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 1-2, 4-5, 7-20 are pending.
Claims 3 and 6 are cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the nets and ropes course elements of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 15 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.
Re claim 15, claim 15 recites, “the trafficability” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a trafficability” and will be interpreted as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Haussler (EP0118723).
Re claim 1, Haussler discloses a helical tower (10), comprising:
a plurality of helical tower windings (20), which are helically connected to each other (Fig. 1) for travel by a vehicle (Fig. 1);
wherein each of the tower windings (20) is formed of a plurality of interconnected winding modules (30) which also interconnect adjacent tower windings (20); and
wherein a respective upper one (top 20) of the tower windings (20) is mountable from a respective lower one (lower 20) of the tower windings (20) by connecting further winding modules (30),
a plurality of stairway elements (at 17, claim 1) which are connected with each other (Fig. 1) to be accessible by a user (Fig. 1);
wherein the plurality of stairway elements (17) extend in an opposite spiral direction (Fig. 3 showing a reverse direction) to the plurality of drivable tower windings (20; Fig. 1 shows 20 rotating from top to bottom in a clockwise direction, whereas Fig. 1 shows 17 rotating from top to bottom counterclockwise).
Re claim 2, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 1, wherein the helical tower (10) is continuously drivable from (Fig. 1) the ground to a platform (uppermost 20) at the top (Fig. 3).
Re claim 4, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 3, wherein the stairway elements (at 17) are continuously accessible from (Fig. 1) the ground (Fig. 1) up to a platform (uppermost 20) at the top (Fig. 3).
Re claim 5, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 3, wherein the stairway elements (at 17) are helically connected with one another (Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
Re claim 7, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 1, wherein the tower windings (20) are designed as a drive-on ramp (Fig. 1 showing a vehicle driving thereon).
Re claim 8, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 1, comprising construction equipment (66), which is attached to (Fig. 3) the helical tower (10).
Re claim 10, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 1, wherein each winding module (30) comprises a surface element (Fig. 5, top of 30 at 50), for contributing to the trafficability (Fig. 5) and a connecting element (42, 44), for connecting with another winding module (30), and optionally a stairway element (this language being optional; however, see at 17).
Re claim 12, Haussler discloses a method of using (see Fig. 1 being used by vehicles) the helical tower according to claim 1 (see above), travel by a vehicle (Fig. 1) and/or for walking on by a user in rough terrain (as this is an “and/or” clause).
Re claim 14, Haussler discloses a winding module (30) for forming a helical tower according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the winding module (30) comprises a surface element (Fig. 5, top of 30 at 50) for contributing to the trafficability (Fig. 5) and a connecting element (42, 44), for connecting with another winding module (30) of the helical tower (10).
Re claim 15, Haussler discloses the winding module according to claim 14, wherein the surface element (Fig. 5, top of 30 at 50) for contributing to the trafficability (Fig. 5) is arranged horizontally (Fig. 3) or inclined and the connecting element (42, 44), for connecting with another winding module (30) of the helical tower (10) is arranged vertically (Fig. 3, Fig. 5).
Re claim 16, Haussler discloses the winding module according to claim 14, further comprising a stairway element (at 17).
Re claim 17, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 1, wherein the tower windings (20) are designed as a wheelchair ramp (Fig. 1, being capable of receiving a wheelchair); and/or wherein the construction equipment (66) comprises a mini crane (66).
Re claim 18, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 10, wherein the surface element (Fig. 5, top of 30 at 50) for contributing to the trafficability (Fig. 5) is arranged horizontally (Fig. 3) or inclined and the connecting element (42, 44), for connecting with another winding module (30) is arranged vertically (Fig. 3, Fig. 5).
Re claim 19, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 10, wherein each winding module (30) further comprises a stairway element (at 17).
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) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haussler (EP0118723) in view of Bercuvicy (US 0688,713).
Re claim 9, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 1, but fails to disclose comprising at least one of a group consisting of a railing, a slide, a net and ropes course elements.
However, Bercuvicy discloses comprising at least one of a group consisting of a railing (E), a slide, a net and ropes course elements.
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 helical tower of Haussler comprising at least one of a group consisting of a railing, a slide, a net and ropes course elements as disclosed by Bercuvicy in order to prevent users or vehicles from traveling too far off of the edge of the tower, ramps and/or platforms, as railings are extremely well-known and common in the art.
Re claim 13, Haussler discloses the method according to claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the rough terrain comprises at least one of a group consisting of a mountain terrain, a no-fly zone, a forest, an island, and an area without available cranes, helicopters and heavy construction equipment.
However, Bercuvicy discloses wherein the rough terrain comprises at least one of a group consisting of a mountain terrain (Page 1 line 89-94), a no-fly zone, a forest, an island, and an area without available cranes, helicopters and heavy construction equipment.
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 method of Haussler wherein the rough terrain comprises at least one of a group consisting of a mountain terrain, a no-fly zone, a forest, an island, and an area without available cranes, helicopters and heavy construction equipment as disclosed by Bercuvicy in order to enjoy the views thereof (Page 1 line 89-94). In addition, it is noted that this language is directed to the intended locational use of the invention. 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.
Claim(s) 11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haussler (EP0118723) in view of Weston (US 3,824,752).
Re claim 11, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 1, but fails to disclose formed with a polygonal outline.
However, Weston discloses formed with a polygonal outline (Fig. 1, Title).
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 helical tower of Haussler to be formed with a polygonal outline as disclosed by Weston in order to provide cost-effectiveness in construction, unique aesthetics, and enhanced functional in capturing views, all known benefits of polygonal buildings. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 20, Haussler discloses the helical tower according to claim 11, formed with an octagonal outline (Fig. 1, Title).
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Claims: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claim objections is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant provided no remarks or amended drawings. Thus, objection to the drawings is maintained.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is partially persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby partially withdrawn, but for the rejection of claim 15 presented above.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102 and/or 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Haussler fails to disclose the stairway elements extending in an opposite spiral direction to the windings. Applicant argues that 17 runs in the parallel or same direction as that of 20. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Features 20, from top to bottom, extend in a clockwise direction. This is shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 by the planar portion of 20 wrapping, from the top left, behind the central column, towards the bottom right, in a clockwise direction. Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 also shows 17 wrapping, from top left to bottom right, in front of the column. This is apparent from the depiction of the actual staircase details shown therein. In any event, even if what Applicant argues were the case, there is no point of reference specific to each element for the spiraling and/or opposite directions. In other words, the windings could be said to spiral one direction from top to bottom. The stairway elements could be said to wind the opposite direction from bottom to top.
Next, Applicant argues that the skilled person would not be able to arrive at the claimed invention in view of Haussler. However, as discussed above, Haussler teaches each feature of the claimed invention.
Finally, Applicant argues that Haussler focuses on constructional simplifications and stability without addressing interaction between pedestrian and vehicle flow. While this may or may not be the case, as noted above, Haussler teaches each feature of the claimed invention, regardless of the purposes discussed therein.
Applicant’s arguments concerning dependent claims are addressed by the above.
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