaced with –contact--,
Line 8, --is—should be inserted between “plate” and “above”, and,
Line 9, “contact” should be replaced with –insert--.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “there are” should be removed.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, --and the—should be inserted after the comma and “additionally” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Specifically, the “locking means” recited in claim 6 are being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and accordingly, are limited by the description of the tab lock pin and slot in the specification at page 4, lines 11-19.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Subers (US295592).
1: A stabilizer post (Fig. 1) for a scaffold hoist comprising a post (A) extending from an upper end to a lower end, an L-shaped upper angle insert comprising an upper contact plate (the vertical portion to the left of C) extending down to a substantially perpendicular upper insert plate (at D’), an L-shaped lower angle insert comprising a lower contact plate (the vertical portion to the left of D) extending up to a substantially perpendicular lower insert plate (at F’), and wherein the upper angle insert is attached adjacent to the upper end of the post so that the upper insert plate is below the upper insert plate and substantially perpendicular to the post and the lower angle insert is attached at the lower end of the post so that the lower insert plate above the lower contact plate and substantially perpendicular to the post (Fig. 1), and the lower contact plate and the upper insert plate are substantially parallel to one another (Fig. 1).
2: The stabilizer post of claim 1, additionally comprising an upper spacer (Fig. 1, the portion between C and C’) attached adjacent the upper end of the post and a lower spacer (Fig. 1, see the portion in the space between the post and lower contact plate) attached to the lower end of the post, wherein the upper angle insert is attached adjacent to the upper end of the post through attachment of the upper contact plate to the upper spacer (Fig. 1), and the lower angle insert is attached to the lower end of the post through attachment of the lower contact plate to the lower spacer (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subers (US295592) in view of Johnson (US5182889).
3. Subers fails to disclose the stabilizer post of claim 2 in which the upper insert plate, the upper contact plate and the lower insert plate additionally comprise attachment holes. Note however that Subers does disclose a hole in each of the angle inserts to accommodate screw threaded cranks (Fig. 6, D’’) for connecting the stabilizer post to the house. And Johnson teaches, in the context of scaffolding, an angle insert (Fig. 2, at 50) with a contact plate 46 and an insert plate 48, both of which are provided with attachment holes 60. It 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 to have included attachment holes in the upper insert plate, the upper contact plate and the lower insert plate of the stabilizer post disclosed by Subers according to the teachings of Johnson in order to allow for convenient attachment to a wood framed structure using nails 58 (Fig. 3, and also see col. 6, lines 48-66).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subers (US295592) in view of Darrey (US2988181).
4: Subers fails to disclose the stabilizer post of claim 1 in which the post additionally comprises slots through the post between the upper end of the post and the lower end of the post. Darrey teaches, in the context of scaffolding, slots (Fig. 1, 12) through the post (10) between the upper end of the post and the lower end of the post. It 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 to have included in which the post additionally comprises slots through the post between the upper end of the post and the lower end of the post in the stabilizer post disclosed by Subers according to the teachings of Darrey in order to provide adjustability, see Darrey, col. 7, line 8.
14: Subers fails to disclose the stabilizer post of claim 2 in which the post additionally comprises slots through the post between the upper end of the post and the lower end of the post. Darrey teaches, in the context of scaffolding, slots (Fig. 1, 12) through the post (10) between the upper end of the post and the lower end of the post. It 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 to have included in which the post additionally comprises slots through the post between the upper end of the post and the lower end of the post in the stabilizer post disclosed by Subers according to the teachings of Darrey in order to provide adjustability, see Darrey, col. 7, line 8.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subers (US295592) in view of Johnson (US5182889) and further in view Darrey (US2988181).
5. Subers in view of Johnson fail to disclose the stabilizer post of claim 3 in which the post additionally comprises slots through the post between the upper end of the post and the lower end of the post. Darrey teaches, in the context of scaffolding, slots (Fig. 1, 12) through the post (10) between the upper end of the post and the lower end of the post. It 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 to have included in which the post additionally comprises slots through the post between the upper end of the post and the lower end of the post in the stabilizer post disclosed by Subers in view of Johnson according to the teachings of Darrey in order to provide adjustability, see Darrey, col. 7, line 8.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subers (US295592) in view of Roy (US786054).
6. Subers fails to disclose the stabilizer post of claim 1 in which the post comprises an upper slide post and a lower slide post, the lower slide post is slidably engaged within the upper slide post, and there are locking means for detachably locking the upper slide post and lower slide post in place. Roy teaches, in the context of scaffolding, in which the post (Fig. 1) comprises an upper slide post (1) and a lower slide post (10), the lower slide post is slidably engaged within the upper slide post, and there are locking means (8) for detachably locking the upper slide post and lower slide post in place. It 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 to have included in which the post comprises an upper slide post and a lower slide post, the lower slide post is slidably engaged within the upper slide post, and there are locking means for detachably locking the upper slide post and lower slide post in place in the stabilizer post disclosed by Subers according to the teachings of Roy in order to detachably lock the upper slide post and the lower slide post in place, see Roy, pg. 1, lines 85-90.
7: Subers in view of Roy disclose the stabilizer post of claim 6, additionally comprising an upper spacer (Subers Fig. 1, the portion between C and C’) attached adjacent the upper end of the upper slide post and a lower spacer (Subers Fig. 1, see the portion in the space between the post and lower contact plate) attached to the lower end of the lower slide post, wherein the upper angle insert is attached adjacent the upper end of the upper slide post through attachment of the upper contact plate to the upper spacer (Subers Fig. 1), and the lower angle insert is attached to the lower end of the lower slide post through attachment of the lower contact plate to the lower spacer (Subers Fig. 1).
8: Subers in view of Roy disclose the stabilizer post of claim 7 in which the upper slide post (Roy, 1) additionally comprises slots (Roy 7) through the upper slide post (Roy 1) between the upper end of the upper slide post and the lower end of the upper slide post, lower slide post (Roy 10) additionally comprises slots (Roy 9) through the lower slide post between the upper end of the lower slide post and the lower end of the lower slide post.
9: Subers in view of Roy disclose the stabilizer post of claim 8 in which the locking means is a pin (Roy 8) inserted in the slots (Roy 7, 9) of the upper slide post (Roy 1) and lower slide post (Roy 10) when aligned (Roy pg. 1, lines 80-87: “The member 1 may be also provided with openings or apertures 7 to admit of the passage of a pin or bolt 8, which also passes through similar holes or openings 9 in the interior or internal portion 10 of the scaffold, by means of which said parts may be retained in the desired relative position”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subers (US295592) in view of Roy (US786054) and further in view of Johnson (US5182889).
10: Subers in view of Roy fail to disclose the stabilizer post of claim 2 in which the upper insert plate, the upper contact plate and the lower insert plate additionally comprise attachment holes. Note however that Subers does disclose a hole in each of the angle inserts to accommodate screw threaded cranks (Fig. 6, D’’) for connecting the stabilizer post to the house. And Johnson teaches, in the context of scaffolding, an angle insert (Fig. 2, at 50) with a contact plate 46 and an insert plate 48, both of which are provided with attachment holes 60. It 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 to have included attachment holes in the upper insert plate, the upper contact plate and the lower insert plate of the stabilizer post disclosed by Subers in view of Roy according to the teachings of Johnson in order to allow for convenient attachment to a wood framed structure using nails 58 (Fig. 3, and also see col. 6, lines 48-66).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shoemaker (US3134567) discloses a safety scaffolding support.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 5.
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.
/BAP/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634