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 .
This document is responsive to applicant’s claims filed 7/11/2024.
Drawings
The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Figure 1 contains substantial shading. Black and white line drawings are required. Any shading must comply with the above guidelines.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “surfaces of an elongate members” should be corrected to “surfaces of elongate members” or similar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 26 is 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. It is unclear where the inside surfaces are on the apparatus.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood. Any claims that depend upon claims rejected above are also considered rejected via dependency.
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 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 of this title, 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 23, 30, 31, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 2,738,913) in view of Watchorn et al. (US PG Pub 2008/0229524).
Regarding claim 23, Taylor discloses:
A safety assembly for a gangplank; the gangplank being deployable between a vessel and a quay; the assembly including: stanchions (11) pivotally connected with railings at an upper end and pivotally interconnected with a beam structure of the gangplank at a lower end (see figs 1 and 2); the railings being movable between a stowed position in which the railings are located adjacent to a surface of the gangplank (see fig 2), and a deployed position in which the railings are located at a distance vertically above the gangplank surface (see fig 1). Taylor does not disclose safety netting.
Watchorn teaches a similar device having safety netting (see fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the netting of Watchorn with the gangplank of Taylor yielding the predictable result of preventing small children, pets, and other items from falling off the gangplank.
Regarding claim 30, Taylor as modified discloses:
The assembly of claim 23, wherein the safety netting is formed of first lengths of parallel to the railings and second lengths of crossing the first lengths at right angles; the first lengths and the second lengths interconnected at their intersections to form a flexible, substantially rectangular mesh (see fig 1). Taylor as modified does not disclose that the material is chain. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize chain, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 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.
Regarding claim 31, Taylor as modified discloses the mesh of claim 30, but does not specify the dimensions. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to select a diagonal dimension of 190mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Such a dimension would prevent small children, pets, and other items from falling off the gangplank.
Regarding claim 36, see the rejection of claim 23.
Regarding claim 37, see the rejection of claim 30.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 25, 27-29, 32-35, 38, and 39 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 26 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm 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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/RICHARD G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights