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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 4/3/26. Accordingly the application has been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 depends from claim 15 which is not a method, it appears that claim 17 should correctly depend from claim 16. 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.
Claim 4-5 and all claims depending therefrom 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 4 appears to be redundant with the newly added limitations of claim 1 from which claim 4 depends causing confusion regarding whether the limitations of claim 4 are the same as or in addition to the limitations of claim 1. As a result in claim 5 it is unclear of the “adjacent fingers of the first and second plurality of spaced apart fingers” are referring to claim 1 or claim 4.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2,4-11,14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18643190 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a modular panel platform assembly having a static frame with a platform deck portion and a moving frame with a moveable frame (where a smaller angular position of 18643190 is a retracted position and the other angular position is an extended position), and where they remain substantially coplanar in both positions and further include a portable support member engaged in a receiving member and the receiving member includes a magnetic panel and the frames including a channel and locking mechanism to selectively retain the frames, and further where platform portions comprise intermeshing combs with a plurality of spaced apart fingers spaced less than two inches.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-2,4-6-11,14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (9082325) in view of Hokanson (20150166198) and further in view of Bartnicki (5067589).
Claims 1,4. Davis discloses a modular platform system having an expandable deck module assembly, the expandable deck module assembly comprising: a static frame (the frame as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure) having a receiving member (207) and a first platform deck portion (the upper deck surface of the platform as seen in the figures including 109), the static frame being supportable above a surface by a portable support member (107) engaged in the receiving member (as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure).
Davis does not expressly disclose a moving frame having a second platform deck portion, the moving frame being moveable relative to the static frame between extended and retracted configurations; wherein the static frame and the moving frame each has a respective, co-planar platform portion, and wherein each remains substantially co-planar irrespective of position of the moving frame between the extended and retracted configurations.
Hokanson discloses a modular platform system having a static frame (102 and as seen in the annotated figure above) and a moving frame (108) having a second platform deck portion (the upper surface forming the deck surface), the moving frame being moveable relative to the static frame between extended and retracted configurations (as noted at paragraph 0036);
wherein the static frame and the moving frame each has a respective, co-planar platform portion (the upper surface forming the deck, as noted in paragraph 0036), and wherein each remains substantially co-planar irrespective of position of the moving frame between the extended and retracted configurations (as noted at paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the frame system of Davis to include moving frames having a second platform deck portion moveable relative to the static frame between extended and retracted configurations to achieve the predictable result of a platform system that can be adjusted to accommodate objects passing under or through the platform area that are taller than the platform surface to provide access to taller objects or to allow them transport through the system area.
Davis in view of Hokanson disclose the modular platform system as above, but do not expressly disclose wherein the respective platform portions comprise intermeshing combs each including an upfacing surface portion substantially co-planar with the other, wherein the intermeshing comb associated with the static frame includes a first plurality of spaced-apart fingers and the intermeshing comb associated with the moving frame includes a second plurality of spaced apart fingers, the first plurality of fingers being configured to slidingly fit in the spaces between the second plurality of fingers and allow bi-directional movement of the moving frame while maintaining a continuous walking surface.
Bartnicki discloses an extendable platform deck comprising a static platform surface and a movable platform surface where the moving platform surface is moveable relative to the static frame between extended and retracted configurations and wherein the respective platform portions comprise intermeshing combs (such as 28,30,32 and 34,35,36,38) each including an upfacing surface portion substantially co-planar with the other (as seen in the figures), wherein the intermeshing comb associated with the static frame includes a first plurality of spaced-apart fingers (any of 28,30,32 or 34,35,36,38) and the intermeshing comb associated with the moving frame includes a second plurality of spaced apart fingers (the other of 28,30,32 or 34,35,36,38), the first plurality of fingers being configured to slidingly fit in the spaces between the second plurality of fingers and allow bi-directional movement (as noted in the figures and disclosure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the respective platform portions to be intermeshing combs including an upfacing surface substantially co-planar with the other and the combs are a plurality of spaced apart fingers slidingly fit int eh spaces between other of the fingers as taught by Bartnicki to achieve the predictable result of a moving platform frame that is easily stowed out of the way when int eh open configuration improving safety for a user on the platform and reducing weight and load on the structure.
Claim 2. The modular platform system of claim 1, wherein the moving frame is supported above a surface by the static frame leaving space below the moving frame when in the extended configuration free of portable supports (as noted in Hokanson).
Claims 5,14. Davis in view of Hokanson and Bartnicki disclose the modular platform as in claims 4,13 but do not expressly disclose wherein open space between adjacent fingers of the of the first and second pluralities of spaced-apart fingers is less than two inches. Bartnicki is silent regarding the dimensions of the spacing between adjacent fingers. Applicant has not disclosed that a spacing less than 2 inches solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Rather applicant discloses that the spacing can be determined by known OSHA regulations at paragraph 0052 of the specification. Moreover, it appears that the platform fingers of Bartnicki, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well considering both are used for a person to walk on.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the spacing between adjacent figures to be less than two inches because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration, which fails to patentably distinguish over Bartnicki. Further it would have been obvious for at least the reason of complying with known regulations to be safe and operable for a user.
