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
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to an adjustable wedge panel, classified in E04H3/28.
II. Claims 16-18, drawn to a method for creating a curved portion in a modular platform, classified in E04H3/24.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different method, i.e. a method for creating a straight edged portion.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Mead on 1/13/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 5-6, 9, 11-13 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 5 recites the limitation "the static frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the moving frame" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the static frame" and “the moving frame” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the respective platform deck portions" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the static frame" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the moving frame" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘238 (GB361238).
For claim 1, ‘238 discloses an adjustable wedge panel module (figs. 1-3) for a modular platform system comprising: a first frame (fig. 3, upper 11) having a receiving member (17) and a first platform portion (upper portion), the first frame being supportable above a surface by a portable support member (16) engaged in the receiving member; and a second frame (lower 11) having a receiving member (14) and a second platform portion (lower platform portion), the second frame being supportable above a surface by a portable support member (16) engaged in the receiving member and angularly moveable relative to the first frame; wherein the first and second platform portions remain substantially co-planar as the first and second frames are moved between a first angular position and a second angular position (during assembly).
For claim 2, ‘238 discloses that the first frame (fig. 3, upper 11) and the second frame (lower) each extend along a radius defining a sector angle therebetween, the first and second platform portions defining an annular sector spanning between the first frame and the second frame.
For claim 7, ‘238 discloses that the first frame and the second frame each further comprise a locking channel (fig. 3, 15) configured to receive a locking key (14), the locking key being engageable with a locking channel on an adjacent frame member to inhibit relative vertical movement between adjacent frame members.
For claim 10, ‘238 discloses an adjustable wedge panel module (figs. 1-3) for a modular platform system comprising: a first frame (fig. 3, upper 11) having a receiving member (17) and a first platform portion (upper portion); a second frame (lower 11) moveably coupled to the first frame and angularly adjustable thereto (the frame can be manually adjusted during assembly or disassembly), the second frame having a receiving member (17) and a second platform portion, wherein the first platform portion and the second platform portion collectively define a portion of a circular sector having a sector angle defined between the first and second frames, the first and second platform portions being substantially co-planar irrespective of the angular position of the first frame to the second frame (see fig. 2).
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) 3-4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘238 (GB361238).
For claims 3 and 15, ‘238 does not disclose that the sector angle ranges between 20 degrees to 50 degrees, however it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to make the sector angle range between 20-50 degrees since this merely optimizing an already disclosed to get expected and predictable results like ease of assembly.
For claim 4, the examiner sets forth that the tongue and grooves of ‘238 are structurally equivalent to the intermeshing combs claimed by the applicant (see MPEP 2183, the tongue and grooves creates a mesh between the respective platform portions) and the tongue and grooves have an upfacing surface portion substantially co-planar with the other (see the planar panels in fig. 2).
Claim(s) 8-9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘238 (GB361238) in view of Davis (US2013/0319796).
For claims 8 and 14, ‘238 does not disclose that the receiving member further comprises a magnetic panel configured to magnetically attract a receiving member on an adjacently positioned frame member.
Davis discloses a panel module with a receiving member (fig. 7, 207) further comprising a magnetic panel (227) configured to magnetically attract a receiving member on an adjacently positioned frame member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add a magnetic panel to the receiving member of ‘238 as made obvious by Davis for ease of assembly of the system.
For claim 9, the combination discloses the obviousness of adding a locking mechanism to the assembly to selectively retain the static frame and the moving frame in adjacent contact with the adjacent member (Davis fig. 5, 200).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633