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 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 4,5,7,9,11 and all claims depending therefrom 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.
Regarding claims 4,5,7,9 and any claims reciting “preferably”, the phrase "preferably" or “more preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "more especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-2,4-6,8-10,12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Madray (4720957).
Claims 1,4. A beam comprising a web (12) with a longitudinal center line (along the line of 24 as noted throughout the disclosure), and the web comprising at least a first row (any of 24,29,30,31, in particular 30) of plurality of apertures, in a longitudinal direction of the beam, said first row of plurality of apertures are arranged on a first longitudinal axis parallel with the longitudinal center line, and a second row (any of 24,29,30,31, in particular the other 30) of plurality of apertures, the first row of plurality of apertures and the second row of plurality of apertures are parallel with each other, wherein the first row of plurality of apertures and the second row of plurality of apertures are at an equal distance away from the longitudinal center line (where 29,30,31 on either side of 24 are equally spaced from 24 as noted in the disclosure), wherein a distance between centers of adjacent apertures satisfies the following condition:
Dadjacent = 1000mm/(2*n), or
Dadjacent = 3*1000mm/(2*n),
wherein Dadjacent is a distance between the centers of the adjacent apertures in the first row (where the first row is 30) of the plurality of the apertures and n is a natural number (where n=10, Dadjacent =50mm which is 2inces as noted in cols 7, line 58-col 8, line 42), and
the beam has external dimensions which satisfies the following condition:
Dy,z= 1000mm, or
Dy,z=1000mm/(2*n),
Dy,z=1000mm*2*n, or
Dy,z= 3*1000mm/(2*n)
wherein Dy,z is height or width or both of the beam, and n is a natural number (where n=10, Dyz=50mm which is 2 inches at noted at col. 7, lines 62-63).
Claim 2. The beam as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first row (one of the rows 30) of the plurality of apertures is arranged at 25% of a width of the web (1; 11) or Dadjacent/2 from the closest longitudinal edge of the beam, and the second row (20) of the plurality of apertures is arranged at 25% of the width of the web (1; 11) or Dadjacent/2 from the closest longitudinal edge of the beam (where 30 is arranged at 25% of the width of the web because it is in the outer 25% of the width).
Claim 5. The beam as claimed in claim 1, wherein the external dimension of the beam satisfies the following condition:
Dy,z = 3*1000mm/(2*n),
wherein Dy,z is height and width of the beam (where n=10 is 6 inches as noted at col. 7, lines 62) and n is preferably 2 or 4.
Claim 6. The beam as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of apertures of the first row (30) and the plurality of apertures of the second row (the other 30) are substantially circular and having substantially identical diameter (as noted at col. 7, lines 58- col. 8, line 42 and as seen in the figures).
Claim 8. The beam as claimed in claim 1, wherein the web (12) comprises a third row (any other of 24,29,30,31) of plurality of apertures on a third longitudinal axis parallel with the longitudinal center line (as seen in the figures).
Claim 9. The beam as claimed in claim 8, wherein the plurality of apertures of the third row (24) are arranged between the first row (one of 30) of plurality of apertures and the second row (the other 30) of plurality of apertures, preferably at the longitudinal center line (as seen in figures 1-3).
Claim 10. The beam as claimed in claim 8, wherein the plurality of apertures of the third row (24) are substantially circular and having larger diameter than the plurality of apertures of the first row (as noted in the figures and cols 7-8).
Claim 12. The beam as claimed in claim 1, wherein the beam is shaped as I-, H-, U- or L-beam, or the beam is a hollow beam (where the beam is a hollow beam see figures 1-3), wherein the beam comprises at least one flange (14,16) comprising at least a first additional row (38) of plurality of apertures and a second additional row (the upper or lower row of the pentads 36) of plurality of apertures, in the longitudinal direction of the beam, said first and second additional rows (38,36) of plurality of apertures are arranged on respectively first and second additional longitudinal axis parallel with the longitudinal center line (as seen in the figures), and the plurality of apertures of the first additional row (38) and the plurality of apertures of the second additional row (the upper or lower of 36) are perpendicularly aligned with the plurality of apertures of the first row and the plurality of apertures of the second row (as seen in the figures).
Claim 13. The beam as claimed in claim 12, wherein the plurality of apertures of the first additional row (38) and the plurality of apertures of the second additional row (the upper or lower 36) are substantially circular and having substantially identical diameter with the plurality of apertures of the first row (as noted in cols 7-8).
Claim 14. A temporary structure, wherein the temporary structure comprises at least two beams as claimed in claim 1, said beams are connected to each other with joints and/or fasteners (as seen in figures 7-22 and noted throughout the disclosure).
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) 3,7,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madray (4720957).
Claim 3. Madray discloses the beam as claimed in claim 1 (see above), but does not expressly disclose wherein the external dimension of the beam satisfies the following condition: Dx = n*Dadjacent, wherein Dx is length of the beam, and n is a natural number. In claim 1 above n=10 and Dx is 20 inches, Madray is silent regarding a specific value for Dx, but does disclose that the length can be any desired length (col. 5, and col 7, lines 60-61).Applicant has not disclosed that Dx=n*Dadjacent, or any specific value, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the beam of Madray, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with any desired length.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Madray such that Dx=n*Dadjacent, where Dx is length, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over, where both applicants disclosure and the disclosure of Madray teach that the length can be any length desired to suit a particular parameter or installation. IN the instant case it would be obvious for at least the reason of having a length that can be easily transported and assembled to other similar beams.
Claim 7. Madray discloses the beam as claimed in claim 6, wherein the diameter of the plurality of apertures of the first row (30) and the diameter of the plurality of apertures of the second row (the other 30) is substantially less than 26-28% of Dadjacent, and preferably 27.25% of Dadjacent. Madray does disclose that the values can be changed to suit desired dimensions and installations as required (col. 7, lines 60-61).
Applicant has not disclosed that the diameter of the plurality of apertures is 26-28% of Dadjacent solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Rather applicant discloses that the values can be adjusted as required for specific installations. Moreover, it appears that the beam of Madray, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with a variety of percentages, including those taught by Madray.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Madray such that the diameter of the apertures of the first and second row are 26-28% of Dadjacent, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over, where both applicants disclosure and the disclosure of Madray teach that the dimensions and therefore the rations can be adjusted and changed to suit a particular parameter or installation. In the instant case it would be obvious for at least the reason of providing apertures than can accommodate larger fasteners or connections.
Claim 11. Madray discloses the beam as claimed in claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the diameter of the plurality of apertures of the third row (24) is 45-70%of Dadjacent, and more especially 52% or 69%of Dadjacent. Madray does disclose the diameter of the apertures of the third row is 37.5% of Dadjacent, and that the values can be changed to suit desired dimensions and installations as required (col. 7, lines 60-61).
Applicant has not disclosed that the diameter of the plurality of apertures of the third row is 45-70% of Dadjacent solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Rather applicant discloses that the values can be adjusted as required for specific installations. Moreover, it appears that the beam of Madray, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with a variety of percentages, including those taught by Madray.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Madray such that the diameter of the apertures of the third row are 45-70% of Dadjacent, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over, where both applicants disclosure and the disclosure of Madray teach that the dimensions and therefore the rations can be adjusted and changed to suit a particular parameter or installation. In the instant case it would be obvious for at least the reason of providing apertures than can accommodate larger fasteners or connections or utilities therethrough.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571.270.3238. 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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights