DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 (lines 6-7) recites “at least one T-slot extending an entire length of said at least one continuous rail”.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites “wherein said at least one T-slot extends the entire length of said at least on continuous rail”. Accordingly, claim 2 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR 10-1198518) in view of Otis Elevator (FR 2 720 382) and Dvorak (www.windpowerengineering.com/no-torque-required-for-this-fastener/ XP055918606).
As to claims 1 and 7-9, Lim discloses a railing system capable of use with an offshore installation, said railing system comprising:
two or more balusters 10 comprising connectors 62 for connecting said balusters to said offshore installation,
at least one continuous rail 20 comprising two or more longitudinal rail sides, wherein at least one of said two or more longitudinal rail sides includes a T-slot side comprising at least one T- slot 29 extending the entire length of said at least one continuous rail,
at least two fixation devices 40 arranged to connect said at least one continuous rail to said two or more balusters so that said T-slot side of said continuous rail is forced against a first side of said balusters, wherein each of said at least two fixation devices comprises a bolt including a pin part 42 and a head part 41, wherein said head part is arranged at one end of said pin part, wherein said head part is received within a T-slot 31 of an intermediate bracket 30 slidably arranged in said at least one T-slot and said pin part is extending through an orifice in a respective said baluster, wherein said fixation device further comprise a collar 43 encircling said pin part on a second side of said balusters, wherein said first side is opposite said second side; and
wherein said pin part is cylindrical (Figures 1-8).
Lim discloses a railing system wherein said head part 41 of the bolt is received within a T-slot 31 of an intermediate bracket 30 slidably arranged in said at least one T-slot 29 of the continuous rail 20; instead of said head part directly engaging said T-slot of the continuous rail.
Otis Elevator teaches a railing system wherein a head part 26 of a bolt 24 is arranged in a T-slot 14 of an internal profiled part 16 of a continuous rail 12 so that said head part directly engages said T-slot; the internal profiled part of the rail which defines a T-slot, such that the head part of the bolt directly engages the T-slot, providing for a more rigid connection between the bolt and the rail, and providing for easier manufacturing and assembly of the railing system (Figures 2-6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the railing system disclosed by Lim wherein the continuous rail comprises an internal profiled part defining a T-slot such that said head part of the bolt directly engages said T-slot, as taught by Otis Elevator, in order to provide for a more rigid connection between the bolt and the rail, and to provide for easier manufacturing and assembly of the railing system.
Lim fails to explicitly disclose a railing system wherein said two or more balusters, said at least one continuous rail and said at least two fixation devices are made of aluminium. Lim does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metal material of the balusters, rails or fixation devices.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific material of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the railing system disclosed by Lim wherein said two or more balusters, said at least one rail and said at least two fixation devices are made of aluminium, as Lim does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metal material of the balusters, rails or fixation devices, and as such selection of material is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
Lim fails to disclose a railing system wherein said collar is connected to said pin part by way of a compression joint; wherein a cylindrical surface of said pin part comprises a number of indentations; wherein said indentations are formed between a number of radial circular prostitutions along the lengthwise extent of said pin part; and wherein said compression joint includes said collar protruding into said indentations.
Dvorak teaches an offshore installation wherein a collar is connected to a pin part of a bolt by way of a compression joint; wherein a cylindrical surface of said pin part comprises a number of indentations; wherein said indentations are formed between a number of radial circular prostitutions along the lengthwise extent of said pin part; and wherein said compression joint includes said collar protruding into said indentations; the compression joint collar interlocking with the indentations of the pin part of the bolt, preventing loosening due to vibration, providing for more consistent higher strength clamping, and providing for easier assembly (Pages 2-3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the railing system disclosed by Lim to comprise compression joint collars interlocking with indentations of the pin parts of the bolts, as taught by Dvorak, in order to prevent loosening due to vibration, providing for more consistent higher strength clamping, and to provide for easier assembly.
As to claim 2, Lim as modified by Otis Elevator discloses a railing system wherein said at least one T-slot (14 Otis Elevator Figure 6) extends the entire length of said at least one continuous rail 20 (Figures 1-8).
As to claim 10, Lim discloses a railing system wherein said connectors 62 are arranged at a first longitudinal baluster end of each of said two or more balusters 10 (Figures 1-8).
As to claim 11, Lim discloses a railing system wherein said at least one continuous rail 20 comprises a handrail arranged at a second longitudinal baluster end of said two or more balusters 10, wherein said second longitudinal baluster end is opposite said first longitudinal baluster end (Figures 1-8).
As to claim 12, Lim discloses a railing system wherein said railing system further comprises a mid-rail 20 connected to said two or more balusters 10 between said connectors 62 and said handrail 20 by way of at least two fixation devices 40 of said at least two fixation devices (Figures 1-8).
As to claim 13, Lim discloses a railing system wherein said handrail 20 and said mid-rail 20 are parallel (Figures 1-8).
As to claim 15, Lim discloses a railing system wherein said at least one continuous rail 20 is connected to said two or more balusters 10 so that the longitudinal extent of said at least one continuous rail is substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal extent of said two or more balusters (Figures 1-8).
As to claim 16, Lim as modified by Dvorak discloses a railing system wherein said compression joint comprises said collar 43 and said pin part 42 having interlocking geometry interlocking said collar and said pin part against displacement in the longitudinal direction of said pin part (Figures 1-8).
