DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 12/2/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/2/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “formed in the top thereof” in line 4 and “from the top of the body” in line 5 should be corrected as --formed in the top portion thereof-- and --from the top portion of the body-- respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “nine inches wide at the top, and preferably about eight inches wide at the top” in line 2 should be corrected as --nine inches wide at the top portion, and preferably about eight inches wide at the top portion--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the perimeter of the base to help keep the support level” should be corrected as --[[the]]a perimeter of the base to help keep [[the]]a support level--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “single horizontal apertures” in lines 1-2 should be corrected as --single horizontal [[apertures]]aperture--. 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.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, 10 are 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.
Claim 2: Claim 2 recites “a plurality of supports” in line 3. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. The instant invention is “a support” and it is not clear how a support and a plurality of supports are related. For examination purposes, “a plurality of supports” is interpreted as --a plurality of the supports--.
Claim 4: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation each of the walls ranging between about six inches and nine inches wide at the top portion and each of the walls ranging between about ten inches wide and fourteen inches wide at the base, and the claim also recites preferably about eight inches wide at the top portion and preferably about twelve inches wide at the base which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that the narrower language is not required.
Claim 5: Claim 5 recites the limitation "the lower base" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 1 (which upon claim 5 depends) recites “a base” in line 2. For examination purposes, “the lower base” is interpreted as --the [[lower]] base--.
Claim 7: Claim 7 recites the term, “they” in line 2 which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, “they” is interpreted as --[[they]]the two adjoining walls--
Claim 8: Claim 8 recites “each of the plurality of construction supports” in line 1. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite. The preamble of claim 8 is “The support”, therefore, it is not clear how the plurality of construction supports is related to the support. For examination purposes, “wherein each of the plurality of construction further comprises” is interpreted as --wherein the support includes a plurality of construction supports, wherein each of the plurality of the construction supports further comprises--.
Claim 10: Claim 10 recites “single horizontal aperture and pairs of vertical apertures for grabbing or picking up the support by hand”. It is noted that claim 9 (which upon claim 10 depends) recites “at least one hand hole” for carrying the support. The scope of the claim is indefinite because it is not clear how “single horizontal aperture and pairs of vertical apertures for grabbing or picking up the support by hand” is different from “at least one hand hole for carrying the support”. The originally filed specification discloses that the single horizontal aperture and pair of vertical apertures serve as hand holes (para[0015]). For examination purposes, “wherein each of the plurality of walls includes both single horizontal aperture and pairs of vertical apertures” is interpreted as --wherein [[each of the plurality of walls]] the at least one hand hole includes both single horizontal aperture and pairs of vertical apertures--.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 further recites how the receiving area is “adapted to” secure wooden planks (which are not parts of the invention). Claim 3 does not further define any structural limitations of the support. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Phillips et al (US 11,280,430 B2).
Regarding claim 1¸ Phillips et al (‘430) discloses a construction support (fig1, abstract), comprising: a) a hollow (col.1 lines58-59, “a hollow interior”), pyramid-shaped body (fig1) having a top portion (figA below) and a base 22 (col.2 line55), the body including a plurality of tapered walls 14,16,18,20 (col.2 lines47-48) which meet at corners (fig1), each of the plurality of walls 14,16,18,20 including a notch 24,26 (col.2 lines64-65) formed in the top portion thereof; b) a plurality of posts (figA below) projecting upwardly from the top portion of the body (figA below); and c) a receiving area (area between the posts) defined by the posts, wherein the support creates a stable foundation and evenly distributes the weight of a load that applied to or placed within the receiving area (col.1 lines13-16, abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
659
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2¸ Phillips et al discloses the support of claim 1, wherein the body has an inner surface (fig2) and an outer surface (fig1), and wherein the inner and outer surfaces are substantially complementary to each other to allow a plurality of the supports to be stacked within one another for storage and transport (fig3).
Regarding claim 3¸ Phillips et al discloses the support of claim 1, wherein the receiving area is adapted to secure wooden planks in intersecting relationship to each other (by placing one plank on the notches 24 and another plank on the notches 26, col.2 lines64-67).
Regarding claim 5¸ Phillips et al discloses the support of claim 1, wherein the base 22 includes a foot member 68 (figs1-2, col.4 line30) which extends around a perimeter of the base 22 to help keep a support level (fig1).
Regarding claim 7, Phillips et al discloses the support of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of posts (figA) are formed by two adjoining walls (figs1,A, the walls 14 and 18, the walls 18 and 16, the walls 16 and 20, the walls 20 and 14) of the plurality of walls 14,16,18,20as the two adjoining walls meet at one of the corners of the support.
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) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 11,280,430 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Phillips et al discloses the support of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose ranges of widths of the walls. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.). In this case, the support of Phillips et al is being used as a construction support with each and every positively recited structural limitations (i.e. the body, the walls, the notch, the posts, the receiving area). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips et a to have the walls with recited widths, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.).
Regarding claim 9, Phillips et al discloses the support of claim 1. Alternate embodiment of Phillips et al teaches a use of at least one hand hole 140 (col.5 lines43-50) for carrying the support. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips to use a hand hole, as taught by alternate embodiment, for the purpose of moving and/or otherwise handling the support (col.5 lines43-50).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 11,280,430 B2) in view of Bennett et al (US 2007/0193189 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Phillips et al discloses the support of claim 1, however, does not explicitly disclose a use of resilient polymeric material to construct the support. Bennett et al (‘189) teaches to construct a support from a single piece of a resilient polymeric material (para[0052]) since such material is light in weight yet strong enough to support loads securely, without collapsing under the weight of the load (para[0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips et al to construct a support from a single piece of a resilient polymeric material, as taught by Bennett et al, since such material is light in weight yet strong enough to support loads securely, without collapsing under the weight of the load (para[0052]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 11,280,430 B2) in view of Hoffman et al (5,392,575).
Regarding claim 8, Phillips et al discloses the support of claim 1, wherein the support comprises a plurality of construction supports (fig3), however, does not explicitly disclose a use of at least one screw hole. Hoffman et al (‘575) teaches a use of screw holes 24 (col.4 lines54-57) to receive fasteners for securement of a load to the support (col.4 lines54-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips et al to use at least one screw hole, as taught by Hoffman et al, to receive fasteners for securement of a load to the support (col.4 lines54-57).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al (US 11,280,430 B2) in view of Burnett (US 2012/0312202 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Phillips et al teaches the support of claim 9, however, does not explicitly teach a use of single horizontal aperture and pairs of vertical apertures as parts of at least one hand hole. Phillips et al teaches a use of one vertical aperture 140. Burnett (‘202) teaches a use of multiple apertures (fig1, abstract) on each of sidewalls (fig1) of a support (fig1, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phillips et al to use multiple apertures, as taught by Burnett, for the purpose of using the apertures to receive more planks/pipes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seahee Hong whose telephone number is (571)270-5778. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-4pm ET.
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 Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/SEAHEE HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723