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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 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 Objections
Claims 1, 11-23 and 27-35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Lines 8-9 of the claim, it appears the limitation “at least one non-zero angle” should be –the non-zero angle-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 27: Lines 7-8 of the claim, it appears the limitation “each pedestal top plate” should be --each top plate-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 35: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “which tabs” should be –which said tabs-- for clarity and consistency of the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a locking mechanism in claim 1; and a locking element in claims 14 and 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 19, 22-23, 27-29 and 35 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.
With regard to claim 19: It’s unclear as to how the fastener engages the locking mechanism when the fastener is part of the locking mechanism as recited in claim 18 (emphasis added). For the purpose of examination, the fastener engages --the locking element--.
With regard to claim 22: It’s improper to recite a stop member as a separate element from the locking mechanism of claim 1. As presented, the stop member found in claim 22 does not have to be part of the structure corresponding to the locking mechanism, which renders the claim indefinite. Note that par. [0027] of the instant specification recites the stop member is the fastener of the locking mechanism.
With regard to claim 27: Line 8 of the claim, the limitation “the head” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the respective head--. Line 9 of the claim, the limitation “the locking mechanism” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the respective locking mechanism--.
With regard to claim 28: The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. The claim recites a spherical joint, but it’s unclear if the spherical joint is being defined with respect to each self-leveling pedestal. Accordingly, the limitations “the head”, “the top plate” and “the locking mechanism” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It’s unclear if he limitation “at least two flooring members” found in line 9 of the claim is referencing the previously recited plurality of flooring members found in claim 27. Further, it’s unclear if the limitation “adjacent flooring members” found in line 11 of the claim is referencing the previously recited at least two floor members found line 9 of the claim and/or the plurality of flooring members of claim 27.
With regard to claim 29: Line 2 of claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “at least two flooring members” is referencing the previously recited flooring member of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to –the flooring member and an adjacent flooring member--.
With regard to regard 35: The scope of the claim is unclear. It’s not readily clear if the phrase “can be formed” is claiming a deformation of the top plate or not.
Claims 19, 22-23, 27-29 and 35 are examined as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-23, 30-31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muhlethaler (EP 0 309 399 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Muhlethaler discloses a self-levelling pedestal capable of supporting a flooring member (fig. 2), the self-levelling pedestal comprising:
a base (20, 21) having a support surface (top surface of 20) (fig. 2);
a head (23, 24), distal to the base (20, 21) (fig. 2);
a top plate (29) coupled to the head (23, 24) to be pivotable relative thereto such that the top plate (29) capable of being oriented at a non-zero (i.e. non-parallel) angle to the support surface (top surface of 20) of the base (20, 21) (fig. 2); and
a locking mechanism (spherical annular pressure plate 27 and screw 26 engaging top surface of 29) configured to inhibit said pivoting of the top plate (29) relative to the head (23, 24), the locking mechanism being configured to lock (via clamping) a position of the top plate (29) in the non-zero angle to the support surface (top surface of 20) of the base (20, 21) (fig. 2; abstract).
With regard to claim 11: Muhlethaler discloses a spherical joint (at contacting surfaces) is provided between the head (23, 24) and the top plate (29), and wherein the locking mechanism (spherical annular pressure plate 27 and screw 26 engaging top surface of 29) is configured to lock the spherical joint (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 12: Muhlethaler discloses that the locking mechanism (spherical annular pressure plate 27 and screw 26 engaging top surface of 29) is configured to lock the spherical joint by friction (through clamping) (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 13: Muhlethaler discloses that the locking mechanism (spherical annular pressure plate 27 and screw 26 engaging top surface of 29) comprises a resiliently compressible element (spherical annular pressure plate 27) configured to maintain a frictional force on the spherical joint to lock it (fig. 2). Examiner notes that the compressible element (27) would inherently exhibit some degree of elastic deformation before being subject to plastic deformation when under increasing load.
With regard to claim 14: Muhlethaler discloses that the locking mechanism (spherical annular pressure plate 27 and screw 26 engaging top surface of 29) comprises a locking element (27) configured to exert a compressive force (clamping force) on the spherical joint (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 15: Muhlethaler discloses that the locking element (27) engages an upper surface of the top plate (29) (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 16: Muhlethaler discloses that the locking element (29) is part-spherical in shape (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 17: Muhlethaler discloses that the top plate (29) is constructed from a part-spherical sheet material (fig. 2), wherein the an underside of the top plate (29) forms a spherical joint against the head (23, 24), and where the upper side surface of the top plate (29) is engaged by the locking element (27) (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 18: Muhlethaler discloses that the locking mechanism (spherical annular pressure plate 27 and screw 26 engaging top surface of 29) comprises a fastener (26) engaging the locking element (27) at a first end, and engaging the head (29) at a second end to selectively apply a clamping force on the top plate (29) between the head (23, 24) and the locking mechanism (spherical annular pressure plate 27 and screw 26 engaging top surface of 29) (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 19: Muhlethaler discloses that the fastener (26) is threaded to the head (23, 24) to engage the locking element (27) by rotation thereof (fig. 2; par. [0012], lines 4-7 of translation).
With regard to claim 20: Muhlethaler discloses that the spherical joint is oriented with its origin on a base side of the top plate (29) such that the spherical joint is upwardly convex in use (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 21: Muhlethaler discloses that the spherical joint comprises a motion stop (opening in the top plate 29) limiting the degree of movement of the spherical joint (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 22: Muhlethaler discloses that the motion stop is formed by an opening in the top plate (29) through in which a stop member (26) of the locking mechanism (spherical annular pressure plate 27 and screw 26 engaging top surface of 29) is located, the motion stop (opening in the top plate 29) being provided by abutment between the a periphery of the opening and the stop member (26) (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 23: Muhlethaler discloses that the stop member is the fastener (26) of the locking mechanism (spherical annular pressure plate 27 and screw 26 engaging top surface of 29) (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 30: Muhlethaler discloses that the head (23, 24) and the base (20, 21) are adjustable relative to each other to vary the distance between the support surface (top surface of 20) and the top plate (29) to thereby alter the height of the pedestal (fig. 2; par. [0012] and [0014]).
With regard to claim 31: Muhlethaler discloses that the head (23, 24) and the base (20, 21) are connected by a threaded connection (22, 25) to alter the height (fig. 2; par. [0012] and [0014]).
With regard to claim 33: The head (23, 24) Muhlethaler defines a formation capable of being engaged by a tool to facilitate rotation thereof (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1, 11-15, 18, 27-31, 33-34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pelc, JR. et al. (US 2017/0152665 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses a self-levelling pedestal (20) for supporting a flooring member (figs. 1-5B; abstract), the self-levelling pedestal (20) comprising:
a base (5) having a support surface (A) (figs. 1-3);
a head (1, 2 and 4), distal to the base (5) (figs. 1-3);
a top plate (10) coupled to the head (1, 2 and 4) to be pivotable relative thereto such that the top plate (10) can be oriented at a non-zero (i.e. non-parallel) angle to the support surface (A) of the base (5) (figs. 1-3; abstract); and
a locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) configured to inhibit said pivoting of the top plate (10) relative to the head (1, 2 and 4), the locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) being configured to lock the a position of the top plate (10) in the non-zero angle to the support surface (A) of the base (5) (figs. 1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
649
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1: Pelc, JR. et al. (US 2017/0152665 A1)
With regard to claim 11: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses a spherical joint is provided between the head (1, 2 and 4) and the top plate (10), and wherein the locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) is configured to lock the spherical joint (fig. 4B).
With regard to claim 12: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses the locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) is configured to lock the spherical joint by friction (via clamping) (fig. 4B).
With regard to claim 13: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses that the locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) comprises a resiliently compressible element (bushing 11) configured to maintain a frictional force on the spherical joint to lock it. Examiner notes that the compressible element (11) would inherently exhibit some degree of elastic deformation before being subject to plastic deformation under increasing load.
With regard to claim 14: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses that the locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) comprises a locking element (bushing element 11) configured to exert a compressive force on the spherical joint (figs. 1, 3 and 4B).
With regard to claim 15: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses that the locking element (11) engages an upper surface of the top plate (10) (fig. 4B).
With regard to claim 18: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses that the locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) comprises a fastener (6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 15) engaging the locking element (11) at a first end, and engaging the head (1, 2 and 4) at a second end to selectively apply a clamping force on the top plate (10) between the head (1, 2 and 4) and the locking mechanism (fig. 4B).
With regard to claim 27: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses a method of installing a raised floor comprising:
providing a plurality of self-levelling pedestals (20) according to claim 1 (figs. 5A-5B);
positioning the plurality of self-levelling pedestals (20) in a spaced-apart arrangement (figs. 5A-5B);
providing a plurality of flooring members (deck-tile panels B wherein each deck-tile panel B accepts approximately one-quarter of the hold-down washer 13) (fig. 5B; par. [0093], lines 22-26);
supporting each of the plurality of flooring members (B) on the plurality of self-levelling pedestals (20), and allowing each top plate (10) to reach a desired inclination by movement relative to the respective head (1, 2 and 4) (figs. 1, 4B, 5A and 5B; abstract; par. [0004]); and
locking each top plate (10) in position with the respective locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15).
PNG
media_image2.png
434
377
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5B: Pelc, JR. et al. (US 2017/0152665 A1)
With regard to claim 28: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses a spherical joint is provided between the head (1, 2 and 4) and the top plate (10) of each self-levelling pedestal (20), and wherein each locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) is configured to lock the respective spherical joint, wherein each locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) is configured to lock the respective spherical joint by friction, wherein each locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) comprises a locking element (11) configured to exert a compressive force on the respective spherical joint, wherein each locking element (11) engages an upper surface of the respective top plate (10), wherein each locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) comprises a fastener (6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 15) engaging the respective locking element (11) at a first end, and engaging the respective head (1, 2 and 4) at a second end to selectively apply a clamping force on the respective top plate (10) between the respective head (1, 2 and 4) and the respective locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15), wherein each fastener (6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 15) is accessible between at least two flooring members of the plurality of flooring members (B) supported on the upper surface of the respective top plates (10), and wherein the locking comprises the step of passing part of a tool (tightening tool) between adjacent flooring members of the plurality of floor members (B) to thereby engage the locking mechanism (6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 15) (figs. 3, 4B and 5A-5B; par. [0093]).
With regard to claim 29: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses that the fastener (6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 15) is accessible between the flooring member (B) and another floor member (B) supported on the upper surface of the top plate (10) (fig. 4B).
With regard to claim 30: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses that the head (1, 2 and 4) and the base (5) are adjustable relative to each other to vary the distance between the support surface (A) and the top plate (10) to thereby alter the height of the pedestal (20) (figs. 3 and 4B; par. [0092]).
With regard to claim 31: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses that the head (1, 2 and 4) and the base (5) are connected by a threaded connection to alter the height (figs. 3 and 4B; par. [0092]).
With regard to claim 33: The head (1, 2, and 4) of Pelc, JR. et al. defines a formation capable of being engaged by a tool to facilitate rotation thereof.
With regard to claim 34: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses that the head (1, 2 and 4) defines a pair of diametrically opposed flats (M) (fig. 5B).
PNG
media_image3.png
574
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5B: Pelc, JR. et al. (US 2017/0152665 A1)
With regard to claim 35: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses that the top plate (10) comprises a plurality of tabs (12) (fig. 2; par. [0096]), which tabs are capable of being formed by deforming part of the top plate (10) out-of-plane.
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(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelc, JR. et al. (US 2017/0152665 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 7,866,096 B2).
With regard to claim 32: Pelc, JR. et al. discloses that the threaded connection comprises a male threaded part (X) engaged with a female threaded part (Y) (fig. 3).
Pelc, JR. et al. does not disclose a locking member is provided, the locking member having a further female threaded part engaged with the male threaded part, such that rotation of the locking member into abutment with the female threaded part locks the female threaded part into position on the male threaded part.
However, Lee et al. discloses a pedestal comprising a locking member (21), the locking member (21) having a further female threaded part engaged with a male threaded part (of first spacer element 20), such that rotation of the locking member (21) into abutment with a female threaded part (of base element 12) locks the female threaded part into position on the male threaded part for stability (figs. 1 and 2a; col. 5, lines 42-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pedestal of Pelc, JR. et al. to include a locking member having a further female threaded part engaged with the male threaded part such as taught by Lee et al. in order to provide a means of increased stability, in particular when the height of the pedestal is extended, where abutment with the female threaded part locks the female threaded part into position on the male threaded part. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the pedestal of Pelc, JR. et al. to include a locking member for increased stability such as taught by Lee et al.. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image4.png
700
388
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3: Pelc, JR. et al. (US 2017/0152665 A1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to flooring pedestals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633