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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 8-10 are blurry in nature, making it difficult to decipher the different features and boundaries of the components. Applicant should replace the illegible figures with black and white line drawings so all components and features are clearly depicted in the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 3, examiner does not see where in the disclosure it is explained how the transverse beam adjusts the fall protection net, as currently claimed. Via the disclosure it appears the transverse beam supports an end of the fall protection net, but nowhere is it discussed or explained how the beam would adjust the net.
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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1 the connection between the telescopic structure and anchoring unit, as currently claimed, suggests the first and second upright are not part of the telescopic structure, but something that connects the telescopic structure to anchoring unit. This should be clarified in the claim as it is the first and second uprights that provide the “telescopic” connection with the anchoring unit.
With respect to claim 3, it is unclear how the transverse beam adjusts the fall protection net, as the beam is not claimed or disclosed as being adjustable in any way.
With respect to dependent claim 12, it is not clear if the applicant is claiming a second translation carriage, or if the applicant is referring back to the at least one translation carriage already set forth in claim 1. As best understood applicant is referring back to the at least one translation carriage of claim 1. If applicant intends to claim a second translation carriage the claim should be amended accordingly so as to clearly define a second translation carriage.
Additionally, it appears claim 14, line 1 should be “translation tensioning device” so as not be confused with the “tensioning device” which is a different component.
Dependent claims not directly named are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
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) 1-2, 6-11, 15-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwoerer (US 2010/0038518).
Schwoerer discloses:
1. A climbing scaffold (10, figure 1) comprising:
a linear translation motion assisting mechanism (see below);
the assisting mechanism comprises at least one translation carriage (see below) attached to a formwork unit (14, figure 2);
the assisting mechanism (see below) and the formwork unit (14) are supported by an anchoring unit (48, frame members of 42 and top ends of 58); and
the anchoring unit (48, frame members of 42 and top ends of 58) with main bracket bodies (frame members) includes a first coupling portion (upper end of 58, figure 2) and a second coupling portion (upper end of 58 at opposing end of platform assembly) to assemble a telescopic structure (44 and frame components supporting 44) respectively to a first upright and a second upright (receiving portions of 58s).
PNG
media_image1.png
767
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. The climbing scaffold according to claim 1, wherein each main bracket body includes at least one guide on which the at least one translation carriage moves (best seen in figure 1; unnumbered guides extending transversely across 42).
6. The climbing scaffold according to claim 1, further comprising at least one safety guardrail coupled to the formwork unit (see above).
7. The climbing scaffold according to claim 1, further comprising at least one safety guardrail coupled to the telescopic structure (see above).
8. The climbing scaffold according to claim 1, further comprising a working platform (44) coupled to the telescopic structure (figure 2).
9. The climbing scaffold according to claim 1, further comprising a working platform coupled to the anchoring unit (42).
10. The climbing scaffold according to claim 9, wherein the working platform includes standard platform sections (sections of the platform not occupied by the carriage; figure 1) and carriage platform sections (sections of the platform surrounding and/or beneath the carriage; figure 1).
11. The climbing scaffold according to claim 1, further comprising at least one safety guardrail coupled to the anchoring unit (see above).
15. The climbing scaffold according to claim 1, further comprising a fist bracing beam (68; figure 4), a second bracing beam (68 at opposing end of platform assembly), a first horizontal bracing beam (one of the horizontal beams supporting 44), and a second horizontal bracing beam (another of a horizontal bean supporting 44; alternatively the guardrails could be horizontal bracing beams)
16. The climbing scaffold according to claim 1, wherein the anchoring unit is coupled to a wall utilizing upper engagement portions (@40, figure 2) and lower engagement portions (@ 66 & 38).
18. The climbing scaffold according to claim 1, further comprising a first intermediate upright (68; figure 4) and a second intermediate upright (68 at opposing end of platform assembly).
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(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwoerer alone.
Re: claim 17, Schwoerer does not disclose wherein the first upright and the second upright have a total length ranging from 0.3 meters to 8 meters. However, the first and second uprights of Schwoerer are part of a telescopic adjusting device intended to be extended and/or shortened based on user needs. As the spacing is intended to be great enough to accommodate a person standing on platform 44, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the uprights to range in length from 0.3 to 8 meters so as to accommodate the workers and their materials, tools, machines etc,. on the platform. Additionally, examiner refers to MPEP 2144.04, IV, A. Changes in Size/Proportion, where the obviousness of claimed dimensions is explained.
Re: claim 19, Schwoerer does not disclose wherein the fastening method between the first upright and the second upright and the first coupling portions and the second coupling portion comprises clevis-type pins. However, Schwoerer teaches adjustable spindles, a known form telescoping rods incrementally adjustable. To replace the threaded adjustment of spindles with a pin type connection would be a mere substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any number of known and readily available connections between the telescoping rods, such as threaded connections (adjustable spindles), aperture and pin connections, sliding clamps, etc., so long as the telescoping connection remains and is readily adjustable by users when needed.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwoerer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silva Huertas et al. (BR 102019022862).
Schwoerer discloses wherein the telescopic structure includes extended brackets (as identified in above annotated image) up to an inclined profile (angled rail of guardrail extending up and out from the extended brackets; figure 2) with a transverse beam (horizontal rail of guard rail, figure 1). Schwoerer does not disclose the transverse beam adjusts and supports a fall protection net (50,.
However, Silva Huertas et al. teach a transverse beam (42, figure 5) that adjusts (in that it holds the net in expansion) and supports a fall protection net (figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the scaffold of Schwoerer with a fall protection net supported/adjusted on transverse beam, as taught by Silva Huertas et al., so as to catch any falling debris and/or tools from those working at elevation, providing additional safety to those working below.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwoerer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Puchner et al. (US 10,988,949)
Re: claim 4, Schwoerer discloses: wherein the formwork unit (14, figure 1) includes an aligning frame (vertical and horizontal beams of 14, best seen in figure 1) fixed to a panel (front panel of 14). Schwoerer does not disclose the panel as modular or being fixed with threaded aligning elements. However, Puchner et al. teach: the aligning frame (figure 5) fixed to modular panels (4, 11a, 11b, 12; figure 1) utilizing threaded aligning elements (13a, 13b; figure 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the formwork unit of Schwoerer with modular panels affixed to the aligning frame utilizing threaded aligning elements, as taught by Puchner et al., so as to provide a more versatile and adaptable formwork even, easily adjusted to different dimensions depending on worksite conditions and needs.
Re: claim 5, Puchner et al further teaches: wherein the aligning frame (figure 5) includes vertical aligners overlapping horizontal aligners (figure 21) that are adjusted with threaded aligners (nuts and bolts; figure 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the aligning frame of the formwork unit of Schwoerer with adjustable threaded aligners, as taught by Puchner et al., so as to provide a more versatile and adaptable formwork even, easily modified for different worksite conditions and needs.
Claim(s) 1, 12-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubinana Felix (ES 2298090) in view of Cui et al. (CN 11657891)
Ubinana Felix disclose:
1. A climbing scaffold (figure 1) comprising:
a linear translation motion assisting mechanism (7, figure 3);
the assisting mechanism (3) comprises at least one translation carriage (5, figure 3) attached to a formwork unit (4, 12, figure 1);
the assisting mechanism (7) and the formwork unit (4, 12) are supported by an anchoring unit (2 and vertical supports extending between 2 and 3; figure 2); and
the anchoring unit with main bracket bodies (frame members of 3; figure 1) includes a first coupling portion (one of the vertical supports extending between 2 and 3; figure 2) and a second coupling portion (another of the vertical supports extending between 2 and 3; figure 2) to assemble a structure (3, figure 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
539
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ubinana Felix does not disclose the structure as telescopic with first and second uprights.
However, Cui teaches: the anchoring unit (10, figure 4, see below) includes a first coupling portion (see below) and a second coupling portion (see below) to assemble a telescopic structure (see below) respectively to a first upright and a second upright (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
473
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the telescopic structure of Ubinana Felix as a telescoping structure having first and second uprights coupled to first and second coupling portions of the anchoring, as taught by Cui, so as to provide a more versatile climbing scaffolding that can readily adjust the spacing between upper and lower work platforms.
Ubinana Felix further discloses:
12. The climbing scaffold according to claim 1, wherein the assisting mechanism (3) includes [the] at least one translation carriage (5,figure 4, see below) connected to a tensioning device (7, figure 4) and to an aligning frame (4) belonging to the formwork unit (figure 4), arranged in a triangular formation between their pivot or connection points (figure 4); furthermore, the translation carriage (5) is connected to a translation tensioning device (13, figure 4); the translation carriage (5) moves (fig 3 vs fig 4) and is supported on guides fixed to a horizontal beam of the main bracket body of the anchoring unit (best seen in figure 1) and the translation carriage has extensions (axles of 9) on which rolling elements (9, figure 4) that roll on the guide are coupled (figure 4).
13. The climbing scaffold according to claim 12, wherein the tensioning device (7, figure 3) includes a tensioning body (central body of 7) having left-hand (end that connects 4) and right-hand (end that connects to 5) threads (mating connections of tensioner) respectively at each end (figure 3).
14. The climbing scaffold according to claim 12, wherein the tensioning device includes a translation tensioning body (13) having left-hand and right-hand threads respectively at each end (mating connections of tensioner).
20. The climbing scaffold according to claim 1, wherein each main bracket body includes an upper engagement portion with fasteners and at least one lower support engagement portion that does not include any fasteners (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
539
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 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.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights