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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/21/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome each and every objection and most 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/27/2025.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome the drawing objections previously applied in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/27/2025.
Claim 12 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and considered below.
Examiner’s Comment
Examiner attempted to contact applicant’s representative/attorney of record to discuss an examiner’s amendment to the claims to overcome the below claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, however the phone number provided was unable to connect.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, “, respectively,” should be deleted
Claim 1, line 4, “, respectively,” should be deleted
Claim 1, lines 14-15, “and are configured to horizontally align the equatorial surfaces” should read ---such that the equatorial surfaces of the two hemispheres are aligned horizontally---
Claim 1, line 19, “the hemispheres” should read ---the two hemispheres---
Claim 1, lines 20-22, “the elements have receptacles in a region of the equatorial surfaces of the hemispheres that are configured for the insertion of at least one attachment part” should read ---each element of each hemisphere has receptacles in a region of the respective equatorial surfaces that are configured for the insertion of at least one attachment part---
Claim 2, line 3, “the at least one clamp” should read ---the at least one spherical clamp---
Claim 2, line 4, “each hemispheres surround” should read ---each hemisphere surrounds---
Claim 7, line 3, “the spherical clamp” should read ---the at least one spherical clamp---
Claim 7, line 4, “the spherical clamp” should read ---the at least one spherical clamp---
Claim 8, lines 5-6, “with a protuberance in the region of this bulge” should read ---wherein a protuberance is formed on the bulge---
Claim 8, lines 7-8, “with a receptacle which corresponds to the protuberance” should read ---wherein the corresponding recess comprises a receptacle configured to correspond with the protuberance---
Claim 10, line 2, “the clamp” should read ---the at least one spherical clamp---
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.
Claims 2 and 7 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 recites “The scaffolding system of, wherein” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what the dependency of claim 2 is intended to be.
Claim 7 recites “an attachment part” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the at least one attachment part as previously claimed in claim 1 or a materially different and new attachment part.
Claim 7 recites “a receptacle of the spherical clamp” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to one of the receptacles of the at least one spherical clamp as previously claimed in claim 1 or a materially different and new receptacle.
Claim 7 recites “formed with a profiling, a circumferential octagonal profiling” in lines 3-4. It is unclear if “a circumferential octagonal profiling” is further limiting the previously recited “a profiling” such that this limitation should read similar to ---formed with a circumferential octagonal profiling--- or if “a circumferential octagonal profiling” is materially different from the previously recited “a profiling.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are allowed.
Claims 2 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest a scaffolding system in combination with all of the structural and functional limitations, and further comprising a post arranged inclined at an angle and at least one spherical clamp arranged on the post, the at least one spherical clamp comprising two hemispheres, each hemisphere formed from elements which differ from one another within each hemisphere, equatorial surfaces formed by the elements of each hemisphere deviate from a plane perpendicular to the post at the angle at which the post is inclined such that the equatorial surfaces of the two hemispheres are aligned horizontally, and the elements having receptacles in a region of the equatorial surfaces that are configured for the insertion of at least one attachment part.
The closest prior art of record to Gillet et al. (US 2006/0128530) teaches a clamp (climbing units C) having a generally spherical shape (see central spherical portion of climbing units C) arranged on a post (12, curved posts in Fig. 23), the clamp comprising two hemispheres (formed by 20e and 196) formed from elements (20e, 196) which differ from one another in each hemisphere, equatorial surfaces formed by the elements (surfaces of each 20e, 196 which join with one another when the hemispheres of the clamp are secured to one another), and the elements having receptacles (190, 200, 202, 208) in the region of the equatorial surfaces that are configured for the insertion of at least one attachment part (210, see Figs. 16-17). However, Gillet et al. does not teach the equatorial surfaces formed by the elements of each hemisphere deviate from a plane perpendicular to the post at the angle at which the post is inclined such that the equatorial surfaces of the two hemispheres are aligned horizontally. Modifications of the clamp of Gillet et al. to meet the required limitations of instant claim 1 with respect to the equatorial surfaces would not have been obvious absent improper hindsight.
Additional prior art of record to King et al. (US 8,366,562) and Boxenbaum (US 2002/0118998) each teach spherical clamps arranged on posts of a scaffolding system, the spherical clamps comprising two hemispheres configured to surround a respective one of the posts, but neither King et al. nor Boxenbaum teach or suggest equatorial surfaces formed by the elements of each hemisphere that deviate from a plane perpendicular to the post at the angle at which the post is inclined such that the equatorial surfaces of the two hemispheres are aligned horizontally.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections in view of Gillet et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously applied 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-11 in view of Gillet et al. have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues Gillet et al. fails to disclose “(i) partitioning of a spherical clamp into two identical hemispheres, (ii) each hemisphere comprising two elements that surround the post, (iii) the formation of the equatorial surface within the meaning of amended claim 1, or (iv) any receptacles for attachment parts in the area of the equatorial surface.” Applicant further argues “Attachment parts are not fastening means, but handles, tubes, and the like, as specified in amended dependent claim 5, for example.”
With respect to argument (i), the Office notes the argument is beyond the scope of claim 1 as claim 1 does not require the hemispheres to be identical. Even so, Gillet et al. teaches two hemispheres of the clamp each formed by two elements (20e, 196), where the two hemispheres are identical (Figs. 14, 16). With respect to argument (ii), applicant’s argument is not persuasive as each hemisphere of Gillet et al. formed by two elements (20e, 196) is configured to surround a post (12, curved posts in Fig. 23). With respect to argument (iv) and applicant’s argument as to the definition of “attachment parts,” the Office does not find applicant’s argument persuasive. “Attachment parts” is broad and does not require specific structure, therefore the fastening means (bolts 210) previously relied upon in the rejection satisfy the limitation of attachment parts, and the receptacles (190, 200, 202, 208) satisfy the limitation of receptacles formed in the region of the equatorial surfaces as the respective receptacles extend through the surfaces of the two elements of each hemisphere of Gillet et al. where the two hemispheres are configured to join one another.
However, with respect to argument (ii), the Office finds applicant’s argument persuasive after reconsidering the prior art. Specifically, amended claim 1 requires “equatorial surfaces formed by the elements of each hemisphere deviate from a plane perpendicular to the post at the angle at which the post is inclined such that the equatorial surfaces of the two hemispheres are aligned horizontally.” After reconsideration of the prior art, the Office agrees the equatorial surfaces of the hemispheres of the spherical clamp of Gillet et al. fail to teach or suggest equatorial surfaces deviating from a plane perpendicular to the post at the angle at which the post is inclined, thereby aligning the equatorial surfaces horizontally. While the equatorial surfaces of the hemispheres of Gillet et al. are capable of achieving a horizontal orientation, such orientation is not a result of the equatorial surfaces deviating from a plane perpendicular to the post at the angle at which the post is inclined. Instead, the equatorial surfaces of the hemispheres will only be capable of aligning horizontally when the spherical clamp is attached to a similarly horizontally oriented post (see Fig. 15, opening/channel 184 for receiving the post has longitudinal axis running parallel to equatorial surfaces formed by 180, 182, and surface of clamping elements 196). The equatorial surfaces of the hemispheres of Gillet et al. are not angled such that they deviate from a plane perpendicular to the post at the angle at which the post is inclined, and therefore applicant’s argument is persuasive.
The Office agrees with applicant that the prior art to Souchal fails to teach or suggest the limitation of equatorial surfaces formed by elements of hemispheres of a spherical clamp deviating from a plane perpendicular to a post at an angle at which the post is inclined such that the equatorial surfaces of the hemispheres are aligned horizontally.
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 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
/Megan Anderson/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784