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 .
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 11-12 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 11 recites “a first leg extending outwardly from the base portion, and a second, opposing leg extending outwardly from the base portion” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to the examiner if these are one of the first or second pairs of legs disclosed in claim 9 or if these are an additional pair of legs. For the purpose of this Office Action the examiner assumes they are the same legs as disclosed in claim 9.
Claim 12 is rejected due to its dependency from claim 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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulshafter, JR. (2004/0124036) hereinafter Ulshafter.
Ulshafter discloses:
Claim 1: An end support (Fig. 1; 26) for a sawhorse (Fig. 1; 20), the sawhorse comprising a body (Fig. 1; 20) comprising a plurality of rails (Fig. 1; 21,22), a first pair of legs (Fig. 1; 28,29) connected to said body, and a second pair of legs (Fig. 1; 31,32) connected to said body, said end support comprising:
a top side (Fig. 3; 59);
a rear side (Fig. 3; 38);
a pair of receiving portions (Fig. 4; 21/22) each extending between the top side and the rear side (Fig. 3), each of the pair of receiving portions being configured to receive and be coupled to at least one of the plurality of rails (Fig. 3; Para. [0033]); and
a pair of opposing and spaced apart protrusions (Fig. 4; 61/62) each extending outwardly from the rear side (Fig. 4; 61/62 extend outwardly from 38) but fails to disclose being configured to nest between opposing legs of a leg bracket of another sawhorse.
While Ulshafter fails to specifically disclose the pair of opposing and spaced apart protrusions being configured to nest between opposing legs of a leg bracket of another sawhorse, the examiner asserts that another sawhorse is capable of being stacked on top of the sawhorse of Ulshafter and the pair of protrusions would be nested between the opposing legs of another bracket. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to stack sawhorses on top of one another in order to reduce the footprint of multiple sawhorses on a worksite when not in use. Additionally, the examiner would like to note that another sawhorse is not being positively claimed.
Claim 2: The end support according to claim 1, wherein the pair of receiving portions comprises a first receiving portion (Fig. 4; 21) and a second receiving portion (Fig. 4; 22) disposed opposite the first receiving portion (Fig. 4; 21 and 22 are disposed opposite one another), wherein the pair of protrusions (Fig. 4; 61/62) comprises a first protrusion (Fig. 4; 61) and a second protrusion (Fig. 4; 62) disposed opposite the first protrusion (Fig. 4; 61 and 62 are disposed opposite one another), wherein the first receiving portion and the first protrusion are disposed in a first plane (Fig. 4; 21 and 61 are disposed in a first plane), and wherein the second receiving portion and the second protrusion are disposed in a second plane opposite and parallel to the first plane (Fig. 4; 22 and 62 are disposed in a second plane opposite and parallel to the first plane).
Claim 3: The end support according to claim 2, wherein the end support comprises a first flange (Fig. 4; 66) and a second flange (Fig. 4; 67) each extending outwardly from the rear side and each being disposed in a corresponding one of the first and second planes (Fig. 4; 66 and 67 are disposed in one of the first and second planes).
Claim 6: The end support according to claim 3, wherein the top side has a plurality of thru holes (Fig. 4; 76/78) for mounting of the end support to another leg bracket (Fig. 4; Para. [0032]).
Claim 9: A sawhorse (Fig. 1) comprising:
a body (Fig. 1; 20) comprising a plurality of rails (Fig. 1; 21,22);
a first pair of legs (Fig. 1; 28,29) connect to said body;
a second pair of legs (Fig. 1; 31,32) connected to said body; and
an end support (Fig. 1; 26) comprising:
a top side (Fig. 3; 59),
a rear side (Fig. 3; 58),
a pair of receiving portions (Fig. 4; 21/22) each extending between the top side and the rear side (Fig. 3), each of the pair of receiving portions receiving and being coupled to at least one of the plurality of rails (Fig. 3; Para. [0033]), and
a pair of opposing and spaced apart protrusions (Fig. 4; 61/62) each extending outwardly from the rear side (Fig. 4; 61/62 extend outwardly from 38) but fails to disclose being configured to nest between opposing legs of a leg bracket of another sawhorse.
