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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Examiner notes that claim 9 and claim 9 are duplicate claims (verbatim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 10-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et al. (GB 2537848).
Re Clm 1: Moore et al. disclose a mesh panel holder (160) for an edge protection barrier system (see figs, posts with panel) comprising mesh panels (140) supported on posts (4) by means of the mesh panel holders, the mesh panel holder comprising a post attachment member (at least back plate 168 attached to the post) and a mesh panel support (fig 4e; 162, 172) attached to the post attachment member, wherein the mesh panel support comprises a mesh panel retainer (172) arranged to pivot between at least a first locked position (fig 4d) and a second locked position (fig 4a) at different pivotal angles (quarter-turn), the mesh panel retainer being arranged to, in the first locked position, enable a mesh panel to be received at the mesh panel support (retainer 172 rotated out of the way), and, in the second locked position, prevent a received mesh panel from being unintentionally removed from the mesh panel holder (retainer 172 hooked in mesh panel), wherein the mesh panel holder comprises a resilient locking member (174), wherein unlocking of the mesh panel retainer from the first and second locked positions requires operation of the resilient locking member (shown in figs 4b and 4c).
Re Clm 2: Moore et al. disclose wherein the mesh panel retainer, in a mounted state of the mesh panel holder, extends generally horizontally in the first position (see fig 4d), and extends generally vertically in the second position (fig 4a or 4e).
Re Clms 3 and 18: Moore et al. disclose wherein the mesh panel support comprises a support member (housing and housing elements of 160, 166a,b, etc.) attached to the post attachment member and arranged to support the mesh panel, and wherein the mesh panel retainer is pivotally connected with the support member at an end thereof ( as shown).
Re Clm 4: Moore et al. disclose wherein the mesh panel retainer comprises a first engagement portion (any portion of 172) and the support member comprises a second engagement portion (any portion engaged within the housing) arranged to engage with the first engagement portion. Examiner notes that the two elements are arranged to engage with each other (pivot, translate, etc.).
Re Clm 10: Moore et al. disclose wherein the post attachment member comprises a post bracket arranged to extend around at least a part of a periphery of a post (168 attached to post 4 by adjustable clamp; would extend around at least a part of a periphery of the post).
Re Clm 11: Moore et al. disclose wherein the post attachment member comprises a clamping member connected with the post bracket and is arranged to clamp the post bracket at the post (again, 168 attached to post 4 by adjustable clamp; would extend around at least a part of a periphery of the post).
Re Clm 16: Moore et al. disclose an edge protection barrier system (see all figs) comprising at least one mesh panel (140) supported on posts (4) by means of mesh panel holders (160) each holder comprising a post attachment member (at least back plate 168 attached to the post) and a mesh panel support (fig 4e; 162, 172) attached to the post attachment member, wherein the mesh panel support comprises a mesh panel retainer (172) arranged to pivot between at least a first locked position (fig 4a) and a second locked position (fig 4d) at different pivotal angles (quarter-turn), the mesh panel retainer being arranged to, in the first locked position, enable a mesh panel to be received at the mesh panel support (retainer 172 rotated out of the way), and, in the second locked position, prevent a received mesh panel from being unintentionally removed from the mesh panel holder (retainer 172 hooked in mesh panel), wherein the mesh panel holder comprises a resilient locking member (174), wherein unlocking of the mesh panel retainer from the first and second locked positions requires operation of the resilient locking member (shown in figs 4b and 4c).
Re Clm 16: Moore et al. disclose a method of installing an edge protection barrier system [[(30)]] comprising mesh panels (140), posts (4) and mesh panel holders (160), wherein each mesh panel holder comprises a post attachment member (at least back plate 168 attached to the post) and a mesh panel support (fig 4e; 162, 172) attached to the post attachment member, wherein the mesh panel support comprises a mesh panel retainer (172) arranged to pivot between at least a first locked position (fig 4d) and a second locked position (fig 4a) at different pivotal angles (quarter-turn), the mesh panel retainer being arranged to, in the first locked position, enable a mesh panel to be received at the mesh panel support (retainer 172 rotated out of the way), and, in the second locked position, prevent a received mesh panel from being unintentionally removed from the mesh panel holder (retainer 172 hooked in mesh panel), wherein the mesh panel holder comprises a resilient locking member (174), wherein unlocking of the mesh panel retainer from the first and second locked positions requires operation of the resilient locking member (shown in figs 4b and 4c).
the method comprising: mounting several posts on a floor (see figs); mounting at least one mesh panel holder on each post (see figs); setting the mesh panel retainers in the first locked position (fig 4d); mounting each mesh panel on two adjacent posts, thereby receiving each mesh panel at the mesh panel supports of the adjacent posts (see fig 6); and pivoting the mesh panel retainers to the second locked position (see pivoting in figs 4a-4d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (GB 2537848) in view of Wroblewski (GB 2571432).
Re Clms 12-13: Moore et al. fails to disclose wherein the post bracket comprises a mouth for receiving the post into the post bracket, and wherein the clamping member further comprises a gate element movable between a closed position where the gate element closes the mouth and an open position where the mouth is open and allows the post to pass the mouth, wherein the post bracket is resilient, at least at the mouth, and the gate element comprises a pin having a thread at one end thereof and a head at the other end thereof, and is arranged to, in the closed position, clamp the post bracket at the post by being rotated..
Wroblewski teaches the use of a panel holder (figs 2a-2b) wherein the post bracket (40) comprises a mouth (where post is clamped) for receiving the post into the post bracket, and wherein the clamping member further comprises a gate element (44 and 50 with 52) movable between a closed position where the gate element closes the mouth and an open position where the mouth is open and allows the post to pass the mouth; the post bracket (40) is resilient, at least at the mouth (see figs), and the gate element comprises a pin (50) having a thread at one end thereof and a head at the other end thereof (see figs 2a-2b), and is arranged to, in the closed position, clamp the post bracket at the post by being rotated. This is taught for the purpose of providing a secure clamping arrangement to provide a required clamping force on the post.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the post bracket of Moore et al. with a post bracket as claimed, as taught by Wroblewski with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a secure clamping arrangement to provide a required clamping force on the post.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (GB 2537848) in view of Wroblewski (GB 2571432) as applied to claims 12-13 above, and further in view of Reyes (US 8367918).
Re Clms 14-15: Moore et al. in vie of Wroblewski fails to disclose wherein the clamping member constitutes an eccentric lock, wherein the clamping member comprises a lever pivotally attached, at a pivot connection, with the post bracket at the mouth, wherein the gate member is pivotally connected with the lever and eccentrically connected with the lever with respect to the pivot connection.
Reyes teaches the use of a clamping post bracket wherein the clamping member constitutes an eccentric lock (as shown in fig 1b), wherein the clamping member comprises a lever (12) pivotally attached, at a pivot connection (11), with the post bracket at the mouth (opening of clamp), wherein the gate member (8) is pivotally connected with the lever and eccentrically connected with the lever with respect to the pivot connection (as shown). This is taught for the purpose of providing an adjustable post clamp bracket without the use of added tools.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have replaced the clamping configuration of Moore et al. and/or Wroblewski with another known clamping structure having an eccentric lock (lever, pivot connection, etc.), by simple substitution, and taught by Reyes with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an adjustable post clamp bracket without the use of added tools.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 19-20 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Clm 5: The prior art fails to disclose wherein the resilient locking member comprises a locking element, which comprises the second engagement portion, which locking element is releasably engaged with the mesh panel retainer at first and second lock portions, which are comprised in the first engagement portion of the mesh panel retainer, in the first and second locked positions, respectively.
Re Clms 9, 19, and 20: The prior art fails to disclose wherein the resilient locking member comprises resilient legs of the mesh panel retainer, wherein the resilient legs are arranged to be pushed towards each other to unlock the mesh panel retainer and enable pivoting thereof.
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 JONATHAN PETER MASINICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a-5p 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 at (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 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.
/JONATHAN P MASINICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678