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 .
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment dated April 14, 2026. Currently, claims 1-17, 19-21 are pending in the application.
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 20 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 20: The amended claim recites “wherein the fabric comprises a the modular membrane that substantially surrounds a portion of the aerial structure to capture the particulate contaminants. comprises at least one fabric.” However, the claim previously recited “on fabric attachment structure”. The “attachment structure” no longer appears in the claim. It is assumed that it should be struck through and will be examined accordingly as no longer positively recited.
Regarding claim 21: It is unclear what a variety of structural configurations of aerial structures refers to. It appears from the drawings that the aerial structures have a triangular cross section of which the modular containment system is attached around. Under broadest reasonable interpretation the variety of structural configurations are a triangle cross section.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-17, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Halberg et al. (US Patent No 11,536,039) (“Halberg”).
Referring to claim 15: Halberg teaches a modular containment system for deployment on an aerial structure, the system comprising: a support structure (item 10) configured for attachment to the aerial structure; a fabric (item 68) configured to capture particulate contaminants; a work platform (items 12 and 14) integrated into the support structure, configured to provide access and egress for workers maintaining the aerial structure.
Referring to claim 16: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Halberg teaches wherein the support structure includes one or more armatures configured to extend horizontally outward from the aerial structure (figure 7 and the components of items 12 and 14 would extend outward).
Referring to claim 17: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Halberg teaches a pan (item 68) that encloses the containment system from below to prevent contaminants from falling to the ground, wherein the pan comprises a configurable membrane to allow the passage a component of the aerial structure (col 9, lines 37-40).
Referring to claim 20: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Halberg teaches wherein the fabric comprises a modular membrane that substantially surrounds a portion of the aerial structure to capture the particulate contaminants (figure 3 and col 9, lines 37-40).
Regarding claim 21: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Halberg teaches wherein the support structure and the fabric are configured as one or more modules, the modules configured for deployment onto a variety of structural configurations of aerial structures (figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halberg.
Referring to claim 1: Halberg teaches a containment system for an aerial structure, comprising: a support structure (item 10) configured to attach to various configurations of aerial structures; a modular membrane (item 68) that substantially surrounds a portion of the aerial structure to contain contaminants; and an attachment system (item 56) for securing the support structure to the aerial structure, wherein the attachment system accommodates a plurality of cross-sections of structural members of the aerial structure (col 4, lines 7-8). Halberg does not specifically teach the support structure is configured to attach to various configuration of aerial structures. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the frame would be configurable to different shapes and the teaching of a different sized base of the tower would qualify as a plurality of cross-sections under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Referring to claim 2: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Halberg teaches wherein the support structure includes one or more armatures configured to extend horizontally outward from the aerial structure (figure 7 and the components of items 12 and 14 would extend outward).
Referring to claim 3: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Halberg teaches a pan (item 68) that encloses the containment system from below to prevent contaminants from falling to the ground.
Referring to claim 4: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Additionally, Halberg teaches the pan comprises a configurable membrane to allow the passage of a component of the aerial structure (col 9, lines 37-40).
Referring to claim 5: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Halberg does not specifically teach wherein the configurable membrane includes an aperture or a channel configured to conform to the component of the aerial structure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the membrane would conform to the outer portion of the scaffolding and the bottom of the floor taught by Halberg and would therefore conform to the shape of the aerial component in order to prevent debris from leaving the area without interfering with the operation of the system up and down the tower.
Referring to claim 8: Halberg teaches all the structural limitations of the instant claim such as the support structure, modular membrane, and attachment system as noted above. While Halberg does not explicitly teach a method, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that by providing the final product, Halberg teaches attaching a support structure to an aerial structure, configuring a modular membrane around a portion of the aerial structure, and utilizing the attachment system to secure the support structure to the aerial structure.
Referring to claim 9: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Halberg teaches wherein the support structure includes one or more armatures configured to extend horizontally outward from the aerial structure (figure 7 and the components of items 12 and 14 would extend outward).
Referring to claim 10: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Halberg teaches a pan (item 68) that encloses the containment system from below to prevent contaminants from falling to the ground.
Referring to claim 11: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Halberg teaches the pan comprises a configurable membrane to allow the passage of a component of the aerial structure (col 9, lines 37-40).
Referring to claim 12: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Halberg does not specifically teach wherein the configurable membrane includes an aperture or a channel configured to conform to the component of the aerial structure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the membrane would conform to the outer portion of the scaffolding and the bottom of the floor taught by Halberg and would therefore conform to the shape of the aerial component in order to prevent debris from leaving the area without interfering with the operation of the system up and down the tower.
Referring to claim 19: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Halberg does not specifically teach wherein the configurable membrane includes an aperture or a channel configured to conform to the component of the aerial structure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the membrane would conform to the outer portion of the scaffolding and the bottom of the floor taught by Halberg and would therefore conform to the shape of the aerial component in order to prevent debris from leaving the area without interfering with the operation of the system up and down the tower.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halberg in view of Long (US Patent No 10,883,286).
Referring to claims 6, and 13: Halberg teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 as noted above. Halberg does not specifically teach wherein the modular membrane comprises at least one fabric attachment structure. However, Long teaches wherein the modular membrane comprises at least one fabric attachment structure (figure 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Halberg with the fabric attachment structure of Long in order to allow for disassembly and transportation of the device.
Referring to claims 7 and 14: Halberg and Long teach all the limitations of claims 6 and 13 as noted above. Additionally, Long teaches wherein the fabric attachment structure comprises a loop (figure 21). A loop provides easy toolless attachment and detachment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Helberg does not teach the containment system because they do not teach “modularity”. However, the Applicant has arguing limitations that are not positively recited, nor backed up by structure or defines over a non-modular apparatus. Additionally, the Applicant has argued that since the device of Halberg is intended to be deployed on a bridge tower that it cannot be modular and adaptable to different structures. Applicant has argued also that the attachment system would not be attachable to varied aerial structures. But the Examiner notes this limitation is not present in the argued claim 15. However, the Examiner contends that under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation a change of size of a tower would define a varied aerial structure. Adapting to a change in size would mean it is adaptable to a varied structural cross-section.
Applicant has argued pertaining to claim 8, that the claimed support structure is “configured to attach to various configuration of aerial structures” without being completely disassembled. However, nowhere in the argued claim is there a limitation “without being completely disassembled” and therefore this argument is moot.
Again, Applicant has argued that Halberg does not teach the support structure is configured to attach to various configurations of aerial structures. And again, the Examiner contends that a change in size would be recognized as a different configuration absent a limitation showing otherwise.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights