DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed February 9, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
In the instant situation, the reference WO-2007102015 has been cited on the IDS filed on February 9, 2024, however a copy of said reference has not been filed. Examiner does recognize that Applicant has filed a copy of the reference WO-2007105015, which has not been listed on the IDS. It is Examiner’s presumption that a typographical error was made upon providing the correct reference. As such, the reference WO-2007102015 has been marked as not considered on the IDS, however, Examiner has listed it on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form and has provided a copy of the reference along with this action.
Status of claims
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rail system of claim 7, the first railing of claim 8, and the second railing of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 9, 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “at least one second adaptive covering” within the claim. However, nowhere within the scope of claim 5 is there defined a “first adaptive covering”. While Examiner recognizes that Applicant is their own lexicographer, potential ambiguity may arise within the claim as being that a “second adaptive covering” is defined, such would normally imply that a “first adaptive covering” is also defined, which is not the case. Examiner suggests amending the limitation “at least one second adaptive covering” to read --at least one adaptive covering-- or the like, in order to avoid any potential ambiguity.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “at least one second railing” within the claim. However, nowhere within the scope of claim 9 is there defined a “first railing”. While Examiner recognizes that Applicant is their own lexicographer, potential ambiguity may arise within the claim as being that a “second railing” is defined, such would normally imply that a “first railing” is also defined, which is not the case. Examiner suggests amending the limitation “at least one second railing” to read --at least one
In claim 11, the preamble should be corrected to read --A method for using the modular safety fencing system of claim 1-- as the method has yet to be defined and the modular safety fencing system has already been defined in claim 1.
In claim 11, the limitation “a covering” should be corrected to read --[[a]] the covering--as the covering is already defined in claim 1.
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.
Claims 2, 10 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 2 first recites the limitation “a plurality of first adaptive coverings” in line 2 and goes on to further recite the limitation “a given first adaptive covering” in line 3. It is unclear form the language of the claim if the “given first adaptive covering” is referring to the plurality of first adaptive coverings, or only one of the plurality of first adaptive coverings. Being that Pg. 14 of Applicant’s specification states that “coverings 218 and 220 are removably attached to the plurality of first adaptive coverings 212 using attachment means 222”, Examiner will therefore interpret that the “given first adaptive covering” is referring to the plurality of first adaptive coverings. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 2 as reading as:
“The modular safety fencing system according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of first adaptive coverings associated with the at least two telescopic side frames, wherein the covering is removably attached to the plurality of first adaptive coverings using an attachment means”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a given module” in line 2. However, claim 1 already defines of “at least one module”. It is therefore unclear if the “given module” is in reference to the at least one module, or if an additional module is being defined within the claim. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the given module is referring to the at least one module defined in claim 1. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 10 as reading as:
“The modular safety fencing system according to claim 1, further comprising at least one fastening means attached to the at least one module, wherein the at least one fastening means is employed to movably attach the at least one module to at least one of: at least one other module, a surface of the building structure”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mcintyre (WO 2007/102015).
Regarding claim 1, Mcintyre (Fig. 1-8, with focus on the embodiment of Fig. 6-8) discloses of a modular safety fencing system comprising:
at least one module (102, formed of sides 103, 104 and cross members 105, 106, 107; see abstract) comprising a rigid box (formed by 112, 114, 117) and a covering (121);
at least two telescopic side frames (each side frame 103, 104 telescopically receives an upright 151; see abstract) that are adjustable according to a required height of the modular safety fencing system for enabling the modular safety fencing system to extend between a top surface and a bottom surface of a building structure (being that they are telescopic, they are adjustable to form a required height such that the fence extends between a top surface ‘C’ and bottom surface ‘F’ of a building structure);
a top connector (131) for connecting the modular safety fencing system to the top surface (see pg. 4 line 33 – pg. 5 line 3); and
at least one fastener (153, 154) for securely fastening the at least one module to the bottom surface (see pg. 4 lines 31 -33), wherein, when the modular safety fencing system is in use, the covering at least partially covers a space between the top surface and the bottom surface of the building structure (see Fig. 6-8).
Regarding claim 2, Mcintyre discloses of further comprising a plurality of first adaptive coverings (112 of the rigid boxes serve as adaptive coverings) associated with the at least two telescopic side frames (see Fig. 6-8, the first adaptive coverings are located along each telescopic side frame), wherein the covering (121) is removably attached to the plurality of first adaptive covering using an attachment means (135, see pg. 5 lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 3, Mcintyre discloses wherein the covering (121) comprises a first portion (see Annotated Fig. 1 below), a first flap (see Annotated Fig. 1), and a second flap (see Annotated Fig. 1), the first portion being arranged in between the first flap and the second flap (see Annotated Fig. 1), and wherein a first side of the first flap and a first side of the second flap are attached to the first portion (see Annotated Fig. 1), a second side of the first flap is provided with a first attachment part (see Annotated Fig. 1, attachment parts 135) and a second side of the second flap is provided with a second attachment part (see Annotated Fig. 1, attachment parts 135), the second sides of the first and second flaps being opposite to the first sides of the first and second flaps, respectively (see Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
820
1214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 4, Mcintyre discloses wherein the at least one module comprises a plurality of modules that are interconnectable with each other (see Fig. 6), wherein when the modular safety fencing system is in use, coverings (121) of adjacent modules are interconnected with each other via interlinking of their corresponding first and second attachment parts (see Fig. 6, the first and second attachment parts represented by 135 of each covering will interconnect as they connect the coverings to their respective adjacent upright 151; see Pg. 5 lines 6-7.).
Regarding claim 8, Mcintyre discloses of further comprising at least one first railing (top connector 131 serves as a first railing), wherein the at least one first railing is employed to removably attach the modular safety fencing system to at least one of: an external elevator, a scaffolding (railing 131 is capable of being removably attached to an underside of a scaffolding platform).
Regarding claim 9, Mcintyre discloses of further comprising at least one second railing (cross member 107 of the module serves as a second railing), wherein the at least one second railing is employed to removably attach the modular safety fencing system to at least one prefabricated component in the building structure (second railing 107 is capable of being removably attached to a floor surface of a prefabricated component in a building structure via fasteners 153, 154).
Regarding claim 10, Mcintyre discloses of further comprising at least one fastening means (135) attached to the at least one module (see Fig. 6), wherein the at least one fastening means is employed to movably attach the at least one module to at least one of: at least one other module, a surface of the building structure (fastening means 135 join the coverings 121 of adjacent modules together at adjacent uprights 151; see Fig. 6 and Pg. 5 lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 11, Mcintyre discloses a method for using the modular safety fencing system of claim 1, the method comprising:
installing the modular safety fencing system in a building structure (see Fig. 8; see Pg. 4 line 31 – Pg. 5 line 7); and
unrolling the covering (121) to at least partially cover a space between a top surface and a bottom surface of the building structure (see Fig. 6 and 8; the covering 121 is an unrolled position and covers space between a top surface ‘C’ and bottom surface ‘F’ of the building structure).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcintyre in view of Reynolds et al. (US 6,186,274; hereinafter Reynolds).
Regarding claim 5, Mcintyre further discloses of a horizontally extending frame members (105, 106, 107) of the module that span a width of the module (see Fig. 6-8) and at least one second adaptive covering (112 of the rigid boxes serve as adaptive coverings) associated with the horizontally extending frame members (as the adaptive coverings 112 extend along the width of the module as seen in Fig. 6-8.
However, Mcintyre does not explicitly disclose wherein the horizontally extending frame members are adaptive telescopic frame members that are adjustable according to a required width of the modular safety fencing system for enabling the modular safety fencing system to extend between two sides of the building structure.
Reynolds (Fig. 4-7) teaches of a safety system comprising a frame module having vertical frame members (120) and horizontally extending frame members (140), wherein a covering (160) spans the frame module, and wherein the horizontally extending frame members are telescopic frame members (see Col. 4 lines 44-47).
Being that Mcintyre states their modular safety fencing system is to be adjustable in width (see pg. 5 lines 16-18 of Mcintyre), it would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mcintyre with the teachings of Reynolds, to have the horizontally extending frame members of the at least one module be telescopic frame members, as such would allow for a user to adjust a desired width of the module. In doing such, adaptive telescopic frame members would be provided that are capable of being adjusted according to a required width of the modular safety fencing system for enabling the modular safety fencing system to extend between two sides of a building structure.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcintyre in view of Vogelsang (DE-4445271).
Regarding claim 6, Mcintyre discloses wherein the covering (121) is stored in the rigid box (see Fig. 6-8). However, Mcintyre does not disclose wherein the covering is rollable bidirectionally using at least one handle.
Vogelsang (Fig. 1-2, 4) teaches of a similar assembly comprising an outer telescopic member (17) that telescopically receives an inner telescopic member (18), wherein a rollable covering (comprising film 12 and film roll 36) is arranged along the assembly, wherein the inner and outer telescopic members are extensible and retractable using a handle-crank which drives a drive shaft (23, see [0016]-[0017] of the translated description), and when the telescopic parts extend, the film unwinds from the film roll, and during retraction of the telescopic parts, the film automatically winds back along the film roll (see [0019] of the translated description).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mcintyre with the teachings of Vogelsang, to have the covering be in the form of rollable covering and the telescopic side frames be operated by a handle-crank that drives a drive shaft to extend or retract the side frames, as in doing so would thereby bidirectionally wind and unwind the covering as the side frames extend and retract, thus allowing for ease of assembly due to the nature of extending the side frames and covering under a single operation.
Regarding claim 7, Mcintyre discloses of further comprising a rail system (112 of the rigid box serves as a rail system) along the at least two telescopic side frames (see Fig. 6, 8). However, Mcintyre does not explicitly disclose of a rolling means arranged inside the rigid box, wherein the rolling means, in operation, guides the covering to roll along the rail system.
Vogelsang (Fig. 1-2, 4) teaches of a similar assembly comprising an outer telescopic member (17) that telescopically receives an inner telescopic member (18), wherein a rollable covering (comprising film 12 and rolling means 36) is arranged along the assembly, wherein the inner and outer telescopic members are extensible and retractable using a handle-crank which drives a drive shaft (23, see [0016]-[0017] of the translated description), and when the telescopic parts extend, the film unwinds from the rolling means, and during retraction, of the telescopic parts, the film automatically winds back along the rolling means (see [0019] of the translated description).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mcintyre with the teachings of Vogelsang, to have the covering be in the form of a rollable covering that comprises a rolling means and the telescopic side frames be operated by a handle-crank that drives a drive shaft to extend or retract the side frames, as in doing so would thereby wind and unwind the covering as the side frames extend and retract, thus allowing for ease of use and assembly due to the nature of extending the side frames and covering under a single operation. Further, being that the covering of Mcintyre is retractable inside the rigid box (see Fig. 7-8 of Mcintyre), the rolling means would thereby be within the rigid box and allow for the cover to move and roll along the rail system when in use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)270-1852. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on 571-270-5281. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN J BAYNES/Examiner, Art Unit 3678