Claim 6. The modular platform system of claim 1, wherein the static frame and the moving frame each further comprise a locking channel (where Davis discloses a locking channel 801 and/or 702 as noted at col. 4 and as seen in figure 7, thus when combined upon the modification of claim 1 above, the moving frame of Davis would also have a locking channel) configured to receive a locking key, the locking key being engageable with a locking channel on an adjacent frame member to inhibit relative vertical movement between adjacent frame members (as taught by Davis).
Claim 7. The modular platform system of claim 6, wherein the adjacent frame member comprises an adjacent moving frame member of a second expandable deck module assembly (as noted in claim 1 above where Hokanson discloses adjacent frames including adjacent moving frames, where one moving frame 108 extends to another moving frame 108).
Claim 8. The modular platform system of claim 6, wherein the receiving member further comprises a magnetic panel (227) configured to magnetically attract a receiving member on the adjacent frame member recited in claim 6.
Claim 9. The modular platform system of claim 6, wherein the moving frame further comprises a receiving member (where Davis discloses frames with a receiving member) with a magnetic panel (227) configured to magnetically attract a receiving member on the adjacent frame member recited in claim 6.
Claim 10. The modular platform system of claim 6, wherein the static frame and the moving frame each further comprise a locking mechanism (as noted at col. 4, 111 and/or 112 to selectively retain the static frame and the moving frame in adjacent contact with the adjacent frame member.
Claim 11. Davis discloses an expandable deck panel for a modular platform system comprising: a static frame (the frame as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure) having a receiving member (207) and a first platform deck portion (the upper deck surface of the platform as seen in the figures including 109). Davis does not expressly disclose a moving frame having a second platform deck portion, the moving frame being moveable relative to the static frame between extended and retracted configurations; and wherein the first platform deck portion and the second platform deck portion remain substantially co-planar irrespective of position of the moving frame between the extended and retracted configurations.
Hokanson discloses a modular platform system having a static frame (102 and as seen in the annotated figure above) and a moving frame (108) having a second platform deck portion (the upper surface forming the deck surface), the moving frame being moveable relative to the static frame between extended and retracted configurations (as noted at paragraph 0036);
wherein the static frame and the moving frame each has a respective, co-planar platform portion (the upper surface forming the deck, as noted in paragraph 0036), and wherein each remains substantially co-planar irrespective of position of the moving frame between the extended and retracted configurations (as noted at paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the frame system of Davis to include moving frames having a second platform deck portion moveable relative to the static frame between extended and retracted configurations to achieve the predictable result of a platform system that can be adjusted to accommodate objects passing under or through the platform area that are taller than the platform surface to provide access to taller objects or to allow them transport through the system area.
Davis in view of Hokanson disclose the modular platform system of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the respective platform portions comprise intermeshing combs each including an upfacing surface portion substantially co-planar with the other, wherein the intermeshing comb associated with the static frame includes a first plurality of spaced-apart fingers and the intermeshing comb associated with the moving frame includes a second plurality of spaced apart fingers, the first plurality of fingers being configured to slidingly fit in the spaces between the second plurality of fingers and allow bi-directional movement while maintaining a substantially gap-free walking surface.
Bartnicki discloses an extendable platform deck comprising a static platform surface and a movable platform surface where the moving platform surface is moveable relative to the static frame between extended and retracted configurations and wherein the respective platform portions comprise intermeshing combs (such as 28,30,32 and 34,35,36,38) each including an upfacing surface portion substantially co-planar with the other (as seen in the figures), wherein the intermeshing comb associated with the static frame includes a first plurality of spaced-apart fingers (any of 28,30,32 or 34,35,36,38) and the intermeshing comb associated with the moving frame includes a second plurality of spaced apart fingers (the other of 28,30,32 or 34,35,36,38), the first plurality of fingers being configured to slidingly fit in the spaces between the second plurality of fingers and allow bi-directional movement (as noted in the figures and disclosure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the respective platform portions to be intermeshing combs including an upfacing surface substantially co-planar with the other and the combs are a plurality of spaced apart fingers slidingly fit int eh spaces between other of the fingers as taught by Bartnicki to achieve the predictable result of a moving platform frame that is easily stowed out of the way when int eh open configuration improving safety for a user on the platform and reducing weight and load on the structure.
Claim 15. The expandable deck panel of claim 11, wherein the receiving member further comprises a magnetic panel (227) configured to magnetically attract a receiving member on an adjacent frame member.
Claim 16. Davis discloses a method for creating a temporary opening in a modular platform comprising: providing a first expandable deck module assembly having a static frame (the frame as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure) with a receiving member (207) and a first platform deck portion (the upper deck surface of the platform as seen in the figures including 109),
supporting the expandable deck module above a surface by engaging a portable support member (107) in the receiving member; extending the moving frame and positioning a distal end frame of the moving frame adjacent to a first platform member (where adjacent platform members are positioned with distal ends adjacent, thereby expanding the moving frame); securing the distal end frame to the first platform member (via the securing mechanism as noted at col. 4).
Davis does not disclose a moving frame with a second platform deck portion, the moving frame moveably attached to the static frame and moveable between extended and retracted configurations, the first and second platform deck portions each comprising intermeshing combs, each of the intermeshing combs including an upfacing surface portion substantially coplanar with the other;
or releasing the distal end frame from the first platform member and moving the moving frame toward the retracted configuration to create the temporary platform opening between the expandable deck module and the first platform member.
Hokanson discloses a modular platform system having a static frame (102 and as seen in the annotated figure above) and a moving frame (108) having a second platform deck portion (the upper surface forming the deck surface), the moving frame being moveable relative to the static frame between extended and retracted configurations (as noted at paragraph 0036); and releasing the distal end from the first platform member and moving the moving frame toward the retracted configuration to create the temporary platform opening between the expandable dick module and the first platform member (as noted at paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the method of Davis to include moving frames having a second platform deck portion moveable relative to the static frame between extended and retracted configurations and releasing the distal end frame from the first platform member and moving the moving frame toward the retracted configuration to create the temporary platform opening between the expandable deck module and the first platform member to achieve the predictable result of a platform system that can be adjusted to form a gap to accommodate objects passing under or through the platform area that are taller than the platform surface to provide access to taller objects or to allow them transport through the system area.
Bartnicki discloses an extendable platform deck comprising a static platform surface and a movable platform surface where the moving platform surface is moveable relative to the static frame between extended and retracted configurations and wherein the respective platform portions comprise intermeshing combs (such as 28,30,32 and 34,35,36,38) each including an upfacing surface portion substantially co-planar with the other (as seen in the figures), wherein the intermeshing comb associated with the static frame includes a first plurality of spaced-apart fingers (any of 28,30,32 or 34,35,36,38) and the intermeshing comb associated with the moving frame includes a second plurality of spaced apart fingers (the other of 28,30,32 or 34,35,36,38), the first plurality of fingers being configured to slidingly fit in the spaces between the second plurality of fingers and allow bi-directional movement (as noted in the figures and disclosure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the respective platform portions to be intermeshing combs including an upfacing surface substantially co-planar with the other and the combs are a plurality of spaced apart fingers slidingly fit int eh spaces between other of the fingers as taught by Bartnicki to achieve the predictable result of a moving platform frame that is easily stowed out of the way when int eh open configuration improving safety for a user on the platform and reducing weight and load on the structure.
Claim 17. Davis discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising the steps of: positioning a second expandable deck module proximate to the first expandable deck module (where Davis and Hokanson both disclose positioning first and second deck modules proximate each other) so that the respective distal end frames are in adjacent contact when both moving frames are in the extended configuration (as taught by Hokanson and modified in claim 16 above, wherein upon the modification of Davis in view of Hokanson distal ends of the frame are in adjacent contact forming the continuous integral decking platform);
securing with a latching mechanism (col. 4, 702,111 and/or 112) the respective distal end frames to one another; and releasing the latching mechanism and moving the moving frame of the first and second expandable deck modules toward the retracted configuration to create a temporary platform opening between the expandable deck modules (as a result of Davis in view of Hokanson as noted above, where Hokanson discloses moving them to the retracted position).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks at page 22 assert that Hokanson does not disclose a plurality of fingers that interleave with an adjacent deck portion to maintain a continuous walking surface. It is noted that these limitations are newly added to claims 1,11,16 and the previous office action does not rely on Hokanson for teaching these claim limitations. Further it is noted that Hokanson does disclose sliding platforms having deck members that are inter-related to translate relative to each other to create a gap or close a gap to maintain a continuous walking surface (see at least paragraph 0036 of Hokanson). Further it is noted that Hokanson discloses in paragraph 0036 that the platform forms an integral flat surface, one of ordinary skill in the art upon review of the disclosure of Hokanson would understand flat to be co-planar based on the plain meaning of flat.
In the previous office action the office relies upon Barnticki for teaching the intermeshing combs as presently claimed. Thus applicant arguments to Davis in view of Hokanson regarding the newly added limitations to claims 1,11,16 are not persuasive for the reason that those references are not relied upon for teaching the noted claimed limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that Bartnicki is directed to adjustable scaffold planks and are secured by a plurality of transverse crossbars riveted externally to intermeshing structures, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, upon review of Bartnicki, would have understood that it is known to have intermeshing combs including an upfacing surface substantially co-planar with the other, and including a first and second plurality of spaced apart fingers configured to slidingly fit in spaces between to permit bi-directional movement of the moving frame while maintaining a continuous walking surface.
In response to applicant's argument that Bartnicki does not address the mechanical problem solved by Applicants invention, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Bartnicki alone is not relied upon for teaching the claimed invention. Rather it is combination of Davis, Hokanson and Bartnicki that the office relies upon for teaching the claimed invention.
Thus applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the evidence of obviousness.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights