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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 as filed on 07/10/2026 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below. Claim 14 has been canceled as of 07/10/2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-21 objected to because of the following informalities: The language cross-strut and cross strut appear throughout the claim set however is not consistent. The terms must be uniform and unambiguous throughout the claim set. It appears all instances of “cross strut” is intended to recite “cross-strut” as originally introduced in claim 1.
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 1-13, 15-21 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.
In regards to Claims 1, 11-12, “the sides” lacks antecedent basis throughout due to not being formally introduced in claim 1. Examiner has interpreted the first instance of the sides to recite “sides”.
In regards to Claims 1, 11-12, “The side” lacks antecedent basis throughout due to not being formally introduced in claim 1. Examiner has interpreted the first instance of the side to recite “a side”.
In regards to Claims 1, 11-12, “The end” lacks antecedent basis throughout due to not being formally introduced in claim 1. Examiner has interpreted the first instance of the end to recite “an end”.
In regards to Claim 1-2, 13-15, “the longitudinal direction” as used throughout, lacks antecedent basis. The first instance of the longitudinal direction appears to recite “a longitudinal direction”.
In regards to Claim 6, “diameter” as used in line 4, lacks antecedent basis. The term diameter has not been formally introduced in the independent claim 1. It appears the language is intended to recite the fastener’s diameter.
In regards to Claim 9, “the steel” as used in line 5 is lacks antecedent basis. It appears the steel is intended to recite “the steel material”.
The term “softening” in claim 9, line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “softening” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim language is being interpreted as lessening the yield strength (i.e., not as strong).
In regards to Claim 10, “the structural steel ” as used in line 2-3, lacks antecedent basis. The term the structural steel has not been properly introduced. It appears the language is intended to recite the steel pipe profiles.
In regards to Claim 10, “the hardness” as used in lines 3 and 4, lacks antecedent basis. The term the hardness has not been properly introduced. This language is being interpreted as the steel pipe profiles hardness.
In regards to Claim 10, “their” as used in line 3, is deemed unclear and indefinite. The term there is indefinite due to numerous elements being previously introduced in the claim and independent claim. It appears the language is intended to recite the edges of the fastening holes hardness.
The term “softened” in claim 10, line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “softened” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim language is being interpreted as lessening the yield strength.
In regards to Claim 11, “the region” as used in line 3, lacks antecedent basis. The region has not been formally introduced in claim or independent claim. It appears the language is intended to recite the cross strut end region.
In regards to Claim 11, “the end” as used in line 3, lacks antecedent basis. It appears the end is intended to recite “one end”.
In regards to Claim 12, “the region” as used in line 3, lacks antecedent basis. The region has not been formally introduced in claim or independent claim. It appears the language is intended to recite the cross strut end region.
In regards to Claim 12, “the end” as used in line 3, lacks antecedent basis. It appears the end is intended to recite “one end”.
In regards to Claim 16-19, “it” as used throughout, is deemed unclear and indefinite. The term there is indefinite due to numerous elements being previously introduced in the claim and independent claim. It appears the language is intended to recite the truss structure.
In regards to Claims 3-5, 7 and 20-21, rejected due to dependency on independent Claim 1.
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 1-6, 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin (US 3826057) in view of Baba (US 5617694) .
In regards to Claim 1, Franklin discloses
A connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] for mechanically connecting pipe profiles [Fig 5] to each other to form a truss structure (51) [Fig 8] , comprising at least one frame beam (13) [Fig 3] that is elongated with a rectangular cross-section [Fig 5, Showing Rectangular Cross Section and elongated], to which at least one cross-strut (23) [Fig 5] with a rectangular cross-section [Fig 5, Showing Rectangular Cross Section] and extending diagonally [Fig 5, Extending Diagonally] and/or perpendicularly to the frame beam (13) [Fig 3] , are arranged to be connected [Fig 5, Connection Mechanism], wherein receiving openings (19,21) are formed on one side (17) [Fig 3] of the frame beam (13) [Fig 3] for receiving one end [Fig 5] of each cross struts (23) [Fig 5] into the frame beam (13) [Fig 3]; wherein fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] and/or outlines thereof are formed in the region of the end [Fig 3] of the cross strut (23) [Fig 5] extending into [Fig 5] the frame beam (13) [Fig 3], and corresponding fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] and/or outlines thereof are formed on the sides (14,16) [Fig 3] of the frame beam (13) [Fig 3] perpendicular to the side [Perpendicular sidewall, Fig 3] containing the receiving openings (19,21) ;
However, Franklin fails to discloses a connecting structure for mechanically connecting steel pipe profiles to each other to form a truss structure, that guide holes are formed on the sides of the frame beam perpendicular to the side containing the receiving openings, said guide holes being equipped with at least one guide pin extending in the transverse direction of the frame beam ; and that a guide groove is formed at the end of the cross strut, which, in cooperation with said at least one guide pin , is arranged to position the fastening holes of the cross struts and the corresponding fastening holes of the frame beam in exact alignment, enabling a fastener be inserted precisely through the fastening holes, thereby rigidly connecting the pipe profiles to each other.
Furthermore, Baba discloses
comprising at least one elongated frame beam (60) [Fig 10], mechanically connecting steel [Modified above, Franklin] pipe profiles (70)[Fig 10], guide holes (55) [Fig 2] [Col 9, Line 20] are formed on the sides (14,16, Franklin) [Fig 3] of the frame beam (13, Franklin) [Fig 3] perpendicular to the side (17, Franklin) [Fig 3] containing the receiving openings (19,21, Franklin) , said guide holes (55) [Fig 2] [Col 9, Line 20] being equipped with at least one guide pin (91R) [Fig 11] extending a transverse direction [As shown] of the frame beam (60) [Fig 10], (13, Franklin) [Fig 3] ; and wherein the cross-strut (23, Franklin) [Fig 5] comprise a guide groove (57) [Fig 9] is formed at the end of the cross strut (23, Franklin) [Fig 5] , the guide groove (57) [Fig 9] having an open end [Fig 9, showing open end] in the longitudinal direction [as modified] of the cross-strut (23, Franklin) [Fig 5], and which in cooperation with said at least one guide pin (91R) [Fig 11], is arranged to position the fastening holes (26,27, Franklin) [Fig 3] of the cross struts (23, Franklin) [Fig 5] and the corresponding fastening holes (26,27, Franklin) [Fig 3] of the frame beam (60) [Fig 10] (13, Franklin) [Fig 3] in exact alignment [Fig 3, Showing Alignment, Franklin], enabling a fastener (28, Franklin) [Fig 5] be inserted [Fig 5, Franklin] through the fastening holes (26,27, Franklin) [Fig 3] , thereby rigidly connecting the pipe profiles [Fig 5, Franklin] to each other.
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection structure as disclosed by Franklin to further incorporate guide holes are formed on the sides of the frame beam perpendicular to the side containing the receiving openings, said guide holes being equipped with at least one guide pin extending in the transverse direction of the frame beam ; and that a guide groove is formed at the end of the cross strut, which, in cooperation with said at least one guide pin , is arranged to position the fastening holes of the cross struts and the corresponding fastening holes of the frame beam in exact alignment, enabling a fastener be inserted precisely through the fastening holes, thereby rigidly connecting the pipe profiles to each other as disclosed by Baba. When modified, the guide holes in addition to the guide pin and guide groove with all furthering limitations allows for ease of installation and alignment prior to the fastening of the cross-strut structure to the beam frame. Limiting errors and wear and tear during installation.
In regards to Claim 2, Franklin as modified discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1. Baba discloses wherein the guide groove (57) [Fig 12] is a guide groove (57) [Fig 12] extending in the longitudinal direction [As modified] of the cross strut (23, Franklin) [Fig 5], or a guide groove (57) [Fig 12] extending at an acute angle with respect to the longitudinal direction of the cross strut (23, Franklin) [Fig 5], wherein said angle is at most 45 degrees.
Additionally, the language “OR” is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
In regards to Claim 3, Franklin as modified discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1. Baba discloses wherein a separate guide pin (91R) [Fig 11] is arranged in each guide hole (55) [Fig 2] [Col 9, Line 20].
In regards to Claim 4, Franklin as modified discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1. Baba discloses wherein a continuous [Fig 11, Showing Continuous] guide pin (91R) [Fig 11] is arranged [As modified] between opposite said guide holes (55) [Fig 2] [Col 9, Line 20].
In regards to Claim 5, Franklin discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1, wherein the fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] are made smaller [Col. 3, Lines 33-36] than the diameter of the fastener (28) used and/or the guide holes (55, Baba) [Fig 2] [Col 9, Line 20] are made smaller than the guide pins (91R, Baba) [Fig 11] used.
In regards to Claim 6, Franklin as modified discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1, wherein the pipe profiles [Fig 5, Franklin] (70, Baba) are made of steel material [as Modified] with a yield strength of 700 MPa or more, wherein the fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] and/or guide holes (55) [Fig 2] [Col 9, Line 20] are made, smaller [Col. 3, Lines 33-36] than the diameter of the fastening means (28) and/or guide pins (91R) [Fig 11] used, and made with edges softener than the hardness [As modified, POSTA Method of Manufacturing] of the fastener (26,27) [Fig 3] (55) [Fig 2] [Col 9, Line 20] have been made softer [As modified, POSTA Method of Manufacturing] than the hardness of the fastening means (28) and/or the guide pins (91R) [Fig 11] used by means of laser machining [Product by Process, POSTA Method of Manufacturing], or heat treatment [Product by Process, POSTA Method of Manufacturing], allowing the fastener (28) [Fig 5] and/or the guide pins (91R) [Fig 11] to penetrate through the holes (26,27) [Fig 3] (55) [Fig 2] [Col 9, Line 20]. However, Franklin fails to disclose wherein the pipe profiles are made of steel material with a yield strength of 700 MPa or more,
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify material of the pipe profiles of Franklin to be made of a material with 700 MPa or more in yield strength in order allow a stabilized truss system, when modified, the material comprising 700 MPa or more allows for enough weight to withstand earths elements (rain, snow, etc) without failure. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 8, Franklin discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1, wherein the fastener (28) [Fig 5].
However, fails to disclose wherein the fastener comprises conical fastening pins.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fastener of Franklin to be made of conical fastening pins in order facilitate attachment. When modified, the conical fastening pins allow for ease of procurement as it is known to be easily accessible. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 9, Franklin discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1, wherein the pipe profiles [Fig 5] are made of steel material with a yield strength of 700 MPa or more, wherein outlines for the fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] are formed by softening the position of the fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] by means of laser machining [As modified, POSTA Method of Manufacturing] to enable the fastener (28) [Fig 5] to be inserted through the steel [Material of Pipe Profiles, Fig 5] without a pilot hole.
However, fails to disclose wherein the pipe profiles are made of steel material with a yield strength of 700 MPa or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify material of the pipe profiles of Franklin to be made wherein the pipe profiles are made of steel material with a yield strength of 700 MPa or more in order allow a stabilized truss system, when modified, the material comprising 700 MPa or more allows for enough weight to withstand earths elements (rain, snow, etc) without failure. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
In regards to Claim 10, Franklin discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1, wherein edges for or outlines of the fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] in the structural steel are softened [Method of Manufacturing by POSHTA]. However, fails to disclose the structural steel are softened edges hardness is 1/3 to 1/2 of the hardness of the fastener.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastening holes or outlines of Franklin to be produced by the structural steel are softened edges hardness is 1/3 to 1/2 of the hardness of the fastener in order to facilitate attachment. When modified softening the edges by certain method of manufacturing by POSHTA allows for limiting errors comparatively to manually installing fastening holes. As it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 (E).
In regards to Claim 11, Franklin discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1, wherein one or more fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] and/or outlines thereof are formed on each opposite side (14,16) [Col. 3, Lines 22-24] in the region of the end [Fig 5] of the cross struts (23) [Fig 5] that extend into [Fig 5] the frame beam (13) [Fig 3], and corresponding fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] and/or outlines thereof are formed on the sides (14,16) [Col. 3, Lines 22-24] of the frame beam (13) [Fig 3] perpendicular to the side (17) containing the receiving openings (19,21) [Unnumbered, Fig 6] .
In regards to Claim 12, Franklin discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] and/or outlines thereof are formed on each opposite (14,16) [Col. 3, Lines 22-24] side in the region of the end [Unnumbered, Fig 3] (see examiners comments) of the cross struts (23) [Fig 5] that extend into [Fig 6] the frame beam (13) [Fig 3], and corresponding fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] and/or outlines thereof are formed on the sides (14,16) of the frame beam (13) [Fig 3] perpendicular to the side (17) containing the receiving openings (19,21) [Unnumbered, Fig 6] , wherein said plurality of fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] and/or outlines thereof comprises at least two [2 each, 26,27] . However, fails to disclose wherein said plurality of fastening holes and/or outlines thereof comprises at least two, fastening holes and/or outlines thereof.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify fastening holes of Franklin to have at minimum 2 openings arranged in one or more lines in order to create a securing/fastening mechanism, using the lines as a redundancy connection. When modified, there would be additional fastening holes (minimum of 2) within the connecting structure to further securing the attachment mechanism. Additionally, in general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
In regards to Claim 13, Franklin as modified (in claim 12) discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] to claim 12, wherein each said plurality of fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] and/or outlines thereof comprises one or more lines [As modified in claim 12] of fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] and/or outlines thereof extending in the longitudinal direction of the cross strut (23) [Fig 5], wherein each line comprises two or more fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] and/or outlines thereof in succession in the longitudinal direction of the cross strut (23) [Fig 5].
In regards to Claim 15, Franklin as modified, discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1, Baba discloses wherein the guide groove (57) [Fig 9] is dimensioned such that said at least one guide pin (91R) [Fig 11] fits to move into the guide groove (57) [Fig 9] via said open end [Shown Open End] in the longitudinal direction of cross strut (23, Franklin) [Fig 5],
In regards to Claim 16, Franklin discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1, comprising one or more cross struts (23) [Fig 5], wherein each said cross struts (23) [Fig 5] is an elongated beam with a rectangular cross-section [Fig 5, Showing Rectangular Cross Section].
In regards to Claim 17, Franklin discloses a truss structure (51) [Fig 8] comprising at least one elongated frame beam (13) [Fig 3] with a rectangular cross-section [Fig 3, Showing Rectangular Cross-Section] and cross struts (23) [Fig 5] with a rectangular cross-section [Fig 5, Showing Rectangular Cross-Section] connected [Fig 5] to the frame beam (13) [Fig 3] with a connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1 (see above) the cross struts (23) [Fig 5] extend diagonally [Fig 5, Cross Diagonally] and/or perpendicularly with respect to the frame beam (13) [Fig 3].
In regards to Claim 18, Franklin discloses the truss structure (51) [Fig 8] according to claim 17, comprising a fastener (28) [Fig 3] extending through the fastening holes [Unnumbered, Fig 5] of the cross struts (23) [Fig 5] and the fastening holes (26,27) [Fig 3] of the frame beam (13) [Fig 3].
In regards to Claim 19, Franklin as modified discloses the truss structure (51) [Fig 8] according to claim 17.
Baba discloses comprising guide pins (91R) extending through the guide holes (55) [Fig 2] [Col 9, Line 20] into the guide grooves (57) [Fig 9].
In regards to Claim 20, Franklin discloses the truss structure (51) [Fig 8] according to claim 17, wherein one end [Fig 5] of each cross struts (23) [Fig 5] extends into the frame beam (13) [Fig 3] through a receiving opening (19,21) formed on one side (17) of the frame beam (13) [Fig 3] .
In regards to Claim 21, Franklin discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] or truss structure (51) [Fig 8] according to claim 17, wherein each said cross struts (23) [Fig 5] is an elongated beam (13) [Fig 3] with a rectangular cross-section [Fig 5, Showing Rectangular Cross-Section].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin (US 3826057) in view of Baba (US 5617694) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Franklin (US 3826057) secondary embodiment (herein Franklin Secondary).
In regards to Claim 7, Franklin discloses the connecting structure [Unnumbered] [Fig 5] according to claim 1, wherein the fastener (28) [Fig 5]. However, fails to disclose the fastener comprises screws.
Furthermore, Franklin Secondary in a separate embodiment discloses the fastener (28, First embodiment) [Fig 5] comprises screws [Secondary Embodiment, Fig 19] (134, 128).
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection structure as disclosed by Franklin to further incorporate a fastener with screws as disclosed by Franklin Secondary allowing for a method of fastening using thread to create a secure mechanism.
Response to Arguments:
1. Objections to the Claims: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claim objections is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn. However, new issues in regards to claim objections have been raised. Please see Claim Objections section above.
2. Objections to the Drawings: Applicant' s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
3. Objections to the Specifications: Applicant makes no argument with respect to the abstract and has not filed an additional abstract with corrections. Objection is not withdrawn with reject to the specifications.
4. Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 are partially persuasive, however rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is not withdrawn.
Applicant recites: with respect to the remaining issues, the applicant disagrees with the rejections. With regards to Claim 12, “a plurality of fastener holes” is correctly used. The term softened or softening as used through are not relevant terms, as they are verbs and not adjectives. Furthermore, disclosing the claims inherently provide the referenced i.e., a material softer than what it was.
Furthermore, applicant recites the terms longitudinal and diameter require no antecedent basis.
Additionally, disclosing the phrase “fastening holes formed on the region of the end of the cross strut that extend into the frame beam”: is not indefinite due to the claims only reciting one frame beam and clearly only one side of the cross strut can extend into a particular frame beam.
Examiners Response:
In regards to the phrase “a plurality of fastener holes”, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the terms softened or softening as used and currently maintained rejection is incorrectly looked at. Relevant terms are deemed indefinite if the word can be use to assert different situations. The term softening/softened is subjective to one of ordinary skill in the art whereas the specification does not support the phrase of softening/softened. Additionally, the term softening is not assertive, it is unclear how much the area is softened, if the area is able to be pierced without the support of something else in addition to the fastener. It is unclear to which degree the softening occurs.
In regards to Longitudinal and Diameter requiring no antecedent basis. This is incorrect, the term longitudinal as used has not been formally introduced. As per MPEP 2173.05 (e) “the lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to “said lever” or “the lever,” where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference”. The direction of the cross strut has not been formally introduced, and the fasteners diameter has not been formally introduced. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably assert by those skilled in the art.
In regards the phrase “fastening holes formed on the region of the end of the cross strut that extend into the frame beam” not being indefinite is also incorrect. As per MPEP 2173.05 (e) “the lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to “said lever” or “the lever,” where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference”. An end and the region has not be formally introduced, one of ordinary skill cannot distinguish which end and which region.
5. Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant' s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant recites: claim 1 has been amended to include the following “the cross-strut comprises a guide groove is formed at the end of the cross strut, the guide groove having an open end in the longitudinal direction of the cross-strut”. Additionally, the applicant recites the prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious guide grooves in the cross-strut or which has an open end in the longitudinal direction of the cross strut.
Furthermore, Applicant recites, the slit 57 (baba) is on a plate and is outside the frame beam 60. Additionally, it is open in the transverse direction. Furthermore, disclosing does not cooperate with a pin provided on the frame beam.
Examiners Response: In regards to the amended claim as is in the above, the prior of record in fact does teach the new limitations. As recited in depth (in the above) Franklin discloses the cross-strut (23, Fig 5) modified with Baba which discloses the guide groove (57) [Fig 9], modified to be formed at the end of the strut (23, Fig 5), furthermore Baba discloses where as shown in Fig 9 the guide groove (57) [Fig 9] having an open end [Fig 9, showing open end] in the longitudinal direction [as modified] of the cross-strut (23, Franklin) [Fig 5].
Furthermore, in regards to the argument about the guide groove opening in the transverse direction, and is set on a plate. The plate and frame beam in question is not recited in the rejection above, only the guide groove (as per Baba, GUIDE GROOVE (57)) and pin (91R) [Fig 11]. In order to establish a conclusion of obviousness, the criteria includes combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143.I). One of ordinary skill in the art is able to come to the conclusion the guide groove (57) of Baba is intended to be used as a guide groove in order to establish secure connection. Additionally, although Baba doesn’t show the guide groove on a cross strut itself, Franklin shows that is it known to provide a cross strut and Baba shows that it is known to provide a guide groove, the combination disclosing a guide groove on a strut.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 5PM.
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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights