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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 8-13) in the reply filed on 12/19/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search of group II would overlap groups I and III and that there is no serious burden for such a search. This is not found persuasive because the examiner does not need to search a stage system or attaching specifically to a stage system in order to search for a clip. In fact, after searching for a clip, the examiner would have to expand the search and give additional consideration. Further, the claims directed to the staging system have details specific to staging systems that do not necessarily overlap with clips.
Applicant argues that a review of these groups would not be a serious search burden because a thorough search for each should include the other. The examiner disagrees because clips may be used with a myriad of structures. Searching staging systems and the method of attaching thereto, does not automatically overlap with a search for clips because such clips have a multitude of uses on a variety of structures.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,548,598 to Tally et al.
Regarding claim 8, Tally ‘598 discloses a deck clip 12 comprising: a profile including a first protrusion 58 extending from a first portion 50 of the deck clip 12 and a second protrusion 56 extending from a second portion 52 of the deck clip 12, a spring feature (bend between 50 & 52, as annotated below – clip 12 “may be formed from plastic and resiliently deflectable” – col. 3, line 13) disposed between the first portion 50 and second portion 52; wherein the first protrusion 58 is arranged and disposed to mate with a first channel of an edge rail of a staging deck and the second protrusion 56 is arranged and disposed to mate with a second channel of the edge rail of the staging deck (annotated below), the spring feature (bend between 50 & 52, as annotated below – where the portion(s) are formed to deflect in order to snap attach to the structure – col. 3, lines 41-65) being arranged and disposed to provide a clipping force between the first protrusion 58 and the first channel and the second protrusion 56 and the second channel when engaged.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the clip taught in Tally ‘598 on the edge rail of a staging deck because Tally ‘598 discloses a resilient clip 12 configured to engage an elongated structural rail, and the edge rail of a staging deck provides a similar structural member capable of receiving the same clip engagement arrangement, as recited in the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
467
971
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Tally ‘598 discloses wherein the edge rail is fabricated from extruded aluminum (col. 2, lines 42-51).
Regarding claim 10, Tally ‘598 discloses, wherein the deck clip 12 is fabricated from a polymer (col. 3, lines 9-18).
Regarding claim 11, Tally ‘598 discloses, wherein the first portion 50 of the deck clip further
includes an attachment structure 72 to detachably engage an accessory 40 to the deck clip 12 (fig. 4 – col. 3, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 12, Tally ‘598 discloses, wherein the first portion 50 of the deck clip 12 is configured to be attachable to an accessory 40 (fig. 4 – col. 3, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 13, Tally ‘598 discloses, wherein further comprising the accessory 40, the accessory being selected from the group consisting of softgoods, hard panel fascia, LED edge lighting, and moving light brackets. Noting that Tally ‘598 discloses the accessory 40 as “a tie wrap, banding, a hook and loop fastener, and/or a barrier strip” (col. 3, lines 1-6). Hook and loop fasteners are fabric fastening materials and therefore read on softgoods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure to be used in subsequent office action rejections, as applicable.
The list of supports is as follows: US-9689171-B1 OR US-6027091-A OR US-20100101131-A1 OR US-20100192334-A1 OR US-20160264030-A1 OR US-10847960-B1 OR US-6484365-B1 OR US-11406210-B2 OR US-7065912-B2 OR US-8205844-B1 OR US-6622410-B2 OR US-8245462-B2 OR US-3612461-AOR US-3528050-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632