DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites, “(115)” in line 3 which appears to be intended to be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “first-type floors” in line 8. The term “first-type” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “first-type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines a first-type floor to one of ordinary skill may not to another and thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as “first floors.”
In addition, claim 1 recites, “the first connectors” in line 3, “the first connector” in line 4, “the support base assemblies” in line 5, “the corresponding crossbeams” in line 6-7 and “the corresponding” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the at least two first connectors,” “the at least two first connectors,” “the at least one support base assembly,” “corresponding crossbeams,” and “a corresponding crossbeam” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 3, claim 3 recites, “the corresponding floor fixing hole” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a corresponding floor fixing hole” and will be interpreted as such
Re claim 5, claim 5 recites, “the plural second connectors” in line 4, “the corresponding crossbeams” in lines 4-5, “the first connector” in line 6, and “the corresponding open slot” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the at least one second connector,” “corresponding crossbeams,” “the at least two first connectors,” and “a corresponding open slot” and will be interpreted as such
Re claim 6, claim 6 recites, “second-type floors” in line 2. The term “second -type” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “second -type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines a first-type floor to one of ordinary skill may not to another and thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as “second floors.”
In addition, claim 6 recites, “standard support bases” in line 3. The term “standard” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines standard support bases to one of ordinary skill may not to another and thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as “support bases.”
Re claim 7, claim 7 recites, “first-type support base” in line 2, “first-type floor” in line 3, and “first-type support base” in line 4. The term “first-type” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “first-type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines a first-type floor to one of ordinary skill may not to another and thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as “first support base” and “first floor.”
In addition, claim 7 recites, “the first four connectors” in line 4 and in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the at least two first connectors” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 8, claim 8 recites, “first-type support base” in line 2. The term “first-type” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “first-type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines a first-type floor to one of ordinary skill may not to another and thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as “first support base.”
Re claim 9, claim 9 recites, “second-type support base” in line 2, “the two first-type floors” in line 3, “the two second-type floors” in line 4, and “the second-type support base” in line 4. The terms “first-type” and “second -type” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “first-type” and “second -type” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines a first-type floor or a second-type support base to one of ordinary skill may not to another and thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as “second support base,” “two first floors,” “two second floors,” and “the second support base.”
In addition, claim 9 recites, “the two first-type floors” in line 3, “the two second-type floors” in line 4, “the three first connectors” in line 5 and “the three first connectors” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “two first floors,” “two second floors,” the at least two first connectors” and “the at least two first connectors” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 10, claim 10 recites, “second-type support base” in line 2. The term “second-type” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “second-type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines a second -type floor to one of ordinary skill may not to another and thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as “second support base.”
Re claim 11, claim 11 recites, “third-type support base” in line 2, “first-type floor” in line 3, “three second-type floors” in line 4-5, “third-type support base” in line 5, “the thee second-type floors” in line 5-6, and “the third-type support base” in line 6. The terms “first-type,” “second-type” and “third-type” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “first-type,” “second-type” and “third-type” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines a first, second or third-type floor or base to one of ordinary skill may not to another and thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as “third support base,” “first floor,” “three second floors,” “third support base,” “three second floors,” and “third support base.”
In addition, claim 11 recites, “the first-type floor” in line 3, “the three second-type floors” in line 3-4, “the two first connectors” in line 4, “the open slots,” in line 5, “the two corresponding open slots” in line 7-8, and “the two first connectors,” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the plurality of first floors,” “three second floors,” “the at least two first connectors,” “the two open slots,” “two corresponding open slots” and “the at least two first connectors” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 12, claim 12 recites, “the third support base” in line 2. As written currently, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. However, if amended per the above, this language will have proper antecedent basis and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 13, claim 13 recites, “the support base assembly” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the at least one supp[ort base assembly” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected 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)(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, 6-7, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Allcock (GB2599361).
Re claim 1 in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112 above, Allcock discloses a support device (1) for a composite elevated floor (1 is capable of use with a composite elevated floor), comprising:
at least one support base assembly (1), having a base (2) and at least two first connectors (proximate 22; see examiner comments), the first connectors (see examiner comments) being respectively disposed at peripheral (edge of 2) of the base (2), a surface (surface of that shown in the Examiner Comments) of the first connector (see examiner comments) being lower than (Fig. 1) a surface (3) of the base (2);
a plurality of crossbeams (Page 7 lines 25-31), connected with each of the support base assemblies (1), wherein the plurality of the first connectors (see examiner comments) are connected with the corresponding crossbeams (Page 7 lines 25-31) respectively; and
a plurality of first-type floors (Page 9 lines 1-10), four corners (corners of Page 9 lines 1-10) of each of the first-type floors(Page 9 lines 1-10) has a groove (Page 9 lines 17-18) respectively, the groove (Page 9 lines 17-18) bearing the corresponding (Page 9 lines 17-18) to the surface (3) of the base (2).
Re claim 2, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one support base assembly (1) comprises at least one positioning member (35), which protrudes out from (Fig. 1) the surface (3) of the base (2), the at least one positioning member (21) positioning (Page 9 line 4) the first-type floor (Page 9 lines 1-10).
Re claim 3, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 2, wherein the at least one support base assembly (1) comprises a plurality of floor fixing holes (22, 23), which respectively penetrate through (Fig. 1) the base (2), the at least one positioning member (35) being adjacent to (Fig. 1) the corresponding floor fixing hole (22, 23).
Re claim 6 in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112 above, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of second-type floors (any of the flooring panels from Page 9 lines 1-10 disclosing four panels) in a second area (the area accompanied by panels from Page 9 lines 1-10), wherein the plurality of first-type floors (Page 9 lines 1-10) are disposed in a first area (any area of the panels of Page 9 lines 1-10), four corners (of the panels from Page 9 lines 1-10) of each of the second-type floors (Page 9 lines 1-10) respectively bearing a standard support bases (1), the second area (the area of some panels from Page 9 lines 1-10) being disposed at peripheral of (Fig. 1) the first area (the area of some panels from Page 9 lines 1-10).
Re claim 7 in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112 above, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one support base assembly (1) comprises a first-type support base (2), which bears one of four corners (Page 9 lines 1-10) of the first-type floor (some panels from Page 9 lines 1-10), the first-type support base (2) having the base (2) and the four first connectors (see examiner comments), the four first connectors (see examiner comments) being connected with the peripheral of the base (2).
Re claim 9 in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112 above, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 6, wherein the at least one support base assembly (1) comprises a second-type support base (2; Page 9 lines 1-5 disclosing multiple pedestal assemblies 1), which bears one corners (Page 9 lines 1-10) of the two first-type floor (some panels from Page 9 lines 1-10) and one corner (corners of panels from Page 9 lines 1-10) of each of the two second-type floors (two panels from Page 9 lines 1-10), the second-type support base (2) having the base (2) and the three first connectors (see examiner comments), the three first connectors (see examiner comments) being respectively connected with the peripheral of the base (2).
Re claim 10 in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112 above, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 9, wherein the second-type support base (2; Page 9 lines 1-5 disclosing multiple pedestal assemblies 1) comprises two positioning members (35; Page 8 lines 8-10), which respectively protrude out from (Fig. 1) the surface (3) of the base (2).
Re claim 11 in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112 above, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 6, wherein the at least one support base assembly (1) comprises a third-type support base (2; Page 9 lines 1-5 disclosing multiple pedestal assemblies 1), which bears one corner (Page 9 lines 1-10) of the first-type floor (some panels from Page 9 lines 1-10) and one corner (corners of panels from Page 9 lines 1-10) of each of the three second-type floors (two panels from Page 9 lines 1-10), the third-type support base (2) having the base (2), the two first connectors (see examiner comments), the two second connectors (see examiner comments), and two open slots (see examiner comments), the open slots (see examiner comments) being respectively disposed at (Fig. 1) the base (2), the two second connectors (see examiner comments) being respectively disposed in (Fig. 1) the base (2), further the two second connectors (see examiner comments) being respectively disposed in (Fig. 1) the two corresponding open slots (see examiner comments), the two first connectors (see examiner comments) being respectively connected with (Fig. 1) the peripheral (of 2) of the base (2).
Re claim 12 in view of the rejections under 35 USC 112 above, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 11, wherein the third support base (2; Page 9 lines 1-5 disclosing multiple pedestal assemblies 1) comprises a positioning member (35; Page 8 lines 8-10), which protrudes out from (Fig. 1) the surface (3) of the base (2).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allcock (GB2599361) in view of Zlatar (US 2010/0205874).
Re claim 4, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one support base assembly comprises a central hole and a screw rod, the central hole penetrating through the base, the floor fixing holes being located at peripheral of the central hole respectively, one end of the screw rod being inserted into the central hole and disposed at a bottom portion of the base.
However, Zlatar discloses wherein the at least one support base assembly (30) comprises a central hole ([0045]) and a screw rod (26), the central hole ([0034]) penetrating through ([0045]) the base (30), the floor fixing holes (54, 56) being located at peripheral of (Fig. 2) the central hole ([0045]) respectively, one end (top end of 26) of the screw rod (26) being inserted into ([0045]) the central hole ([0045]) and disposed at a bottom portion (bottom of 30) of the base (30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support device of Allcock wherein the at least one support base assembly comprises a central hole and a screw rod, the central hole penetrating through the base, the floor fixing holes being located at peripheral of the central hole respectively, one end of the screw rod being inserted into the central hole and disposed at a bottom portion of the base as disclosed by Zlatar in order to threadedly connect to additional features, such as a pedestal, in a releasable manner.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allcock (GB2599361).
Re claim 5, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one support base assembly (1) comprises at least one second connector (see examiner comments) and at least one open slot (see examiner comments), the at least one second connector (see examiner comments) being disposed in the base (2), the plural second connectors (see examiner comments) being connected with the corresponding crossbeams (Page 7 lines 25-31) respectively, one surface (surface of that shown in the examiner comments) of the at least one second connector (see examiner comments) being lower than (Fig. 1) the surface (3) of the base (2), the at least one open slot (see examiner comments) being disposed at the base (2), the at least one second connector (see examiner comments) being disposed in (Fig. 1) the corresponding open slot (see examiner comments),
but fails to disclose the one surface of the at least one second connector being higher than the surface of the first connector.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support device of Allcock with the one surface of the at least one second connector being higher than the surface of the first connector in order to connect to a stringer of a different size and/or thickness. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allcock (GB2599361) in view of Naka et al (“Naka”) (US 4,996,804).
Re claim 8, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the first-type support base comprises four positioning members, which respectively protrude out from the surface of the base.
However, Naka discloses wherein the first-type support base (6) comprises four positioning members (14), which respectively protrude out from (Fig. 1) the surface (top surface of 6) of the base (6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support device of Allcock wherein the first-type support base comprises four positioning members, which respectively protrude out from the surface of the base as disclosed by Naka in order to guide flooring panels into position (Col 3 lines 6-23), and to use less material.
Re claim 13, Allcock discloses the support device for the composite elevated floor according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one support base assembly is disposed on a bottom base, which has a stand tube member, a pipe cover, a screw set, a locking hole, and a locking accessory, the stand tube member being a hollow tube with an opening, one end of a screw rod of the support base assembly being sequentially inserted into an internal threaded hole of the pipe cover and an inside of the stand tube member.
However, Naka discloses wherein the at least one support base assembly (1) is disposed on a bottom base (4), which has a stand tube member (7), a pipe cover (5), a screw set (8), a locking hole (11), and a locking accessory (12), the stand tube member (7) being a hollow tube (Fig. 5) with an opening (bottom end of 7), one end (of 3) of a screw rod (3) of the support base assembly (4) being sequentially inserted into (Fig. 1) an internal threaded hole (of 5) of the pipe cover (5) and an inside of the stand tube member (7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support device of Allcock wherein the at least one support base assembly is disposed on a bottom base, which has a stand tube member, a pipe cover, a screw set, a locking hole, and a locking accessory, the stand tube member being a hollow tube with an opening, one end of a screw rod of the support base assembly being sequentially inserted into an internal threaded hole of the pipe cover and an inside of the stand tube member as disclosed by Naka in order to provide a device for supporting floor panels using a single-operation type panel retainer to allow panels to be tightly claimed and secured to a pedestal (Col 1 lines 43-47), and to secure a support post in place (Col 3 lines 1-5).
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
487
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635