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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application Number: 18/729,585 filed on 7/17/24 has a total of 20 claims pending for examination; there is/are 1 independent claim(s) and 19 dependent claims, all of which are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 1/17/22. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE102022200448.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) has been reviewed by the examiner and is found to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609.
Drawings
The drawing(s) have been reviewed by the examiner and are found comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.81 to 1.85.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1, the term “and/or” renders the claim indefinite since it’s not clear how it should be interpreted. Should it be all inclusive or in the alternate form?. Examiner interprets the term in the alternate language but kindly requests further clarification.
With regards to claims 2-20, due to their direct or indirect dependence from claim 1, they suffer from the same deficiencies and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
With further regards to claim 10, it also recites the term “and/or” and thus is rejected under the same reasons as claim 1 above.
With further regards to claim 19, it also recites the term “and/or” and thus is rejected under the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Due to the vagueness and a lack of clear definiteness in the claims, the claims have been treated on their merits as best understood by the examiner.
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, 7, 9, 12, 15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2012/021065 A1 to Bjordal et al. (hereinafter Bjordal)
With regards to claim 1, Bjordal teaches a beam [figs 1-5 element 100 shows a plurality of beams comprised of elements 110A, 110B] for scaffold platforms [figs 1-2 element 30] for forming a scaffold platform plane [figs 1-2 elements 30, 40], comprising at least two profiles [figs 1-5 element 100 comprised of elements 110A, 110B] which are guided longitudinally displaceably one in the other [fig 3 element 200 shows the displacement direction] and have recesses [figs 1-5 elements 120] which can be brought into overlap at least in certain regions [as shown] and which form openings in the overlap region [fig 2 element 120 coupled to element 130] for the reception of scaffold platforms [figs 1-2 elements 30, 40], wherein the shape and/or [note use of alternate language] size of the openings is variable by longitudinal displacement of the profiles relative to one another [fig 3 element 200 shows the displacement direction and corresponding elements 120 overlapping].
With regards to claim 2, Bjordal teaches the beam according to claim 1, wherein at least one profile, in which at least one further profile is guided in a longitudinally displaceable manner, is a tubular profile [fig 4 element 230 of element 110A has inwardly directing channels (tubular profile(s)) that encompass the peripheral edge 240 of element 110B – page 7 middle paragraph].
With regards to claim 3, Bjordal teaches the beam according to claim 1, wherein at least one profile is U-shaped in cross section [fig 4 element 230 of element 110A has inwardly directing channels (tubular profile(s)) that encompass the peripheral edge 240 of element 110B – page 7 middle paragraph – that appear to be U-shaped since they encompass another profile].
With regards to claim 7, Bjordal teaches the beam according to claim 1, wherein the profiles guided into one another are connected or can be connected via a screw [pg 6 lines 16-20 – “locking mechanism”].
With regards to claim 9, Bjordal teaches a scaffold platform plane comprising a plurality of scaffold platforms [figs 1-2 element 30] arranged in a plane [figs 1-2 elements 30, 40] and extending parallel to one another [figs 1-2 element 30 as shown], which are connected, via a beam [figs 1-5 element 100 shows a plurality of beams comprised of elements 110A, 110B] extending transversely [as shown] to the scaffold platforms [figs 1-2 elements 30, 40] according to claim 1 [see claim 1 rejection above].
With regards to claim 12, Bjordal teaches a method for building a scaffold platform plane [figs 1-2 elements 30, 40], in which several scaffold platforms [figs 1-2 element 30] arranged in a plane and running parallel to one another [as shown] are connected, and positioned and fixed relative to one another [as shown], using a beam [figs 1-5 element 100 shows a plurality of beams comprised of elements 110A, 110B] according to claim 1 [see claim 1 rejection above].
With regards to claim 15, Bjordal teaches a use of a beam according to claim 1 for connecting a plurality of scaffold platforms [figs 1-2 element 30] arranged in a plane [figs 1-2 elements 30, 40] and extending parallel to one another [figs 1-2 element 30 as shown], wherein the scaffold platforms are positioned and fixed relative to one another by means of the beam [figs 1-5 element 100 shows a plurality of beams comprised of elements 110A, 110B].
With regards to claim 19, Bjordal teaches the beam according to claim 7, wherein the screw is received in at least one elongated hole and/or [note use of alternate language] in at least one link-like recess in at least one side wall of a profile [pg 6 lines 16-20 – “locking mechanism”].
With regards to claim 20, Bjordal teaches the scaffold platform according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of scaffold platforms [figs 1-2 element 30] are positioned and fixed relative to one another [figs 1-2 element 30 as shown].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13-14 and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 4, the prior art of record alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest wherein the recesses for forming the openings for the reception of scaffold platforms are formed in at least two parallel side walls of the profiles and extend in each case up to an upper side of the profiles, so that the recesses are open towards the upper sides, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
With regards to claim 5, the prior art of record alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest wherein the recesses are undercut in some areas to form the openings for the reception of scaffold platforms, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
With regards to claim 6, the prior art of record alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest wherein the recesses formed in the profiles for the formation of openings for the reception of scaffold platforms are each undercut on one side only and, depending on the profile, it is either the right or left side of the respective recess, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
With regards to claim 8, the prior art of record alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest wherein the profiles each have at least one opening for the insertion of a tool in the region of a lower side, wherein the openings can be brought into overlap at least in certain regions, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
With regards to claim 10, the prior art of record alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest wherein the scaffold platforms are substantially C-shaped in cross-section and/or [note use of alternate language] have lateral webs with an inwardly projecting geometry, wherein the webs of one scaffold platform each engage in an undercut region of another profile of the beam, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
With regards to claim 11, the prior art of record alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest wherein the two outer scaffold platforms each engage in a recess of a profile of the beam, which recess is open at the front side, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
With regards to claim 13, the prior art of record alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest wherein, after the scaffold platforms have been assembled, the beam is aligned transversely to the scaffold platforms and is placed on the scaffold platforms from below with the recesses facing upwards, so that the scaffold platforms engage in the recesses, then the profiles of the beam are displaced longitudinally relative to one another so that they are transferred from an assembly position to an end position in which the scaffold platforms engage via outer contours in undercut regions of the recesses of the profiles, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
With regards to claim 14, due to its dependence from claim 13, it includes allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons.
With regards to claim 16, the prior art of record alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest wherein the at least one profile is an external profile and the tubular profile is a rectangular tube, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
With regards to claim 17, the prior art of record alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest wherein the at least one profile is an inner profile, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
With regards to claim 18, the prior art of record alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest wherein the undercut areas are adapted to at least one outer contour of a scaffold platform, in combination with the other limitations found in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication No. 20220090370 to Cope teaches a adjustable beams that support a surface. The beams adjust longitudinally to size and having overlapping recesses.
US Patent Application Publication No. 20060042179 to Vanagan teaches longitudinally adjustable beams for supporting a slab.
US Patent No. 4,620,612 to Enoki et al. teaches an expansible corridor having parallel longitudinally adjustable beams that are moved to adjust the length of the corridor.
US Patent No. 11,078,667 to Kelly teaches an extendable beam adjustable to a plurality of lengths for supporting a structure.
US Patent No. 8,261,509 to Harkin teaches a longitudinally adjustable beam having overlapping recesses.
US Patent No. 11,274,459 to Ovalle et al. teaches an extendable beam adjustable to a plurality of lengths for supporting a floor system on a pool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4152. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 8:30am-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, Daniel P Cahn can be reached on (571)270-5616. 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.
DEM
/DAVID E MARTINEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights