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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “15” in Fig. 1.
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because on line 11, “flanges, Two halves” should be separated by a period, not a comma. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, line 9, “for easy ad compact” should read ---for easy and compact---
Page 8, line 13, “Figure 1 is s top” should read ---Figure 1 is a top---
Page 12, line 7, “a large n “X” shape” should read ---a large “X” shape---
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification lacks antecedent basis for the limitation of section c) of claim 18, which refers to the first flange member being mechanically couplable to the second flange member to provide a substantially non-rotative coupling of the first and second longitudinal members.
The specification lacks antecedent basis for the limitation of the rest stop support element being shaped as a hexagon of claim 24.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 and 19-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4, “a) At least” should read ---a) at least---
Claim 1, line 12, “said balance beam element” should read ---said first balance beam element---
Claim 1, line 14, “b) At least” should read ---b) at least---
Claim 1, line 16, “level of said top walking-upon surface” should read ---level, top walking-upon surface--- for consistency of language
Claim 1, line 16, “element(s)” should read ---element---
Claim 1, line 19, “element(s)” should read ---element---
Claim 2, lines 1-3, “A set of balance beam elements which can be assembled for use and disassembled for compact and nested storage for teaching the skill of walking on an elevated balance beam by a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 3, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 3, line 2, “said rest stop element” should read ---said at least one rest stop element---
Claim 4, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 5, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 6, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 6, lines 2-3, “said rest stop element” should read ---said at least one rest stop element---
Claim 6, line 5, “flanges” should read ---flange elements---
Claim 7, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 8, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 9, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 9, line 5, “upwardly extending and spaced flange” should read ---upwardly extending and spaced second flange element---
Claim 10, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 11, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 11, lines 2-3, “said rest stop elements are” should read ---said at least one rest stop element is---
Claim 12, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 8” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 8---
Claim 13, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 14, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 15, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 15, lines 2-3, “said rest stop elements” should read ---said at least one rest stop element---
Claim 15, line 3, “said balance beam elements” should read ---said first and second balance beam elements---
Claim 16, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 1” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 1---
Claim 17, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 9” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 9---
Claim 17, lines 3-4, “one of said flanges of said balance beam elements” should read ---one of said flange elements of said first and second balance beam elements---
Claim 19, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 18” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 18---
Claim 20, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 18” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 18---
Claim 21, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 18” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 18---
Claim 21, line 2, “said top” should read ---said top surface---
Claim 22, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 21” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 21---
Claim 23, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 18” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 18---
Claim 23, line 5, “said rest stop support’s top surface” should read ---said top surface of said at least one rest stop support element---
Claim 23, line 6, “said longitudinal members” should read ---said first and second longitudinal members---
Claim 24, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 23” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 23---
Claim 24, lines 2-3, “said rest stop support element” should read ---said at least one rest stop support element---
Claim 25, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 24” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 24---
Claim 25, line 4, “second flange” should read ---second flange member---
Claim 25, lines 4-5, “said second longitudinal members” should read ---said second longitudinal member---
Claim 26, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 23” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 23---
Claim 26, lines 2-3, “said rest stop support element” should read ---said at least one rest stop support element---
Claim 27, lines 1-2, “A set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on a balance beam to a youngster as claimed in Claim 23” should read ---The set of balance beam elements as claimed in Claim 23---
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The coupling means (claim 25) has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of a space or slot (70) as illustrated in Fig. 4.
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.
Claims 1-27 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 term “near” in claim 1, line 6, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds are for the limitation “near vertical” with respect to the pair of opposed front and rear walls.
Claim 1 recites “a downwardly extending and spaced from said front and/or rear wall resilient first flange element” in lines 7-8. It is unclear how the first flange element is capable of extending from both the front and the rear wall simultaneously. It appears this limitation should instead read similar to --- a downwardly extending and spaced from said front or rear wall resilient first flange element---.
The term “substantially” in claim 1, line 10, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds are for the limitation “substantially across” with respect to the extension of the first flange element across the front or rear of said edges.
Claim 1 recites “extending substantially across the front or rear of said edges and across the midpoint thereof” in lines 9-10 with respect to the first flange element. This limitation is confusing and it is unclear what this limitation is intending to impart to the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this limitation is referring to the front bottom edge or the rear bottom edge, or a front or rear of the front bottom edge and the rear bottom edge. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the midpoint” in the claim, and it is unclear what structure the recited midpoint is referring to.
Claim 1 recites “the opposed rear or front of said bottom edges” in lines 11-12. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the front bottom edge or the rear bottom edge, or a front or rear of the front bottom edge and the rear bottom edge.
The term “substantially” in claim 1, line 18, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds are for the limitation “substantially vertical” with respect to the set of opposed front and rear face elements.
The term “substantially” in claim 1, line 20, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds are for the limitation “substantially across” with respect to the extension of the third flange element across the front or rear face element.
Claim 1 recites “the entire face” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the midpoint” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “said second of said balance beam elements” in line 4. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the second balance beam element of claim 1 or a second of either the first or second balance beam elements of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the end opposed to said end” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as no ends have been claimed with respect to either the first balance beam element or the second balance beam element.
Claim 2 appears to reference to a first flange element of the second balance beam element, however no first flange element has been claimed with respect to the second balance beam element. Additionally, claim 2 appears to reference a “substantially vertical flat wall” of the second balance beam element, and it is unclear if this limitation is equivalent to or materially different from the previously recited “set of opposed front and rear substantially vertical face elements” of the second balance beam element as recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear what the limitation of claim 2 is imparting on the claimed invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 2, line 5, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds are for the limitation “substantially vertical” with respect to the recited flat wall.
Claim 4 recites “the opposed longitudinal side walls of either or both of said first and said second balance beam elements” in lines 2-3. However, no opposed longitudinal side walls of the second balance beam element has been previously claimed. Therefore, this limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “multiple and spaced of said downwardly extending and spaced resilient first or second flanges of said first and/or second of said balance beam elements” in lines 4-6. It is unclear what is meant by “multiple and spaced of said downwardly extending and spaced.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis with respect to “said downwardly extending and spaced resilient . . . second flange” as no downwardly extending and spaced resilient second flange has been previously recited in the claims.
Additionally, it is unclear what “said first and/or second of said balance beam elements” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear if this limitation is referring to a first and/or second of the first balance beam elements, a first and/or second of the second balance beam elements, or the first balance beam element and/or the second balance beam element.
Should the above limitation be referring to the first balance beam element and/or the second balance beam element, there is insufficient antecedent basis for a first or second flange with respect to the second balance beam element.
Claim 7 recites “said downwardly extending and spaced first and second flange elements” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a downwardly extending and spaced second flange element in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “said second of said balance beam elements” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a second of the first balance beam elements, a second of the second balance beam elements, or the second balance beam element.
The term “substantially” in claim 9, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds are for the limitation “substantially flat” with respect to the recited vertical wall.
Claim 9 appears to refer to “a substantially flat, vertical wall” of the second balance beam element, however it is unclear if this limitation is equivalent to or materially different from the previously recited “set of opposed front and rear substantially vertical face elements” of the second balance beam element as recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear what the limitation of claim 2 is imparting on the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “at least some of said side walls of said balance beam elements” in lines 2-3. However, side walls have only been previously recited with respect to the first balance beam element. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the side walls of only the first balance beam element or is intending to refer to side walls of each of the first and second balance beam elements, which would lack antecedent basis with respect to side walls of the second balance beam element.
Claim 11 recites “each of said side walls of said octagon” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “said walls” in line 4. It is unclear what walls this limitation is referring to in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “a conventional “Smiley” face” in line 3. It is unclear what the term “conventional” imparts into the limitation.
Claim 14 recites “said rest stop elements nest within one another” in lines 2-3. However, only “at least one rest stop element” has been previously claimed. Therefore, it is unclear if this limitation is intending to further narrow the at least one rest stop element to include a plurality of rest stop elements configured to nest within one another.
Claim 16 recites “two or more rest stop elements” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if this limitation is including the previously recited at least one rest stop element.
The term “substantially” in claim 18, line 8, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds are for the limitation “substantially aligned” with respect to the top surfaces.
Claim 18 recites “said bottom of said second bottom edge” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially” in claim 18, line 16, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the metes and bounds are for the limitation “substantially non-rotative” with respect to the mechanical coupling of the first and second longitudinal members.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, and 17 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claims 19-27 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a set of balance beam elements which can be assembled for use and disassembled for compact nested storage for teaching the skill of walking upon an elevated balance beam by a youngster in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising at least a first balance beam element being hollow with a level, top walking-upon surface, front and rear near vertical walls, a downwardly extending resilient first flange element, and an upwardly extending second flange element; at least a second balance beam element being hollow with a level, top walking-upon surface, front and rear substantially vertical face elements, and a downwardly extending third resilient flange element; and at least one rest stop element having a mechanical connection element for selective securement to one of the downwardly extending resilient flange elements of either the first or second balance beam elements.