While Ulshafter fails to specifically disclose the pair of opposing and spaced apart protrusions being configured to nest between opposing legs of a leg bracket of another sawhorse, the examiner asserts that another sawhorse is capable of being stacked on top of the sawhorse of Ulshafter and the pair of protrusions would be nested between the opposing legs of another bracket. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to stack sawhorses on top of one another in order to reduce the footprint of multiple sawhorses on a worksite when not in use. Additionally, the examiner would like to note that another sawhorse is not being positively claimed.
Claim 10: The sawhorse according to claim 9, wherein the end support comprises a first flange (Fig. 4; 66) and a second flange (Fig. 4; 67) each extending outwardly from the rear side and each being disposed adjacent a corresponding one of the pair of protrusions (Fig. 4; 66 and 67 are adjacent to 61 and 62 respectively), and wherein the first pair of legs are each disposed between the first flange and the second flange (Fig. 3; 28,29 are disposed between 66 and 67).
Claim 11 as best understood by the examiner: The sawhorse according to claim 10, further comprising another leg bracket (Fig. 1; 27) coupled to the top side (Fig. 3; via 79 and 81), wherein the another leg bracket comprises a base portion (Fig. 6; 48), a first leg (Fig. 1; 31) extending outwardly from the base portion, and a second (Fig. 1; 32), opposing leg extending outwardly from the base portion, wherein the first leg is disposed adjacent the first flange (Fig. 3; 28 is depicted adjacent to 66), wherein the second leg is disposed adjacent the second flange (Fig. 7; 29 is depicted adjacent to 67), and wherein the first and second legs are disposed between the first and second flanges (Fig. 3; 28,29 are disposed between 66 and 67). Note: legs 31/32 are referred to as being the additional set of legs depicted in Fig. 1, however, the details are not depicted showing those legs in Fig. 3 and 7.
Claim 12: The sawhorse according to claim 11, wherein the first pair of legs are rotatably coupled to the another leg bracket (Fig. 7; depicts the legs as rotatably coupled), wherein the first pair of legs comprises a first leg (Fig. 1; 28) and a second leg (Fig. 1; 29), wherein the sawhorse further comprises a first spring-loaded lever and a second spring-loaded lever each coupled to a corresponding one of the first and second legs, wherein, responsive to movement of the first spring-loaded lever and the second spring-loaded lever causes the corresponding first and second legs to move between extended and stowed positions (Fig. 7; 77, Para. [0034]).
Claims 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulshafter, JR. (2004/0124036) hereinafter Ulshafter, in view of Flick (4,911,390).
Claim 4: Ulshafter discloses the end support according to claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the end support further comprises a back side extending between the top and rear sides, and an end cap extending outwardly from the back side away from the first and second receiving portions, and wherein the end cap defines a slot between a distal portion thereof and the back side, for receiving a workpiece therein.
However, Flick discloses a back side (Fig. 4; 34) extending between the top and rear sides, and an end cap (Fig. 4; 36) extending outwardly from the back side away from the first and second receiving portions, and wherein the end cap defines a slot (Fig. 4; 70) between a distal portion thereof and the back side, for receiving a workpiece therein (Fig. 1; 18/24, Col. 6, Lines 14-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end support of Ulshafter to include the workpiece receiver, as taught by Flick, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the sawhorses to provide transverse support.
Claim 5: Ulshafter discloses the end support according to claim 4, wherein the back side has a centrally disposed thru hole (Fig. 4; nearest 38) or depression for allowing the end support to be hung on a wall with a balanced center of gravity (Fig. 4; the holes nearest 38 would allow the end supports to be hung on the wall with a balanced center of gravity).
Claim 8: Ulshafter discloses the end support according to claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the end support is made of monomeric and/or polymeric materials.
However, Flick discloses an end support made of polymetric materials (Col. 7, Lines 49-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end support of Ulshafter to be made of polymetric material, as taught by Flick, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would provide a high strength low weight end support.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulshafter, JR. (2004/0124036) hereinafter Ulshafter, in view of Skinner et al. (5,105,862) hereinafter Skinner.
Claim 14: Ulshafter discloses the sawhorse according to claim 9, but fails to disclose further comprising at least one strap coupled to the end cap and being configured to strap a workpiece to the sawhorse.
However, Skinner discloses a strap (Fig. 1; 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end cap of Ulshafter to include the strap, as taught by Skinner, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow items to be tightly secured to the sawhorse.
Claim 15: Ulshafter and Skinner disclose the sawhorse according to claim 14, but fails to disclose further comprising a member either provided with or coupled to the end cap, wherein the at least one strap has a plurality of spaced apart apertures for accepting the member in a corresponding plurality of different positions.
While Skinner fails to specifically disclose the member and aperture configuration, Skinner does disclose a hook and loop configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a strap with apertures to accept a member in a corresponding plurality of different positions (a buckle and strap configuration) because applicant has not disclosed that using a buckle and strap configuration provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Skinner’s hook and loop fastener strap, and applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the configuration taught by Skinner or the claimed buckle and strap configuration because both would perform the same function of securing items together.
Claim 16: Ulshafter and Skinner disclose the sawhorse according to claim 15, wherein the pair of receiving portions (Ulshafter - Fig. 4; 21/22) comprises a first receiving portion (Ulshafter - Fig. 4; 21) and a second receiving portion (Ulshafter - Fig. 4; 22) disposed opposite the first receiving portion (Ulshafter - Fig. 4; 21 and 22 are disposed opposite one another), wherein the member is either provided with or coupled to the first receiving portion, and wherein the at least one strap is coupled to the second receiving portion (Skinner – see the rejection of claim 15).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ulshafter, JR. (2004/0124036) hereinafter Ulshafter, in view of Busschaert et al. (2012/0111667) hereinafter Busschaert.
Ulshafter discloses:
Claim 17: A packaging kit comprising:
a first sawhorse (Fig. 1) comprising a first end support (Fig. 1; 26) and a leg bracket (Fig. 6; 51/52) coupled to the first end support (Fig. 6; via 53/54), the leg bracket comprising a base portion (Fig. 6; 48), a first leg (Fig. 6; 28) extending outwardly from the base portion, and a second, opposing leg extending outwardly from the base portion (Fig. 6; 29); and
Ulshafter fails to disclose a second sawhorse.
However, Busschaert discloses a second sawhorse (Fig. 1B; 10’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Ulshafter to include the second sawhorse, as taught by Busschaert, with a reasonable expectation of success because allow support for spanning work materials across providing a larger work area.
Thus, once combined Ulshafter and Busschaert disclose the second sawhorse of Busschaert, comprising a second end support (Ulshafter - Fig. 1; 26), the second end support comprising a top side (Ulshafter - Fig. 3; 59), a rear side (Ulshafter - Fig. 3; 38), a pair of receiving portions (Ulshafter - Fig. 4; 21/22), and a pair of opposing and spaced apart protrusions (Ulshafter - Fig. 4; 61/62) each extending outwardly from the rear side (Ulshafter - Fig. 4; 61/62 extend outwardly from 38), the pair of protrusions comprising a first protrusion (Ulshafter - Fig. 4; 61) and a second protrusion (Ulshafter - Fig. 4; 62) disposed opposite the first protrusion (Ulshafter - Fig. 4; 61 and 62 are disposed opposite one another).
While Ulshafter fails to specifically disclose wherein the first protrusion is disposed adjacent the first leg, wherein the second protrusion is disposed adjacent the second leg, and wherein the first and second protrusions are nested between the first and second legs of the leg bracket, the examiner asserts that the second sawhorse, of Busschaert, is capable of being stacked on top of the sawhorse of Ulshafter and the pair of protrusions would be nested between the opposing legs of another bracket. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to stack sawhorses on top of one another in order to reduce the footprint of multiple sawhorses on a worksite when not in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 13 and 18-20 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.
Claim 7 is considered allowable due to the recitation of the first flange comprising a first edge and a second edge each extending outwardly from the rear side toward one another.
Claim 13 is considered allowable due to the recitation of the first rail of the plurality of rails comprising an L-shaped cutout region disposed at an end thereof, and wherein the sawhorse further comprises an elongated component loosely maintained in a first receiving portion of the pair of receiving portions via engagement with the L-shaped cutout region.
Claim 18-19 are considered allowable due to the recitation of the first end support comprising a first flange comprising a first edge extending outwardly from the rear side of the first end support, wherein the second end support comprises a third flange extending outwardly from the rear side of the second end support, wherein the third flange comprises a third edge extending outwardly from the rear side of the second end support, and wherein the first edge and the third edge engage and are disposed parallel to one another
Claim 20 is objected to due to its dependency from claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen M. McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-9139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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.
/Kathleen M. McFarland/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Kathleen M. McFarland
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635