As to claims 17 and 19, Lim discloses a method for assembling a railing system on an offshore installation (a bridge), said method comprising the steps of:
connecting two or more balusters 10 to said offshore installation,
placing a head part 41 of a first bolt 42 and a second bolt 42 in a T-slot 31 of an intermediate bracket 30 slidably arranged in a T-slot 29 in a T-slot side of a continuous rail 20, said T-slot of the rail extending the entire length of said continuous rail, wherein said continuous rail comprises two or more longitudinal rail sides of which one is said T-slot side, wherein each of said first and second bolts comprise a pin part 42 and a head part 41, wherein said head part is arranged at one end of said pin part,
placing said T-slot side of said continuous rail against a first side of said balusters so that said pin part of said first bolt is extending through an orifice in a first baluster of said two or more balusters and so that said pin part of said second bolt is extending through an orifice in a second baluster of said two or more balusters,
placing a first collar 43 on said pin part of said first bolt on a second side of said first baluster so that said first collar encircles said pin part of said first bolt and placing a second collar 43 on said second bolt on a second side of said second baluster so that said second collar encircles said pin part of said second bolt, wherein said first side is opposite said second side (Figures 1-8).
Lim discloses a railing system wherein said head part 41 of each bolt is received within a T-slot 31 of an intermediate bracket 30 slidably arranged in said T-slot 29 of the continuous rail 20; instead of said head part directly engaging said T-slot of the continuous rail.
Otis Elevator teaches a railing system wherein a head part 26 of a bolt 24 is arranged in a T-slot 14 of an internal profiled part 16 of a continuous rail 12 so that said head part directly engages said T-slot; the internal profiled part of the rail which defines a T-slot, such that the head part of the bolt directly engages the T-slot, providing for a more rigid connection between the bolt and the rail, and providing for easier manufacturing and assembly of the railing system (Figures 2-6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the railing system disclosed by Lim wherein the continuous rail comprises an internal profiled part defining a T-slot such that said head part of the bolt directly engages said T-slot, as taught by Otis Elevator, in order to provide for a more rigid connection between the bolt and the rail, and to provide for easier manufacturing and assembly of the railing system.
Lim fails to explicitly disclose a railing system wherein said two or more balusters, said rail and said first and second bolts are made of aluminium. Lim does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metal material of the balusters, rails or bolts.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific material of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the railing system disclosed by Lim wherein said two or more balusters, said rail and said first and second bolts are made of aluminium, as Lim does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific metal material of the balusters, rails or bolts, and as such selection of material is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
Lim fails to disclose a method comprising connecting said first collar to said pin part of said first bolt and connecting said second collar to said second bolt by way of a compression joint formed by squeezing said first collar against said pin part of said first bolt and squeezing said second collar against said pin part of said second bolt; wherein squeezing said first collar against said pin part of said first bolt causes said first collar to deform radially into indentations in said pin part of said first bolt and wherein squeezing said second collar against said pin part of said second bolt causes said second collar to deform radially into indentations in said pin part of said second bolt.
Dvorak teaches a method comprising connecting a collar to a pin part of a bolt by way of a compression joint formed by squeezing said collar against said pin part of said bolt; wherein squeezing said collar against said pin part of said bolt causes said collar to deform radially into indentations in said pin part of said bolt; the compression joint collar interlocking with the indentations of the pin part of the bolt, preventing loosening due to vibration, providing for more consistent higher strength clamping, and providing for easier assembly (Pages 2-3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lim to comprise compression joint collars interlocking with indentations of the pin parts of the bolts, as taught by Dvorak, in order to prevent loosening due to vibration, providing for more consistent higher strength clamping, and to provide for easier assembly.
As to claim 18, Lim as modified by Dvorak discloses a method wherein said pin part 42 of said first and second bolt is pulled in a direction away from said second side and said first and second collar 43 is pushed against said second side while said compression joint is formed (Figures 1-8).
As to claim 20, Lim as modified by Otis Elevator discloses a method wherein said method further comprises sliding said first and second bolts 41 to positions in said T-slot (14 Otis Elevator Figure 6) where the distance between said first and second bolts is the same as the distance between said first and second baluster 10 of said two or more balusters after placing said head part 41 of first and second bolt in said T-slot (Figures 1-8).
As to claim 21, Lim discloses a method wherein said method is performed by way of a railing system (Figures 1-8).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Otis Elevator and Dvorak, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Field et al. (US 9,644,836).
As to claims 3-6, Lim as modified by Otis Elevator discloses a railing system wherein said at least one T-slot (14 Otis Elevator Figure 6) is arranged in a first longitudinal rail side of said two or more longitudinal rail sides (Figures 1-8).
Lim fails to disclose a railing system comprising an illuminator arranged in an additional T-slot extending the entire length of said at least one continuous rail, and arranged in a second longitudinal rail side of said two or more longitudinal rail sides neighbouring said first longitudinal rail side.
Field et al. teach a railing system comprising an illuminator 126 is arranged in a T-slot 120 extending the entire length of a continuous rail 110, and arranged in a second longitudinal rail side of two or more longitudinal rail sides neighbouring a first longitudinal rail side 115; the illuminator providing for greater visibility and safety (Figures 7-8). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the railing system disclosed by Lim to comprise an illuminator arranged in an additional T-slot in the rail, as taught by Field et al., in order to provide for greater visibility and safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
05/22/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights