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
The instant application having Application Number: 18/653,114 filed on 5/2/24 has a total of 20 claims pending for examination; there are 2 independent claims and 18 dependent claims, all of which are examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609.
Drawings
The drawing(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.81 to 1.85.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 9-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 200384882 Y1 to (hereinafter KR).
With regards to claim 1, KR teaches a guardrail system [figs 1-6] comprising:
at least one track defining a channel [figs 1-6 elements 5 and 4] extending longitudinally through the at least one track [figs 1-6 element 4 extends longitudinally through element 5]; and
at least one sliding guardrail [figs 1-6 elements 2-3] configured to be operatively coupled to the at least one track [figs 1-6 elements 2-3 are coupled to elements 4, 5 via element 6] ,
wherein the at least one sliding guardrail is configured to be selectively translated along a longitudinal length of the at least one track [fig 2 shows elements 2, 3 being translated along the longitudinal length of elements 5, 4], and
wherein the at least one sliding guardrail [figs 1-6 elements 2-3] is configured to be selectively locked in place at a selected position along the longitudinal length of the at least one track [when motors and/or actuators of the drive system hold elements 2, 3 open or closed along the longitudinal length of elements 5, 4].
With regards to claim 2, KR teaches the guardrail system of claim 1, wherein the channel [figs 1-6 element 4] defines an internal slot [fig 4 slot element where element(s) 7 is held] and an upper elongate opening [fig 4 top horizontal cutouts of slot element where element(s) 7 is held] to the internal slot [fig 4 slot element where element(s) 7 is held], wherein the upper elongate opening [fig 4 top horizontal cutouts of slot element where element(s) 7 is held] has a first width [width appears to be less than the width of element 7] and the internal slot has a second width [fig 4 width of vertical slot element where element(s) 7 is held], and wherein the first width is less than the second width [width appears to be less than the width of element 7 is less than fig 4 width of vertical slot element where element(s) 7 is held].
With regards to claim 9, KR teaches the guardrail system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sliding guardrail [figs 1-6 elements 2-3] comprises at least one wheel [fig 4 elements 7] configured to contact the at least one track [figs 1-6 element 5], when the at least one sliding guardrail [figs 1-6 elements 2-3] is operatively coupled to the at least one track [figs 1-6 element 5].
With regards to claim 10, KR teaches the guardrail system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sliding guardrail [figs 1-6 elements 2-3] comprises a downward extension (figs 1-6 elements 6 and elements coupled to element 6 within element 5) configured to be received in the channel [fig 4 elements couped to element 6 within element 5 are coupled to element 4] and to maintain and support the at least one sliding guardrail [figs 1-6 elements 2-3] in an upright position [figs 1-6 elements 2-3 as shown] relative to the at least one track [figs 1-6 element 4].
With regards to claim 11, KR teaches the guardrail system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sliding guardrail [figs 1-6 elements 2-3] comprises a slider [fig 4 – U-shaped part holding wheels] configured to extend into the channel [figs 1-6 element 4] and guide selective translation [fig 2 shows elements 2, 3 being translated along the longitudinal length of elements 5, 4] of the at least one sliding guardrail [figs 1-6 elements 2-3] along the longitudinal length of the at least one track [figs 1-6 element 5].
With regards to claim 12, KR teaches the guardrail system of claim 1, wherein the at least one track [figs 1-6 element 5] comprises a plurality of tracks [fig 4 spacing to the left of element 4 and spacing to the right of element 4 are two tracks] each configured to be positioned adjacent to one another [fig 4 spacing to the left of element 4 and spacing to the right of element 4 are two tracks adjacent to each other].
With regards to claim 13, KR teaches the guardrail system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sliding guardrail [figs 1-6 elements 2-3] comprises a plurality of sliding guardrails [figs 1-6 elements 2-3] each configured to be operatively coupled to the at least one track [figs 1-6 elements 5 for each of the elements 2-3].
With regards to claim 14, KR teaches the guardrail system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sliding guardrail [figs 1-6 elements 2-3] further comprises a handle [figs 1-6 top of elements 2-3] configured to be pulled or [note use of alternate language] pushed by a user to translate the sliding guardrail along the longitudinal length of the track [note this is functional language – elements 2-3 are capable of performing the functions above].
With regards to claim 18, KR teaches a method of utilizing the guardrail system of claim 1, the method comprising: translating the at least one sliding guardrail to the selected position along the longitudinal length of the at least one track [see claim 1 rejection above] ; and locking the at least one sliding guardrail in the selected position relative to the at least one track [see claim 1 rejection above].
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) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200384882 Y1 to (hereinafter KR).
With regards to claim 15, KR teaches the guardrail system of claim 1, further comprising a raised platform [figs 1-6 element F] comprising an edge at least partially defining an opening [figs 1-6 element F is disclosed as a platform having an edge defining an opening].
KR teaches all of the above but is silent as to the guardrail system further comprising an assembly environment.
However, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (e.g. in an assembly environment) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the guardrail system comprise an assembly environment for the benefit of providing fall protection for workers in said environment since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (e.g. in an assembly environment) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
With regards to claim 16, KR teaches the guardrail system of claim 15, wherein the at least one track [figs 1-6 element 5] is operatively coupled to the raised platform [figs 1-6 element F] and extends longitudinally along the edge [figs 1-6 elements 5 and F as shown].
With regards to claim 17, KR teaches the guardrail system of claim 15, wherein the opening is configured to receive a fuselage of an aircraft [note this is functional language – the opening is capable of performing the functions above since it’s shown to receive a body of a vehicle].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 3, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein the at least one sliding guardrail comprises a shaft configured to extend downward into the upper elongate opening, and a locking foot fixed to the shaft and configured to be received in the channel, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
With regards to claims 4-8, due to their direct or indirect dependence from claim 3, they include allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons.
With regards to claim 19, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein the at least one sliding guardrail comprises a locking foot and the at least one track comprises at least one positioning hole, wherein the locking foot is configured to be transitioned into a retracted position in which the locking foot is positioned to be received in the at least one positioning hole, and wherein the locking the at least one sliding guardrail in the selected position relative to the track comprises: aligning the locking foot of the at least one sliding guardrail with the at least one positioning hole of the at least one track; and transitioning the locking foot into the retracted position such that at least a portion of the locking foot is received within the at least one positioning hole, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regards to claim 20, the prior art of record alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein the at least one sliding guardrail comprises a locking foot configured to be selectively transitioned between an extended position, in which the locking foot is positioned to be disposed entirely within the internal slot, and a retracted position in which at least a portion of the locking foot is positioned to be received and retained in the at least one positioning hole, such that the at least one sliding guardrail is locked in place relative to the at least one track, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 12,403,406 to Vamos et al. teaches a movable railing assembly (guiderail) that moves along a track having a channel on a platform. The railing assembly being able to be locked along the track/channel using a dropdown pin
US Patent No. 4,791,757 to Orlando teaches a gate than slides along a track/channel to open and close
US Patent No. 12,331,583 to Martin teaches a sliding security gate that is installed across an opening.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4152. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tueday 8:30am-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, Daniel P Cahn can be reached on (571)270-5616. 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.
DEM
/DAVID E MARTINEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights