DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claims 4, and 11-24 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 7-10 are addressed on the merits herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 17a, 17b, 17c.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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 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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “Retaining structures” in claim 6. “Fastening structures” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to “cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification identifies the retaining structures as clamps or brackets ([0019]). The specification identifies the fastening structures as sleeves ([0020]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 1, 5, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parizeau (WO 2016/131138) in view of Reddicliffe (US 2014/0298741) and Bonlin (US 2019/0153720).
Re claim 1, Parizeau discloses a platform stack (Fig. 9 800) for a space-saving configuration (Fig. 9) of an energy conversion installation (800 is capable of use with an energy conversion installation), comprising a first platform (100) and a second platform (100) stacked one over another (Fig. 9) in the platform stack (800), wherein:
the first platform (100) is configured to position thereon a first skid (flooring of 100 in Fig. 6) with a first converter unit (floor of 100 in Fig. 6 is capable of positioning thereon a first converter unit, as this is a statement of intended use) of the energy conversion installation (100 is capable of use with an energy conversion installation, as this is part of a statement of intended use), and wherein the second platform (100) is configured to position thereon a second skid (flooring of 100 in Fig. 6) with a second converter unit (floor of 100 in Fig. 6 is capable of positioning thereon a second converter unit, as this is a statement of intended use) of the energy conversion installation (100 is capable of use with an energy conversion installation, as this is part of a statement of intended use), wherein the first (100) and the second platform (100) are configured to stack together (Fig. 9) one over another to form the platform stack (800),
- wherein the first platform (100) comprises a frame structure (see examiner comments) having a support surface (see examiner comments) for the first skid (see examiner comments), and comprises alignment elements (102, 104) on a first side (Fig. 6) of the frame structure (see examiner comments), and comprises support posts (see examiner comments) on a second side (Fig. 6) of the frame structure (see examiner comments) opposite the first side (Fig. 6),
- wherein the support posts (see examiner comments) of the first platform (100) are configured so that ends thereof (Fig. 9) work together in a stacked state (Fig. 9), to form a laterally centered (Fig. 9) and vertically spaced arrangement (Fig. 9) of the support surface (floor of 100) of the first platform (100) and the support surface (floor of another 100) of the second platform (100) within the platform stack (800), and/or the alignment elements of the first platform are configured so that they work together in a stacked state with ends of the support posts of the second platform to form a laterally centered and vertically spaced arrangement of the support surface of the first platform and the support surface of the second platform within the platform stack (as this is an “or” clause), and
- wherein, in the stacked state (Fig. 8), a free space (which receives 110) is formed between the support surfaces (of 100) of the first platform (100) and the second platform (another 100), for accommodating the first converter unit arranged on the first skid or the second converter unit arranged on the second skid (the space therein is capable of accommodating the first converter unit arranged on the first skid or the second converter unit arranged on the second skid, as this is a statement of intended use), wherein the free space (which receives 110) is without a wall surrounding (Fig. 6) the free space (which receives 110) along at least a portion of a periphery thereof (Fig. 6), and
wherein a wall surrounding (Fig. 6, Fig. 9; there being no wall) the support surface (see examiner comments) for the first skid (see examiner comments) of the first platform covers (100) at most 49% (Fig. 6, Fig. 9, showing no walls, and [0013] of Applicant’s specification defines this limitation as a wall ‘possibly present’) of a peripheral surface (Fig. 6, Fig. 9) surrounding the free space (which receives 10),
but fails to disclose wherein the frame structure also forms a standing surface which surrounds the support surface at least partially around a periphery of the support surface, and which is configured to be walkable for persons for access to an item on the frame structure; alignment elements on the support posts of the second platform.
However, Redicliffe discloses that it is known to provide a frame structure (20) which also forms a standing surface (Fig. 4, surrounding 10) which surrounds the support surface (which supports 10) at least partially around a periphery (Fig. 4) of the support surface (which supports 10), and which is configured to be walkable (Fig. 4) for persons for access to an item (10) on the frame structure (20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the platform stack of Parizeau where the frame structure also forms a standing surface which surrounds the support surface at least partially around a periphery of the support surface, and which is configured to be walkable for persons for access to an item on the frame structure as disclosed by Redicliffe in order to provide space for maintenance performance or extra room for additional storage.
In addition, Bonlin discloses alignment elements (65) on the support posts (1D) of the second platform (proximate 1B, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the platform stack of Parizeau with alignment elements on the support posts of the second platform as disclosed by Bonlin in order to provide precise connection and alignment during stacking, and to lock the first and second platforms together ([0122]).
Re claim 5, Parizeau as modified discloses the platform stack according to claim 1, wherein the standing surface (Redicliffe: Fig. 4, surrounding 10) of at least one of the first platform (100) and the second platform (100) comprises floor panels (115) comprising gratings (115; [0044]).
Re claim 8, Parizeau as modified discloses the platform stack according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a height of at least one of the first platform and the second platform is between 350 cm and 400 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the platform stack of Parizeau wherein a height of at least one of the first platform and the second platform is between 350 cm and 400 cm in order to optimize the sizing of the free space for a desired use, without wasting materials. In addition, 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).
Re claim 9, Parizeau as modified discloses the platform stack according to claim 1, but fails to disclose herein a width of the standing surface of at least one of the first platform and the second platform is at least 1 m.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the platform stack of Parizeau herein a width of the standing surface of at least one of the first platform and the second platform is at least 1 m in order to optimize the sizing of the free space for a desired use, without wasting materials. In addition, 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).
Re claim 10, Parizeau as modified discloses the platform stack according to claim 1, Bonlin discloses wherein the alignment elements (65) or the ends of the support posts each comprise a twist-lock fastener ([0136]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parizeau (WO 2016/131138) in view of Reddicliffe (US 2014/0298741), Bonlin (US 2019/0153720) and Dominitz et al (“Dominitz”) (US 4,974,377).
Re claim 2, Parizeau as modified discloses the platform stack according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the support surface for the first skid comprises a fire retardant material comprising a sandwich structure of two metal sheets and an intermediate non-combustible insulating material.
However, Dominitz discloses wherein the support surface (surface of 26) for the first skid (26) comprises a fire retardant material (Col 5 line 49 – Col 6 line 10 discloses vinyl foam which is fire resistant) comprising a sandwich structure (Col 6 lines 10-20) of two sheets (52, 53) and an intermediate non-combustible insulating material (Col 5 line 49 – Col 6 line 10 discloses vinyl foam).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the platform stack of Parizeau wherein the support surface for the first skid comprises a fire retardant material comprising a sandwich structure of two metal sheets and an intermediate non-combustible insulating material as disclosed by Dominitz in order to provide a lightweight, thermally insulating, high compressive strength and low cost material (Col 5 line 49 – Col 6 line 10). In addition, 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the platform stack of Parizeau as modified by Dominitz to make the two sheets metal in order to provide a rigid, easily manufacturable, durable material. In addition, 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parizeau (WO 2016/131138) in view of Reddicliffe (US 2014/0298741), Bonlin (US 2019/0153720) and Fan (US 2018/0274254).
Re claim 6, Parizeau as modified discloses the platform stack according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first platform and the second platform comprises retaining structures configured to hold supply lines to the respective skid and/or the respective converter unit arranged thereon in a region of the support surface.
However, Fan discloses wherein at least one of the first platform (1) and the second platform comprises retaining structures ([0066] “water supply connector”) configured to hold supply lines ([0066], water supply pipe) to the respective skid and/or the respective converter unit (per the above) arranged thereon in a region of the support surface (surface of 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the platform stack of Parizeau wherein at least one of the first platform and the second platform comprises retaining structures configured to hold supply lines to the respective skid and/or the respective converter unit arranged thereon in a region of the support surface as disclosed by Fan in order to supply water to the unit ([0066]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parizeau (WO 2016/131138) in view of Reddicliffe (US 2014/0298741), Bonlin (US 2019/0153720) and Rishkel et al (“Rishkel”) (US 2021/0254355).
Re claim 6, Parizeau as modified discloses the platform stack according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising fastening structures for a railing laterally delimiting the standing surface, wherein the fastening structures are on at least one of the first platform and the second platform.
However, Rishkel discloses further comprising fastening structures (120) for a railing (116) laterally delimiting (Fig. 1A) the standing surface (102), wherein the fastening structures (120) are on at least one of the first platform (100) and the second platform.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the platform stack of Parizeau further comprising fastening structures for a railing laterally delimiting the standing surface, wherein the fastening structures are on at least one of the first platform and the second platform as disclosed by Rishkel in order to quickly and easily allow for mounting and demounting of a guardrail ([0033]) for safety.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
419
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn, for the reasons stated in the previous rejection. However, the amendments thereto present a new objection as discussed in the above.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112f has been considered but are not persuasive. Although Applicant amended from “retaining elements” and “fastening elements” to “retaining structures” and “fastening structures,” “elements” constituted a so called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning. In the same manner, “structures” is also a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning. In other words, “structures” has no specific structural meaning. Therefore, the phrases, “retaining elements” and “fastening elements” are interpreted under 35 USC 112f in the same manner as the previous Non-Final Rejection.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that that the claim does not recite intended use (at least with respect to the position of the first skid on the first or second platform). Applicant states that the claim sets forth in an affirmative manner that the structure of the first and second platform have a configuration that accommodates the first and second skid, and also forms a standing surface. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim, in pertinent part, recites, “the first platform is configured to position thereon a first skid with a first converter unit of the energy conversion installation” and “the second platform is configured to position thereon a second skid with a second converter unit of the energy conversion installation” (emphasis added). The language “configured to position” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The language does not “affirmatively” (or positively) recite the claimed positioning, and only maintains that the platform is “configured to position” (be capable of positioning) a first and second skid thereon.
In addition, Applicant contends that Parizeau discloses two distinct frames: a first frame that supports cabinets 110, and a second frame that is floor grating 115 that is not configured to support 110, but instead configured to passes air therethrough. Regardless of the intended use of the frame elements of Parizeau, the claim recites, in pertinent part, “the first platform comprises a frame structure having a support surface for the first skid.” Fig. 6, as annotated, discloses a frame structure. That frame structure has a support surface (i.e., the top of the frame structure). Fig. 6 also shows floor grating thereon, cited as the skid. Therefore, Fig. 6 clearly denotes that there exists a first frame structure which includes a support surface onto which a first skid is placed.
Second, Applicant argues that Reddicliffe does not disclose a standing surface that is integral with the frame structure. Applicant contends that the array of cabinet frames 10 are “surrounded by an external, distinct frame 20 that comprises a balcony portion.” In effect, Applicant contends that because 20 is “distinct from” 10, it is a separate structure and thus cannot read on the claims. The claim does not recite or require “a standing surface that is integral with the frame structure). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, 20 surrounding 10 of Reddicliffe combine to form a final assembly 1. Therefore, the prior art meets the claim.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 Mattei can be reached at (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 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights