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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the structural ribs; the series of steps or rungs; and the ground mat must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
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 and 31-32 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 19 recites the limitations "the hydraulic system" and “the vehicle” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 31, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 32 is dependent upon claim 31.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Plank (5,096,334).
With regard to claim 1, Plank discloses a trench shoring apparatus (abstract), comprising: first and second side panels (panels 2; fig. 1) having a top edge, a bottom edge and side edges (fig. 1), the first and second side panels being connected in a parallel spaced-apart configuration (fig. 1) by a transverse strut (4) being mounted proximate each side edge thereof and nearer the top edge than the bottom edge (fig. 1); and actuator means (10) being operable to vary the length of the transverse strut from a first length to a second length (col. 4, line 59 – col. 5, line 7).
With regard to claim 3, Plank further discloses the first and second side panels having a castellated cross section (via corrugated sheet pile; fig. 1; col. 6, lines 13-16) and each having an inner and outer surface, and wherein the outer surfaces of the first and second side panels abut the excavated sides of the trench when in use (fig. 1; col. 4, line 59 – col. 5, line 7), and wherein the inner surfaces of the first and second side panels are each connected to the transverse strut (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 5, Plank further discloses the first length of the transverse strut corresponds to a retracted configuration that has a lateral dimension which is less than the width of the trench into which the apparatus is inserted when in use and which is less than the width of the second length of the transverse strut which corresponds to an extended configuration (col. 4, line 59 – col. 5, line 7).
With regard to claim 6, Plank further discloses the actuator means being operable to position the transverse strut to the first length whereby the apparatus can be placed between the excavated sides of the trench, and wherein the actuator means being operable to position the transverse strut to the second length whereby the outer surfaces of the first and second side panels abut against the excavated sides of the trench to deploy the apparatus, the actuator means being in a rigid condition whilst the apparatus is deployed in the trench (fig. 1; col. 4, line 59 – col. 5, line 23).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank (5,096,334) in view of Collins (4,993,880).
With regard to claim 4, Plank discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the transverse strut is secured to the inner surfaces of the first and second side panels via a seam of welding.
Collins discloses a trench shoring apparatus (abstract) wherein transverse strut is secured to the inner surfaces of the first and second side panels via a seam of welding (col. 7, lines 7-68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Plank and utilize welding for connections as taught in Collins with a reasonable expectation of success in order to permanently connected the components of the trench shoring apparatus.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank (5,096,334) in view of Meshorer (3,295,330).
With regard to claim 8, Plank further discloses the actuator means further comprises a cylinder and piston capable of being pumped with a fluid (col. 4, line 59 – col. 5, line 23) however is silent regarding a check valve to lock the strut in the rigid condition.
Meshorer discloses a trench shoring apparatus (fig. 1) with a cylinder and piston capable of being pumped with a fluid and a check valve to lock the strut in the rigid condition (col. 3, lines 20-47; claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Plank and utilize check valve as taught in Meshorer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the piston maintains its exerted force.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank (5,096,334) in view of Davidson (2008/0229702).
With regard to claim 20, Plank discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a series of steps or rungs disposed on the inner surface of the castellated side panels, the rungs being configured to form an internal ladder which provide access to the deployed trench shoring apparatus.
Davidson discloses a trench shoring apparatus (abstract) comprising a series of steps or rungs (104) disposed on the inner surface of the side panels, the rungs being configured to form an internal ladder which provide access to the deployed trench shoring apparatus (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Plank and utilize steps or rungs as taught in Davidson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase safety entering and exiting the trench.
Claim(s) 21 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank (5,096,334) in view of Cerda (2010/0264390).
With regard to claim 21, Plank discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a retractable or mountable guardrail and/or edge restraint disposed at the inner surface of the side panels and which is erectable to provide edge protection to prevent falls into the deployed trench shoring apparatus.
Cerda discloses a trench shoring apparatus (abstract) comprising a mountable guardrail and/or edge restraint (100) disposed at the inner surface of the side panels and which is erectable to provide edge protection to prevent falls into the deployed trench shoring apparatus (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Plank and utilize a guardrail as taught in Cerda, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent personnel from falling into the trench.
With regard to claim 30, Plank discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above however is silent regarding a cradle comprising a frame part which has four vertical posts arranged from the frame part and spaced apart from each other at predetermined intervals to form a rectangular frame and an upper end frame connecting to upper end parts of the four vertical postsand into which a trench shoring apparatus can be received, the frame part having provision for mounted accessories, and coupling means for connecting the cradle to a transporting vehicle.
Cerda discloses a trench shoring apparatus (abstract) comprising a cradle (fig. 1) comprising a frame part (100) which has four vertical posts (110/118) arranged from the frame part and spaced apart from each other at predetermined intervals to form a rectangular frame (fig. 2) and an upper end frame (104) connecting to upper end parts of the four vertical posts and into which a trench shoring apparatus can be received (fig. 1), the frame part having provision for mounted accessories (eg. 426), and coupling means for connecting the cradle to a transporting vehicle (para 0038).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Plank and utilize a cradle and frame as taught in Cerda, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent personnel from falling into the trench.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plank (5,096,334) in view of Raspotnik (2008/0110696).
With regard to claim 26, Plank discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a ground mat which abuts against the first and/or second side panels for improved aboveground trafficking and access when in use.
Raspotnik discloses a trench shoring apparatus (110) comprising a ground mat (202/204/206) which abuts against the first and/or second side panels for improved aboveground trafficking and access when in use (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Plank and utilize a ground mat as taught in Raspotnik, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase personnel safety around the trench.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13, 16, 17, 22, 24, 29 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.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 31-32 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 cited prior art, either alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the claim(s). Trench shoring apparatuses are known such as those taught by Plank (5,096,334) and Jennings et al. (5,232,312). However, the cited prior art lacks first and second strut arms with the first strut arm comprises a generally flat first face and an opposite second face having a series of structural ribs extending from the first face to the second face; and the second strut arm comprises a generally flat first face and an opposite second face having a series of structural ribs extending from the first face to the second face, the first strut arm and second strut arm being inverted L-shaped in plan view from the side; as well as the hoisting beam releasably connects to the apparatus and can be used to raise or lower the apparatus, the hoisting beam also hydraulically connects the actuator means to the hydraulic system disposed on the vehicle; as required by claim(s) and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prior art to achieve applicant’s invention without the benefit of hindsight and applicant’s own disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
11/19/2025