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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/595,488, filed 3/5/2024.
Claims 1-19 were amended in the preliminary amendment.
The substitute specification filed 3/5/2024 is not entered as no mark-ed up copy was included.
Claims 1-19 are pending and examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Costa Rica on 3/27/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Costa Rican application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 grooves in the upper ends(see claims 12-17) 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.
The drawings are objected to because there are no reference numbers and therefore the specific features of the invention are not clearly defined. Reference numbers should be used in the drawings and correspondingly in the specification to clearly define each of the elements of the invention.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 21 is not described in the specification.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Fig. 21 is not described in the specification as required by MPEP 608.01(f).
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 1-19 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.
The claims are replete with unclear phrase. Many but not all are listed below as examples. The claims should be amended accordingly.
In claim 1, line 5, “the wings elements” has no antecedent basis and should be changed to “the wing elements”.
In claim 1, line 10,the term “exhibit” renders the metes and bound unclear and should be changed to “has” or “comprises. See claims 3, 5, 8-15 and 17 for similar phrases.
In claim 1, lines 10-11, “lines ranging from the base to the upper ends” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear as to how the lines interrelate with the base and ends. By changing the phrase to “extending between the base and the upper ends” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 2, “the flat base … are smooth, and free of grooves” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear since claim 1 sets forth “the flat base includes at least one groove”. See claim 11 for similar language.
In claim 3, it is not clear how “a transverse” groove interrelates with the groove of claim 1or if they are the same.
In claim 3, it is not clear what is being referred to by “separated from another groove, and so on, covering the … profile” rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear as to how the grooves are interrelate and are located on the side walls.
In claim 3, lines 4-5, “the entire body” has no antecedent basis. See claims 4-10 and 12- 14 for similar language.
In claim 4, line 3, it is not clear if “two grooves” is referring to the grooves of claim 1 or to an additional feature of the claim. See other claims for similar phrases.
In the claims, the terms” and so on on until covering/reaching … the profile renders the metes and bounds of the claim as to what is being defined.
In claim 16, line 2, “the grooves at the upper ends” has no antecedent basis.
In claim 19, the term “manufactured in calibers” is not clear since the term appears to be directed to the thickness of the material used to make the profile and not any dimension of the profile itself. Therefore the metes and bounds of what “calibers” is referring to is unclear.
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.
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) 1-6 and 11 are rejected, as nest understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maisch(6,381,916; cited on PTO 892).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Maisch.
Maisch discloses a structural profile(10, see Fig. 1) for the formation of mezzanines(the profile is capable of being used as claimed and meets the functional claim limitation), the profile comprising:
a flat base(11) that bends at its ends(at 12, see Fig. 2) to form two wing elements(considered bends); two side walls(13, 13’) are formed on the wing elements(see Fig. 1) the two side walls(13, 13’) upward to form two ends or upper edges(15, 15’, see Fig. 1), which are configured as an inward fold in the shape of an inverted U(the shape of the fold between 15/13 and 15’/13’ is considered an inverted U meeting the claim limitation);
wherein said flat base(11) includes at least one groove(20) in the form of lines(see Fig. 2) that run along a longitudinal direction of the flat base; and
wherein each of said side walls(13, 13’) has grooves(16, 16’, see Figs. 1 and 2) in the form of parallel lines extending between the base(11) and the upper ends(15, 15’) and are spaced apart along said side walls(see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Maisch discloses the structural profile as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flat base and the ends are smooth, and free of grooves in any direction(portions 13 and 13’ are smooth and free of grooves and considered to meet the claim limitation as best understood).
Regarding claims 3-5, Maisch discloses the structural profile as claimed in claim 1, wherein the side walls include a transverse groove or two or three grooves(considered 1 of grooves 16, 16’) and is separated from another groove(other of grooves 16, 16, see Figs. 1 and 2), and so on, until covering an entire the body of the profile(see Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 6, Maisch discloses the structural profile as claimed in claim 1, wherein both the base(11) and the side walls(13, 13’) include a parallel or transverse type slit(21, 21’ in the base and holes from screws in the side walls, see column 3, lines 48-53), and it is separated from another slit, and so on until it covers the entire body of the profile(see Figs. 1-3).
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 6-17 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maisch.
Regarding claim 6, Maisch discloses the structural profile as claimed in claim 1, wherein both the base(11) includes a parallel or transverse type slit(21, 21’), and is separated from another slit, and so on until it covers the entire body of the profile, but the side walls lacks a specific slit.
It would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to have provided slits in the side walls in order to have allowed for fasteners to extend therethrough to attach the profile given the intended use of the profile and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claims 7-10, Maisch discloses the structural profile as claim in claim 1, wherein both the base(11) and the side walls(13, 13’) include parallel or transverse grooves together, and are separated from other grooves, and so on until they cover the entire body of the profile(see Fig. 1 and 2), but lacks the specific number and location of the grooves or slits.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific number and location of the grooves/slits(see at least paras. [00049] and [00054] as well as numerous embodiments).
Therefore, the specific number and location of the grooves or slits is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the profile and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claims 12-17, Maisch discloses the structural profile as claimed in claim 1, Maisch discloses the use of grooves and sits on the base and side walls of the profile, but lack the upper ends having internal grooves that run throughout the entire body of said upper ends.
The use of grooves and slits along the upper end of the profile by duplicating the grooves/slits of the base/walls would have been obvious to a skilled artisan given the intended use of the profile and design requirements thereof, such as for providing more securement of the profile.
Regarding claims 18-10, Maisch discloses the structural profile as claimed in claim 1, but lacks the specific material used for the profile.
Applicant’s disclosure mends no criticality to the specific material used, see para. [0058] where multiple materials are disclosed that are “common to materials used in the mechanical sector”).
Therefore, the specific material used for the profile, and specific size thereof, is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan, through known materials and routine experimentation, given the intended use of the profile and design requirements thereof.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Howchin(2008/0110126) shows grooves in an upper and of side walls of a profile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/