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
This correspondence is in response to Applicant’s Reply filed on July 22, 2026. Claims 5, 7 and 10 are canceled, Claims 12-19 are newly added and Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9 and 11-19 are pending. THIS ACTION HAS BEEN MADE FINAL.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,361,868 to Bartos (Bartos).
Regarding Claim 1: Bartos discloses an improved foot for a lift-stabilizer apparatus for a separable and deployable portable sign, the improvement comprising: a foot plate (11); one or more brackets (12) configured to attach to an end of a vertical extension member of a jack or stabilizer; a pivoting attachment (the hole and bolt of element 12) between the foot plate and the one or more brackets; and a friction plate (18) affixed to a bottom of the foot plate, wherein the friction plate is provided with a friction component comprising a plurality of downward-projecting sawtooth- shaped teeth (see teeth projecting from bottom of 18) . . . wherein the friction component (see teeth projecting from bottom of 18) resists lateral movement of the foot plate relative to a surface on which the foot plate rests.
Bartos does not specifically disclose that the friction plate as a coefficient of friction greater than that of smooth steel on concrete or asphalt. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to understand that a plate with a tooth-studded surface would frictionally engage both concrete and asphalt better than smooth steel and therefore would have a coefficient of friction greater than that of smooth steel on concrete or asphalt.
Regarding Claim 2: Bartos discloses an improved foot as set forth Claim 1 wherein the one or more brackets (12) comprise one or more brackets (12) extending vertically upward from the foot plate (11).
Regarding Claim 3: Bartos discloses an improved foot as set forth Claim 1 wherein the pivoting attachment (the hole and bolt of element 12) comprises a pin (see pin or bolt) configured to be arranged through one or more holes formed in the end of the vertical extension member of the jack or stabilizer.
Regarding Claim 4: Bartos discloses an improved foot as set forth Claim 3 wherein the pin (See pin or bolt) comprises a hand-removeable pin.
Regarding Claim 6: Bartos discloses an improved foot as set forth Claim 1 wherein the friction plate (18) is removable from the foot plate (11). See Col. 3, lines 52-54.
Regarding Claim 8: Bartos discloses an improved foot as set forth Claim 1 wherein the friction plate further comprises a semi-rigid material (16) configured to engage hard surfaces.
Regarding Claim 9: Bartos discloses that the semi-rigid material is rubber or soft plastic elastomeric (See Col. 3, lines 41-42) but does not disclose that the material is a portion of tire tread.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention to understand that a portion of tire tread can comprise rubber because rubber is a known material of tires and tire treads.
Regarding Claim 11: Bartos discloses an improved foot as set forth Claim 1 wherein the foot plate (11) further comprises at least one hole (20) . . . configured to receive an earth anchor. Note that the earth anchor is not a positively required limitation. Rather the claim positively claims a hole that is “configured to receive” an earth anchor. The hole is required but the earth anchor is not.
Regarding method Claims 12-19: In view of the structure disclosed and taught by Bartos, the method of forming the device would have been obvious and implicitly taught, since it is the normal and logical manner in which the device could be formed. If a prior art device discloses or teaches all the structural limitations of a claim then the forming or manufacturing of that device, absent some specific and unique process, will be considered to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill and/or implicitly taught by the prior art reference at a time before the effective date of the claimed invention. When the prior art device is arguably the same as the claimed invention it can be assumed the device will implicitly be formed by the claimed formation process.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 3456757, 1570576.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights