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 2/14/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1 and 2 are unclear. The drawings include people that detract from the subject matter of the invention (e.g. Operator and Director). Further, the CAD shading muddies clarity. They shading does not provide for adequate reproduction quality. 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.
Figure 1 appears that it should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 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 1-6 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 1 recites “a part of an edge at another end is higher than another part of the edge”. It is unclear what is encompassed by “higher”. It appears applicant means the open end of the cylindrical structure faces up and has an edge, wherein one part of the edge is higher than another part of the edge?
Claim 1 line 6 recites “the other part of the edge” lacking antecedence. It is unclear if the limitation is referencing “a part” or “another part” previously introduced. Claim terms should be consistent or clearly differentiated from each other for clarity. For examination purposes it has been assumed “the other part” is referring to “another part of the edge”.
The claims are replete with language that is inconsistent (e.g. reciting “the edge of the other end” instead of being consistent with the previously introduced as “an edge at another end”). The claims should be carefully reviewed for claim term consistency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 appear that they 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:
The prior art includes numerous examples of cylindrical structures/sleeves erected perpendicularly to a ground with one end facing down and open edge coming out of the ground (e.g. Newton, US 2006/0104715) and another end buried in the ground. The prior art also disclose pivoting of poles into place into or on the ground (e.g. Goodman, US 3,564,859 and Pasto, US 2007/0084137). However, the prior art does not disclose nor reasonably suggest a part of an edge at another end being higher than another part of the edge, and pressing the lower end portion of the utility pole against an inner wall on a side of the part of the edge of the structure; and lifting up an upper end portion of the utility pole with the other part of the edge as a fulcrum while pressing the lower end portion of the utility pole against the inner wall, and sliding down the utility pole into a cavity of the structure to erect the utility pole. Modifying the pole erection prior art to include such features would require impermissible hindsight reasoning and reconstruction. The figures of Pasto reproduced below disclose pivoting of a pole in place on a structure where the structure has a high edge. However, Pasto fails to disclose pressing of the utility pole against an inner wall and sliding the utility pole into a cavity.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
899
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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 Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633