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 1-3 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.
In claim 1, Line 7 recites “a guardrail” but Lines 1-2 already recited “an end guardrail”. It is unclear if these are the same or different.
In claim 1, Line 10 recites “a guardrail” but Lines 1-2 already recited “an end guardrail” and Line 7 recited “a guardrail”. It is unclear if these are the same or different.
In claim 2, Line 8 recites “a rear beam” but Line 6 already recited “a rear beam”. It is unclear if these are the same or different.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the acts of" on Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 10,053,881 to Briggs.
Regarding claim 1, Briggs teaches in Figures 1A-1D, a guardrail (12) [handle (Column 5, Line 19)] storage [closed position (Column 4, Lines 63-64)] system (10) (Column 4, Line 41) comprising: a front bracket (16) (Column 5, Line 50) attached to a tier (40A) [deck (Column 6, Lines 22-23)] adjacent a front beam (42A) [deck nose (Column 6, Line 20)] of the tier (40A) and configured to secure a guardrail (12) to the tier (40A); at least one locking mechanism (Column 6, Line 66), configured to prevent relative motion [mechanical stop (Column 6, Lines 6-7)] between the front bracket (16) and a guardrail (12) secured in the front bracket (16); whereby, upon disengagement [out of engagement (Column 6, Line 36)] of the at least one locking mechanism (Column 6, Lines 6-7), the guardrail (12) is rotatable about a vertical axis (Column 6, Lines 37-38) from a use position [open position (Column 6, Line 67) as seen in Figure 1A] substantially parallel to an end of the tier (40A) to a storage position [closed position (Column 6, Line 41) as seen in Figure 1C] substantially parallel to the front beam (42A) of the tier (40A), and wherein the at least one locking mechanism (Column 2, Line 35) rotationally secures (Column 6, Lines 15-16) the guardrail (12) against the tier (40A) when in the storage position [closed position (Column 6, Line 41)]. Note: the Examiner finds in the preamble on Lines 1-5 the language “for securing” to be a recitation of the intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Briggs teaches in Figures 1A-1D, a method (Column 2, Line 20) comprising the acts of: disengaging [out of engagement (Column 6, Line 36)] a locking device (Column 6, Lines 6-7) that holds a guardrail (12) [handle (Column 5, Line 19)] in an in-use position [open position (Column 6, Line 67) as seen in Figure 1]; pivoting [rotating] the guardrail (12) about a vertical axis (Column 6, Lines 37-38) of a front bracket (16) (Column 5, Line 50) attached to a tier (40A) [deck (Column 6, Lines 22-23)] adjacent a front beam (42A) [deck nose (Column 6, Line 20)] of the tier (40A) and configured to secure a guardrail (12) in a storage position [closed position (Column 6, Line 41) as seen in Figure 1C]; and securing [locking (Column 6, Lines 66-67)] the guardrail (12) in the storage position (Column 6, Line 41). Note: the Examiner finds in the preamble on Lines 1-6 the language “of transitioning” to be a recitation of the intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 10,053,881 to Briggs et al in view of US Patent # 5,820,110 to Beu.
Regarding claim 3, Briggs teaches in Figures 1A-1D, the front bracket (16) is attached to the tier (40A) adjacent the front beam (42A) of the tier (40A) is configured to secure a front leg (14) [post (Column 5, Line 45)] of the guardrail (12) to the tier (40A) but does not teach a rear bracket. However, Beu teaches in Figures 5 and 8, a rear bracket (80), attached to a rear beam (41) of a tier (14), and configured for securing a rear leg (63) of a guardrail (22) to an end region of the tier (14) proximate a rear beam (41) of the tier (14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Briggs with Beu and have a reasonable expectation of success because the rail of Briggs and the rail of Beu are a simple substitution of own known element for another that would result in predictable results. In the instant case, the rail of Beu has two legs as opposed to the one of Briggs thus would have a stronger and more balanced attachment because of the two legs instead of the one.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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, 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635