Regarding independent claim 18, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a set of balance beam elements for teaching the skill of walking on balance beam by a youngster in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising a first longitudinal member having a front wall with a first bottom edge having a resilient first flange member extending upwardly and outwardly therefrom, a second longitudinal member having a front wall with a second bottom edge and having a resilient second flange member extending downwardly and outwardly therefrom, where the first flange member is mechanically couplable to the second flange member to provide a substantially non-rotative and aligned mechanical coupling. Specifically, the Office notes the claim limitations of the first and second flanges extending outwardly is not obvious in the prior art, as two outwardly extending flanges being couplable to each other would necessarily result in a gap between the first and second longitudinal members when connected. In the art of balance beams, a gap between longitudinal members would create a tripping hazard and would not have been an obvious modification over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record include Moore (US 3,944,654), Howard (US 9,126,086), and Jeung (KR 20080035285 A).
Moore discloses a set of balance beam elements including longitudinal beam elements (beams 10, 56, 70) and rest stop elements (pedestals 20, 30, 50, 50a-50e, 60), and teaches wherein the longitudinal beam elements and the rest stop elements are interchangeably connected via various connecting means (magnets 6, hook means 8, dovetail connecting means 54). Moore does not disclose the balance beam elements having nested storage, a first longitudinal beam element being hollow with a downwardly extending and spaced from the front or rear wall resilient first flange element and an opposed upwardly extending and spaced second flange element, a second longitudinal beam element being hollow with a downwardly extending and spaced third resilient flange element on the front or rear face element thereof, or the rest stop elements having a mechanical connection element for selective securement of one of the downwardly extending and spaced resilient flange elements. Modifications to the prior art of Moore to achieve the claimed limitations would not have been obvious as substituting the connecting means of Moore to instead include outwardly extending flange elements would result in gaps between the elements, which would destroy the continuity of the walking surface provided by the connected balance beam elements. Furthermore, there is no teaching in the art to include the required claim elements in the prior art of Moore.
Howard discloses a set of balance beam elements including a plurality of interconnectable and hollow longitudinal beam elements (modules 4, 6, 8; see hollow structure in Fig. 10), where each of the beam elements is selectively collected to another of the beam elements using a protrusion (22) insertable into a receiver (24, 26) to create a flush connection between the beam elements (see Figs. 1-2). Howard does not teach the balance beam elements having nested storage, a first beam element having a downwardly extending and spaced from the front or rear wall resilient first flange element and an opposed upwardly extending and spaced second flange element, a second beam element having a downwardly extending and spaced third resilient flange element on the front or rear face element thereof, or at least one rest stop having a mechanical connection element for selective securement of one of the downwardly extending and spaced resilient flange elements. Modifications to the prior art of Howard to achieve the claimed limitations would not have been obvious as substituting the protrusions and receivers of Howard to instead include outwardly extending flange elements would result in gaps between the elements, which would destroy the continuity of the walking surface provided by the connected balance beam elements. Furthermore, there is no teaching in the art to include the required claim elements in the prior art of Howard.
Jeung discloses a set of balance beam elements including longitudinal beam elements (blocks 20, 21) that may be hollow (see Figs. 2b-3b) and rest stop elements (connection blocks 60), and teaches wherein the longitudinal beam elements and rest stop elements are interchangeably connected via fixing means including outwardly extending hooks (52) and inwardly extending engaging grooves (54). Jeung does not teach the balance beam elements having nested storage, a first beam element having a downwardly extending and spaced from the front or rear wall resilient first flange element and an opposed upwardly extending and spaced second flange element, a second beam element having a downwardly extending and spaced third resilient flange element on the front or rear face element thereof, or the rest stop elements having a mechanical connection element for selective securement of one of the downwardly extending and spaced resilient flange elements. Modifications to the prior art of Jeung to achieve the claimed limitations would not have been obvious as substituting the fixing means of Jeung to instead include outwardly extending flange elements would result in gaps between the elements, which would destroy the continuity of the walking surface provided by the connected balance beam elements. Furthermore, there is no teaching in the art to include the required claim elements in the prior art of Jeung.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784