DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to the election/amendment filed for application 18/739,079 on June 9, 2026.
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 Interpretations
A “side surface” or a “side” of a separate dunnage has been interpreted as a substantially vertical surface of said dunnage that is not a top or bottom [surface].
A “pipe chock” has been interpreted as a chock that supports any cylindrical object (solid, hollow, etc.).
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 3 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 3, on line 1, the limitation “wherein said pipe chock is metal” is repetitive, as this limitation is substantially claimed in claim 2 (to which claim 3 depends on). It is suggested applicant remove “wherein said pipe chock is metal and” on line 1 of Claim 3.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “means thereon for attaching to a side” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “attaching” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 16 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: holes (see paragraph 65).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Black (US 354010; see annotated Figure 2 for some of the limitations).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, Black teaches a pipe chock, said pipe chock comprising: a) a pipe support D having a generally right triangular prism shape with an upwardly angled top, a bottom, a back, a first triangular side and a second triangular side (Fig. 2);b) a single dunnage attachment member (Fig. 2) downwardly depending from said first triangular side; c) said dunnage attachment member having holes F therein for fastening said pipe chock to a side surface A of a separate dunnage A/B; and d) said top supporting a separate tubular member when in use (page 1, line 11).
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) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black ‘010. With regard to claim 10, Black teaches the chock, wherein the dunnage is metal (page 1, line 42), but lacks the specific teaching wherein the pipe chock comprises a metal selected from alloy steel, carbon steel, tool steel, or stainless steel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Black to employ a pipe chock comprising a metal selected from alloy steel, carbon steel, tool steel, or stainless steel with reasonable expectation for success in order to produce a chock made of durable material, and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. With regard to claim 16, Black teaches a pipe chock, said pipe chock comprising: i) a generally right triangular prism shaped metal wedge component D sized to fit over a separate dunnage A/B; and ii) a single metal dunnage attachment (Fig. 2) surface downwardly depending from said wedge component and integral with a side surface of said wedge (Fig. 2) and having attachment means F thereon for attaching to a side A of said separate dunnage A/B. Black teaches the chock, wherein the dunnage is metal (page 1, line 42), but lacks the specific teaching wherein the pipe chock is metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Black to employ a pipe chock comprising a metal with reasonable expectation for success in order to produce a chock made of durable material, and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Santos (US 10202064). With regard to claim 3, Black teaches the chock, but lacks the teaching wherein said metal pipe chock or a portion thereof is coated with an anti-rust or resin coating. Santos teaches a pipe support block 10 (Col. 3, line 57) wherein the block or a portion thereof is coated with an anti-rust or resin coating 65 (Col. 4, line 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Black to employ a resin coating in view of Santos with reasonable expectation for success in order to “help withstand heavy wear and tear” (Col. 4, lines 23-24). With regard to claim 6, Black teaches the chock but lacks the specific teaching wherein said top further comprises a layer of resin on an upper surface of said top. Santos teaches a pipe support block 10 (Col. 3, line 57) wherein the top comprises a layer of resin 65 (Col. 4, line 27) on an upper surface of said top. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Black to employ a resin on an upper surface of said top in view of Santos with reasonable expectation for success in order to “help withstand heavy wear and tear” (Col. 4, lines 23-24). With regard to claim 7, Black teaches the chock , but lacks the specific teaching wherein said top further comprises a 0.25-1 inch layer of resin on an upper surface of said top, said resin selected from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or nylon. Santos teaches a pipe support block 10 (Col. 3, line 57) wherein the top comprises a layer of resin 65 (Col. 4, line 27) on an upper surface of said top. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Black to employ a resin on an upper surface of said top in view of Santos with reasonable expectation for success in order to “help withstand heavy wear and tear” (Col. 4, lines 23-24). Black and Santos lack the specific teaching wherein the resin layer is 0.25-1 inch and wherein said resin selected from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or nylon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Black and Santos to employ a resin layer is 0.25-1 inch and wherein said resin selected from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or nylon (nylon is a resin based mixture) in order to produce a chock of preferred dimension and material. Also,
Since such a modifcation would have involved a mere change in size of a component (thickness of resin). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 and 15 are allowed.
Claim 4 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to show or render obvious the pipe chock as claimed, and particularly
wherein said pipe chock is cut as a single piece from a sheet of metal and formed by bending and welding said cut sheet, and including the remaining structure of claim 4. Invention also particularly includes a single metal dunnage attachment member downwardly depending from said first triangular side and protruding beyond said front end of said bottom; said dunnage attachment member having holes therein for fastening said pipe chock to a side of said separate dunnage; and including the remaining structure of claim 8. Claims 9-13 and 15 depend upon claim 8.
Suggestions for Applicant
The following amendments would overcome the cited prior art as applied as well as the remaining cited references:
Claim 1) A pipe chock, said pipe chock comprising: a) a pipe support having a generally right triangular prism shape with an upwardly angled top, a bottom, a back, a first triangular side and a second triangular side; b) only a single dunnage attachment member downwardly extending and beyond the bottom of said support; c) said dunnage attachment member having holes therein for fastening said pipe chock to a side surface of a separate dunnage; and d) said top supporting a separate tubular member when in use.
Claim 16) A metal pipe chock, said pipe chock comprising: i) a generally right triangular prism shaped metal wedge component sized to fit over a separate dunnage; and ii) only a single metal dunnage attachment surface downwardly extending and beyond a bottom surface of the chock; and having attachment means thereon for attaching to a side of said separate dunnage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Woodworth (US 1566947) has been cited to show a similar pipe chock comprising: a pipe support 3 with a prism shape (Fig. 2); a dunnage 6, and a dunnage attachment member having holes @7.
Michod (US 1538998) has been cited to show a similar pipe chock comprising: a pipe support 10/17 with a prism shape (Fig. 1); a dunnage 6, and a dunnage attachment member 17 having holes 21, wherein the chock is made of sheet metal (page 2, line 6-10) that can be welded (page 1, line 109, and the metal is #16 gage metal (commonly aluminum, mild steel or stainless steel).
Neuhauser (US 3091348) has been cited to show a similar pipe chock comprising: a pipe support 44/46 with a prism shape (Fig. 5); a dunnage 40, and a dunnage attachment member having holes 48.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights