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 § 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 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jetblue (NPL1 - https://www.visiontron.com/jetblue-terminal-5-customs-and-border-area-at-jfk-airport-in-new-york-city-t5i/) in further view of Crowd Control Warehouse (NPL2 – amazon)
Regarding claim 1, Jetblue discloses (NPL1 – pg. 2, top right corner), a railing arrangement that can adjust to an incline position toward the transverse direction to create a walkable pathway. The recited language is a functional recitation of a desired result. The structure of Jetblue is capable of carrying out the recited functions if given the proper conditions. Jetblue does not indicate the rails to be fastenable on sides of a vehicle. However, Crowd Control Warehouse discloses a railing unit that can mount to any wall. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to input a flexible railing arrangement along a vehicle walkway at some type of angle for the safety of workers.
Regarding claim 2, Crowd Control Warehouse discloses the handrail is flexible and rolled up when not in use. (NPL2 – pg. 5)
Regarding claim 3, Crowd Control Warehouse discloses the handrail rolled up when not in use and unrolled while in use. (NPL2 – pg. 5)
Regarding claim 5, Crowd Control Warehouse discloses a handrail having multiple rigid segments that are connected by at least one flexible strap element and couplable when in use and decouplable when not in use. As shown by Jet blue, the rigid portions (supports/spools) are separated by the flexible strap segments when the device is used in such a scenario.
Regarding claims 6-10, Crowd Control Warehouse discloses the rail unit to be coupled to a variety of walls and openings at any height of the wall. (NPL2 – pg. 5). These are intended use recitations, whereby the combination of JetBlue and Crowd Control Warehouse could meet said claim limitations.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jetblue (NPL1 - https://www.visiontron.com/jetblue-terminal-5-customs-and-border-area-at-jfk-airport-in-new-york-city-t5i/) and in further view of Beijing Cologne Co (NPL4 – https://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/emmacologne/product-detailCXxnyEmrmzYQ/China-Telescopic-Fence.html)
Regarding claim 1, Jetblue discloses (NPL1 – pg. 2, top right corner), a railing arrangement that can adjust to an incline position toward the transverse direction to create a walkable pathway. The recited language is a functional recitation of a desired result. The structure of Jetblue is capable of carrying out the recited functions if given the proper conditions. Jetblue does not indicate the rails to be fastenable on sides of a vehicle. However, Crowd Control Warehouse discloses a railing unit that can mount to any wall. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to input a flexible railing arrangement along a vehicle walkway at some type of angle for the safety of workers.
Regarding claim 4, the combination fails to teach telescopic segments.
Beijing Cologne Co discloses the handrail having multiple telescopically interconnected segments.
it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a stainless telescopic handrail as taught by Beijing, as to increase safety.
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akon (NPL3 – youtube video - youtube.com/watch?v=vcmNoehDUZw) in view of Jetblue and in further in view of Crowd Control Warehouse.
Regarding claim 11, Akon teaches a loading platform (see figure) with a railing arrangement for the platform which is adjacent a vehicle structure. Akon only shows the use of one railing, however, the concept of usings railings for safety is known and using one on each side of the platform would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The use of multiple units to define a walkable area is well known as evidenced by Jetblue (see figure). The concept of attaching the unit to a fixed structure such as that shown by Crowd Control Warehouse is also well known. The use of units as taught by Jetblue/Crowd and particular placement amounts to an intended use recitation of a known retractable que line. Therefore, 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 include a railing arrangement on a loading dock from pit edges or any other location that needs to be guarded for the safety of workers.
Regarding claim 12, Crowd Control Warehouse discloses the handrail is flexible and rolled up when not in use. (NPL2 – pg. 5)
Regarding claim 13, Crowd Control Warehouse discloses the handrail rolled up when not in use and unrolled while in use. (NPL2 – pg. 5)
Regarding claim 15, Crowd Control Warehouse discloses a handrail having multiple rigid segments that are connected by at least one flexible strap element and couplable when in use and decouplable when not in use. As shown by Jet blue, the rigid portions (supports/spools) are separated by the flexible strap segments when the device is used in such a scenario.
Regarding claims 16-20, Crowd Control Warehouse discloses the rail unit to be coupled to a variety of walls and openings at any height of the wall. (NPL2 – pg. 5). These are intended use recitations, whereby the combination of JetBlue and Crowd Control Warehouse could meet said claim limitations.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akon (NPL3 – youtube video - youtube.com/watch?v=vcmNoehDUZw) in view of Jetblue and in further in view of Crowd Control Warehouse and in further in view of Beijing Cologne Co.
Regarding claim 11, Akon teaches a loading platform (see figure) with a railing arrangement for the platform which is adjacent a vehicle structure. Akon only shows the use of one railing, however, the concept of usings railings for safety is known and using one on each side of the platform would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The use of multiple units to define a walkable area is well known as evidenced by Jetblue (see figure). The concept of attaching the unit to a fixed structure such as that shown by Crowd Control Warehouse is also well known. The use of units as taught by Jetblue/Crowd and particular placement amounts to an intended use recitation of a known retractable que line. Therefore, 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 include a railing arrangement on a loading dock from pit edges or any other location that needs to be guarded for the safety of workers.
Regarding claim 14, the combination fails to teach telescopic segments.
Beijing Cologne Co discloses the handrail having multiple telescopically interconnected segments.
it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a stainless telescopic handrail as taught by Beijing, as to increase safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alma D Schuster whose telephone number is (571)272-8938. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30am-6:30pm and Fri 7am-11am.
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, Amy R Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Alma D. Schuster/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights