DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 7/26/2024, including the preliminary amendment filed on 11/25/2024. Claims 1-7, 9-21, 23-27, 29, 31-38 and 93 are pending. Claims 8, 22, 28, 30 and 39-92 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. New claim 93 has been added.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 12/8/2025 and 12/17/2025 are acceptable for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figures 1-16, the poor line quality and shading renders part or all of the drawing illegible when reproduced. 37 CFR 1.84(l) (m) and (p)(1). 37 CFR 1.84(l) recites, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.” Note that applicant is requested to submit replacement drawings that are black lines on a white background.
Figures 1-3, 9, 10A, 11B, 12, 13 and 16, the drawings contain text that is small, blurry and generally illegible. Applicant is requested to delete the text or enlarge the text so as to be legible. Note that in Fig. 3, text in the top right corner is angled, and should instead be oriented horizontally. MPEP 608.02. Note that in Fig. 2, there are extraneous text boxes at the bottom of the drawing that are not pointing to any elements or features of the invention.
Figures 1-16, color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Figures. 6A-6C, each individual drawing is not labeled. Rather, the title “Fig. 6A-6C” appears to label three drawings. It is unclear which drawing is matched with each title. Applicant is requested to label each drawing, Fig. 6A, Fig. 6B and Fig. 6C, respectively.
Figures. 7A-7C, each individual drawing is not labeled. Rather, the title “Fig. 7A-7C” appears to label three drawings. It is unclear which drawing is matched with each title. Applicant is requested to label each drawing, Fig. 7A, Fig. 7B and Fig. 7C, respectively.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“at least one locator element disposed between each of the first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and the second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit to hold the respective first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and the second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit at a selected position relative to each other” (claim 23; note that the drawings do not show a locator element disposed between two RAF panel units, but merely shows a locator element 65 positioned on a pedestal head, but the drawings do not clearly show how the locator element is positioned, arranged or oriented relative to any RAF panel units);
“the locator element is connected between a) a first corner post of the first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and b) a second corner post of the second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit” (claim 24; note that similar to above with respect to claim 23, the drawings do not show a locator element connected between first and second corner posts and it is unclear what such connection requires);
“locator elements are located between and positioning adjacent corners of all four of the UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units” (claim 25; note that similar to above with respect to claims 23 and 24, the drawings do not show locator elements being located between and positioning adjacent corners as claimed, and it is unclear what such connection requires);
“the locator element is disposed between and connected to adjacent corner posts of all four of the UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units” (claim 26; note that similar to above with respect to claims 23-25, the drawings do not show a locator element being disposed between and connected to four corner posts, and it is unclear what such connection requires);
“the locator element tilts between adjacent corner posts” (claim 27; note that the drawings do not show a locator element that is tilted between adjacent corner posts, and it unclear what such tilting requires);
“the locator plate comprises adjustable bevels” (claim 29; note that although the specification recites bevels, such bevels are not clearly labeled in the drawings and it is unclear which elements or features constitute the adjustable bevels).
No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claim 1, 6-7, 9-12, 15, 20-21 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “3 vertical corner posts” (line 6) and “3 sides” (line 10) is objected to because “3” is written in numerical form. Note that “one” (text form; see claim 2) is recited throughout the claims in text form. For consistency, “3” should be recited throughout the claims as “three”.
Claim 1, “each vertical corner post” (line 7) is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited 3 vertical corner posts. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the three vertical corner posts” or equivalent.
Claim 6, “the corner posts” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited at least 3 corner posts (claim 1). This objection can be overcome by reciting, “the at least three corner posts”. See also claims 9-10.
Claim 7, the claim is listed as being dependent upon itself. For examination purposes, the claim was treated as being dependent upon claim 6, which recites stringers that are subsequently referred to in claim 7.
Claim 7, the claim has two periods at the end of the claim. This objection can be overcome by deleting one of the periods.
Claim 10, “the same” is objected to because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This objection can be overcome by replacing “the same as” with “identical to” or “equal to” or equivalent.
Claim 11, “4 corner posts” is objected to because “4” is written in numerical form. Note that “one” (text form; see claim 2) is recited throughout the claims in text form. For consistency, “4” should be recited throughout the claims as “four”. See also claim 12.
Claim 15, “the sides” is objected to because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claims previously recite, “at least 3 sides” (claim 1). This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “any of the at least three sides” or equivalent. See also claims 20-21 and 32.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: variable height adjustment element in claim 2, first variable height adjustment element and second variable height adjustment element in claims 3 and 93, an anti-rotation element in claim 19, adjacent-pedestal head attachment elements in claim 21, locator element(s) in claims 23, 25 and 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10 and 13-14, 16-18, 23-27, 29, 31, 35 and 93 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.
Claim 10, “each corner post” is indefinite because limitation lacks antecedent basis. The claims previously recite “at least [three] vertical corner posts” (claim 1) and “a number of the corner posts” and it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to each of the at least three vertical corner posts recited in claim 1, a number of the corner posts recited in claim 10, or different/additional corner posts. For examination purposes, the limitation was treated as “each of the at least three vertical corner posts”. Applicant is requested to clarify.
Claim 10, “a corresponding vertex” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to a corresponding one of the vertices of the complementary RAF panel?
Claim 13, “the complementary RAF panel comprises 4 sides” is indefinite because the claim previously defines the RAF panel as comprising [three] sides. It is unclear whether the limitation includes or does not include the previously recited 3 sides. As currently written, the limitation appears to be a double inclusion. This rejection can be overcome by reciting the at least [three] sides comprising four sides.
Claim 14, “wherein the integral ratio relationship is one complementary RAF panel to one UFCSS 3-D frame” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. The “integral ratio relationship” is previously defined between horizontal sizes of the UFCSS 3-D frame and the complementary RAF panel (claim 1, last clause). However, the limitation in claim 14 appears to compare a quantity of the complementary RAF panels and the UFCSS 3-D frame. A horizontal size of a component is not equivalent to a quantity of a component. Thus, metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined and do not reasonably establish what is required or not required by the limitation. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language. Further note that “complementary RAF panel” and “UFCSS 3-D frame” are each indefinite because the limitations lack antecedent basis, as it is unclear whether the limitations are referring to the previously recited complementary RAF panel and UFCSS 3-D frame, respectively, and as written, the limitations appear to be double inclusions. See also claims 16-18.
Claim 23, “a first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit” and “a second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit” are indefinite because the claims previously recite a UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit, and it is unclear whether the limitations include or do not include the previously recited UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit. As written, the limitations each appear to be drawn to a double inclusion. This rejection can be overcome by defining the UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit as comprising a first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and a second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit.
Claim 23, “the respective first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the first and second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units”.
Claim 24, the claim is listed as being dependent upon claim 22, which has been canceled. For examination purposes, the claim was treated as being dependent upon claim 23. Applicant is requested to clarify.
Claim 24, “a first corner post” and “a second corner post” are indefinite because the limitations lack antecedent basis. Note that the claims previously recite at least three vertical corner posts. It is unclear whether the limitations include or do not include the previously recited limitation. As written, the limitations each appear to be drawn to a double inclusion. This rejection can be overcome by defining the at least three vertical corner posts of the previously recited first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit as comprising a first corner post and the at least three vertical corner posts of the previously recited second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit as comprising a second corner post.
Claim 25, “underfloor cubic support system” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS)?
Claim 25, “a third UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit” and “a fourth UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit” are indefinite because the claims previously recite a UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit (claim 1), and it is unclear whether the limitations include or do not include the previously recited UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit. As written, the limitations each appear to be drawn to a double inclusion. This rejection can be overcome by defining the UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit as comprising a third UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and a fourth UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit.
Claim 25, “all four of the UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the first, second, third and fourth UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units? See also claim 26.
Claim 26, “adjacent corner posts” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. The claims recite several different corner posts, each appearing to be one of the at least 3 vertical corner posts of claim 1. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to specific corner posts of the previously recited at least 3 vertical corner posts? Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language. See also claim 27.
Claim 29, “adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. The claims previously recite several UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the “adjacent” UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units to be selected from the previously recited UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units?
Claim 31, “at least two UFCSS 3-D frames” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. The claims previously recite a UFCSS 3-D frame. Does applicant intend for the limitation to include or not include the previously recited UFCSS 3-D frame? As written, the limitation appears to be drawn to a double inclusion. This rejection can be overcome by defining the UFCSS 3-D frame as comprising at least two UFCSS 3-D frames.
Claim 35, “at least one adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame or complementary RAF panel unit, respectively” is indefinite because “at least one adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame” and “complementary RAF panel unit” lacks antecedent basis. The claim previously requires a UFCSS 3-D frame and a complementary RAF panel unit. It is unclear whether the limitations include or do not include the previously recited limitations. As written, the limitation appears to be drawn to a double inclusion. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
Claim 93, “a first variable height adjustment element” and “a second variable height adjustment element” are indefinite because the claims previously require at least one variable height adjustment element (claim 2). It is unclear whether the limitations include or do not include the previously recited variable height adjustment element. As written, the limitations each appear to be drawn to a double inclusion. This rejection can be overcome by defining the variable height adjustment element as comprising a first variable height adjustment element and a second variable height adjustment element.
The remainder of claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base 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, 5, 10-11, 13-18 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’).
Claim 1, Gardner provides an underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) for a raised access floor (RAF) comprising a UFCSS 3-D frame (120; Fig. 1) for holding and supporting a complementary raised access floor panel (complementary RAF panel) to provide a UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit (the UFCSS 3-D frame is suitable for holding and supporting a complementary RAF panel 122 to provide a UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit; Fig. 1), wherein:
- the UFCSS 3-D frame is configured to hold and support the complementary RAF panel above a subfloor (the UFCSS 3-D frame is suitable to hold and support the complementary RAF panel above a subfloor 106) and the UFCSS 3-D frame comprises at least 3 vertical corner posts 125 connected to each other by cross-support bars 124, with each [of the] vertical corner post[s] comprising a foot (see annotated Fig. 3 of Gardner shown below in Examiner’s Notes) at a lower end [of each of the vertical corner posts] (annotated Fig. 3) configured to contact the subfloor (annotated Fig. 3) and a pedestal head (annotated Fig. 3) at an upper end [of each of the vertical corner posts] holding the complementary RAF panel (annotated Fig. 3), and
- the complementary RAF panel comprises at least [three] sides (the complementary RAF panel is square or rectangular in shape and thus comprises at least three sides; Fig. 1) and is complementary to the UFCSS 3-D frame such that a horizontal size of the UFCSS 3-D frame and a horizontal size of the complementary RAF panel have an integral ratio relationship (it is understood that the complementary RAF panel is complementary to the UFCSS 3D frame such that a horizontal size of the UFCSS 3-D frame and a horizontal size of the complementary RAF panel have an integral ratio relationship, since a horizontal size of the complementary RAF panel is the same size as or twice the size of a horizontal size of the UFCSS 3-D frame; [0057]-[0058]; Figs. 1-3).
Claim 5, Gardner further provides wherein the complementary RAF panel floats atop the UFCSS 3-D frame to provide the 3D frame- complementary RAF panel unit (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “floats” in accordance with applicant’s specification to mean placed on top of in a known manner to be aligned, the complementary RAF panel 122 floats atop the UFCSS 3-D frame to provide the 3D frame- complementary RAF panel unit; Figs. 1-3).
Claim 10, Gardner further provides wherein a number of the corner posts (four) of the UFCSS 3-D frame is the same as a number of vertices (four) of the complementary RAF panel (Figs. 1-3) and wherein each corner post is attached to and supports a corresponding vertex of the complementary RAF panel (Figs. 1-3).
Claim 11, Gardner further provides wherein the UFCSS 3-D frame has 4 corner posts and is cuboid (Figs. 1-3).
Claim 13, Gardner further provides wherein the complementary RAF panel comprises 4 sides (Figs. 1-3).
Claim 14, Gardner further provides wherein the integral ratio relationship is one complementary RAF panel to one UFCSS 3-D frame (as best understood, the integral ratio relationship is defined by the horizontal size of one complementary RAF panel being equal to the horizontal size of one UFCSS 3-D frame; [0057]-[0058]; Figs. 1-3).
Claim 15, Gardner further provides wherein a horizontal size of the complementary RAF panel does not extend beyond any of the sides of the horizontal size of the UFCSS 3-D frame (as shown in the drawings, a horizontal size of the complementary RAF panel 122 does not extend beyond sides of the horizontal size of the UFCSS 3-D frame 120; Figs. 1-3).
Claim 16, Gardner further provides wherein the integral ratio relationship is two complementary RAF panels to one UFCSS 3-D frame (as best understood, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and the open-endedness of the “comprising” claim language of the UFCSS 3-D frame comprising at least three vertical corner posts connected to each other with cross-support bars, and the complementary RAF panels each comprising at least three sides, the integral ratio relationship can be defined by two complementary RAF panels 122 to one UFCSS 3-D frame, with the UFCSS 3-D frame comprising at least three vertical corner posts connected to each other with cross-support bars located below the complementary RAF panels, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4).
Claim 17, Gardner further provides wherein the integral ratio relationship is four complementary RAF panels to one UFCSS 3-D frame (as best understood, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and the open-endedness of the “comprising” claim language of the UFCSS 3-D frame comprising at least three vertical corner posts connected to each other with cross-support bars, and the complementary RAF panels each comprising at least three sides, the integral ratio relationship can be defined by four complementary RAF panels 122 to one UFCSS 3-D frame, with the UFCSS 3-D frame comprising at least three vertical corner posts connected to each other with cross-support bars located below the complementary RAF panels, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4).
Claim 18, Gardner further provides wherein the integral ratio relationship is one complementary RAF panel to two UFCSS 3-D frames (as best understood, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and the open-endedness of the “comprising” claim language of the UFCSS 3-D frame comprising at least three vertical corner posts connected to each other with cross-support bars, and the complementary RAF panels each comprising at least three sides, the integral ratio relationship can be defined by one complementary RAF panel 122 to two UFCSS 3-D frames, with the UFCSS 3-D frame comprising at least three vertical corner posts connected to each other with cross-support bars located below the complementary RAF panels, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4)
Claim 31, Gardner further provides wherein the cross-support bars of at least two UFCSS 3-D frames form an in-frame open area for carrying pipes or conduits (it is understood that the cross-support bars of at least two UFCSS 3-D frames form an in-frame open area that is suitable for carrying pipes or conduits; Figs. 1-3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3, 19 and 93 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’) in view of Albrecht et al. (US 4558544) (‘Albrecht’).
Claim 2, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gardner does not teach wherein the UFCSS 3-D frame comprises at least one variable height adjustment element operably connected to the foot and the pedestal head to at least one of increase or decrease a distance between the foot and the pedestal head. However, Albrecht teaches an underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) for a raised access floor (RAF) comprising at least one variable height adjustment element (44 and/or 84) operably connected to a foot (44 is operably connected to a foot; Fig. 3) and a pedestal head (44 is operably connected to a pedestal head; Fig. 3) to at least one of increase or decrease a distance between the foot and the pedestal head (col. 5, lines 15-21; col. 6, lines 8-21; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that the UFCSS 3-D frame comprises at least one variable height adjustment element operably connected to the foot and the pedestal head to at least one of increase or decrease a distance between the foot and the pedestal head, with the reasonable expectation of success of being able to adjust a height of the pedestal relative to the floor, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Claim 3, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gardner does not teach wherein the UFCSS 3-D frame comprises at least a first variable height adjustment element at the foot and a second variable height adjustment element at the pedestal head. However, Albrecht teaches an underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) for a raised access floor (RAF) comprising at least a first variable height adjustment element 44 at a foot (col. 5, lines 15-21; Fig. 3) and a second variable height adjustment element 84 at the pedestal head (col. 6, lines 8-21; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that the UFCSS 3-D frame comprises at least a first variable height adjustment element at the foot and a second variable height adjustment element at the pedestal head, with the reasonable expectation of success of being able to adjust a height of the pedestal relative to the floor, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claim 19, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gardner does not teach an anti-rotation element that locks the pedestal head at a desired height and position. However, Albrecht teaches a underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) comprising a UFCSS 3-D frame comprising an anti-rotation element (head member 27 can be rotated during installation to lock lugs 72, 74 to be aligned in position and locked in place against nut 84, which renders the head immovable; col. 4, lines 29-32; col. 6, lines 11-19; Figs. 1-4) that locks the pedestal head at a desired height and position (col. 4, lines 29-32; col. 6, lines 11-19; Figs. 1-4. Note that alternatively, or in addition to the above components, Gardner teaches a tubular member 78 that is used in conjunction with the above components to secure the pedestal head in an anti-rotational immovable position to obtain the desired height and position (col. 5, lines 59-67; Figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that the UFCSS 3-D frame further comprises an anti-rotation element that locks the pedestal head at a desired height and position, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to obtain a desired height and orientation of the pedestal head. Claim 93, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as above. Gardner does not teach wherein the UFCSS 3-D frame comprises at least a first variable height adjustment element at the foot and a second variable height adjustment element at the pedestal head. However, Albrecht teaches an underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) for a raised access floor (RAF) comprising at least a first variable height adjustment element 44 at a foot (col. 5, lines 15-21; Fig. 3) and a second variable height adjustment element 84 at the pedestal head (col. 6, lines 8-21; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that the UFCSS 3-D frame comprises at least a first variable height adjustment element at the foot and a second variable height adjustment element at the pedestal head, with the reasonable expectation of success of being able to adjust a height of the pedestal relative to the floor, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’) in view of Naka et al. (US 4922670) (‘Naka’).
Claim 4, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gardner does not teach wherein the UFCSS 3-D frame is connected by attachment elements to the complementary RAF panel to provide the 3D frame-complementary RAF panel unit. However, Naka teaches a underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) wherein a UFCSS 3-D frame (12, 13) is connected by attachment elements 15 to a complementary RAF panel 14 to provide a 3D frame-complementary RAF panel unit (Figs. 3-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that the UFCSS 3-D frame is connected by attachment elements to the complementary RAF panel to provide the 3D frame-complementary RAF panel unit, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to secure the panel to the frame.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’) in view of Collier (US Re. 33220).
Claim 6, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gardner does not teach wherein the UFCSS 3-D frame comprises stringers spanning between upper ends of the corner posts. However, Collier teaches a underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) comprising a UFCSS 3-D frame comprising stringers 122 spanning between upper ends of corner posts 112. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) by incorporating stringers into the UFCSS 3-D frame spanning between upper ends of the corner posts, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to provide additional support for the panels.
Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of Gardner and Collier teaches all the limitations of claim [6], and further teaches wherein a location of the complementary RAF panel atop the UFCSS 3-D frame is at least partially established by positioners on the stringers (Collier under the broadest reasonable interpretation of positioners, under the plain meaning and in light of applicant’s specification, elements 132, the top surface of 122 at 124, or the recess in the top surface each constitute elements or features that are suitable to at least partially establish a location of the complementary RAF panel atop the frame, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 2-3).
Claim 9, as modified above, the combination of Gardner and Collier teaches all the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the stringers span between pedestal heads (Collier 114) at upper ends of the corner posts (Collier Figs. 2-3).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’) in view of Av-Zuk (US 4685258).
Claims 6-7 and 9, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gardner does not teach [claim 6] wherein the UFCSS 3-D frame comprises stringers spanning between upper ends of the corner posts, [claim 7] wherein a location of the complementary RAF panel atop the UFCSS 3-D frame is at least partially established by positioners on the stringers, and [claim 9] wherein the stringers span between pedestal heads at upper ends of the corner posts. However, Av-Zuk teaches a underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) comprising a UFCSS 3-D frame comprising stringers (20 or 22; note that elements 20 or 22 could be reasonably construed as cross-support bars or stringers; Figs. 1-2) spanning between upper ends of corner posts 26, wherein a location of a complementary RAF panel atop the UFCSS 3-D frame is at least partially established by positioners on the stringers (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of positioners, under the plain meaning and in light of applicant’s specification, elements 44 or 58 constitute elements or features that are suitable to at least partially establish a location of the complementary RAF panel atop the frame, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-2), wherein the stringers span between pedestal heads at upper ends of the corner posts (Figs. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that the UFCSS 3-D frame comprises stringers spanning between upper ends of the corner posts, wherein a location of the complementary RAF panel atop the UFCSS 3-D frame is at least partially established by positioners on the stringers, wherein the stringers span between pedestal heads at upper ends of the corner posts, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means to further support the panels (Av-Zuk col. 2, lines 9-12).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’).
Claim 12, Gardner further teaches wherein the UFCSS 3-D frame has 4 corner posts (Figs. 1-3), but Gardner does not explicitly state that the shape of the UFCSS 3-D frame is a cube. Gardner teaches the panels being any suitable shape, including a square [0032]. Gardner appears to show a cube shape in Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the UFCSS 3-D frame to be a cube, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known means of the frame and the panel to increase the structural load capacity of the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS), and to provide a space sufficient to install additional equipment or devices, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’) in view of Leon (US 6772564).
Claim 20, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gardner does not teach wherein the pedestal head does not extend beyond the sides of the complementary RAF panel. However, Leon teaches a underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) comprising an arrangement comprising a pedestal head (CPJ; Figs. 3A-6) that does not extend beyond sides of a complementary RAF panel (Figs. 3A-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that the pedestal head does not extend beyond the sides of the complementary RAF panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to provide additional stability and support for the panels, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 21 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’) in view of Cline (US 5048242).
Claim 21, Gardner further teaches wherein the pedestal head extends beyond the sides of the complementary RAF panel (annotated Fig. 3) for attaching to at least one adjacent corner post of at least one adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame (Figs. 1 and 3. Gardner does not explicitly teach adjacent-pedestal head attachment elements. However, Cline teaches a underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) wherein a pedestal head 68 extends beyond sides of a complementary RAF panel (Figs. 1-6), the pedestal head further comprising adjacent-pedestal head attachment elements (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of adjacent-pedestal head attachment elements, under the plain meaning and in accordance with applicant’s specification, any of elements 104, the fastener passing through 104, 108, 110, 112 and/or 122 are elements that attach the pedestal head to panels, and thus constitute adjacent-pedestal head attachment elements, as exceedingly broadly claimed) for attaching to at least one adjacent corner post of at least one adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame (Figs. 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that the pedestal head extends beyond the sides of the complementary RAF panel, the pedestal head further comprising adjacent-pedestal head attachment elements for attaching to at least one adjacent corner post of at least one adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to further secure the panels with respect to the pedestal heads and the corner posts.
Claim 32, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gardner does not teach the at least one of the UFCSS 3-D frame or the complementary RAF panel unit comprises a flange or lip extending beyond the sides of the complementary RAF panel. However, Cline teaches a underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) comprising at least one UFCSS 3-D frame or the complementary RAF panel unit (Figs. 1-6 and 9) comprising a flange or lip (horizontal supports of the frame comprise flanges 82 for supporting lips of panels (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that the at least one of the UFCSS 3-D frame or the complementary RAF panel unit comprises a flange or lip extending beyond the sides of the complementary RAF panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to secure the panel to the corner posts.
Claim(s) 23-27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’) in view of Norsworthy (US 3318057).
Claims 23-27 and 29, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gardner does not teach at least one locater element. However, Norsworthy teaches a underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) comprising [claim 23] at least a first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit (selected from panel units shown in Fig. 1) and a second UFCSS 3-D frame- complementary RAF panel unit (selected from panel units shown in Fig. 1) and the system further comprises at least one locator element 102 disposed between each of the first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and the second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit (Figs. 1, 2 and 4) to hold the respective first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and the second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit at a selected position relative to each other (Figs. 1, 2 and 4), [claim 24] wherein the locator element is connected between a) a first corner post 36 of the first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit (Fig. 1) and b) a second corner post 36 of the second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit (Fig. 1; see arrangement between two panels in Figs. 2 and 4), [claim 25] wherein [the] underfloor cubic support system [further] comprises at least a third UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit (selected from panel units shown in Fig. 1) and a fourth UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit (selected from panel units shown in Fig. 1) and wherein locator elements 102 are located between and positioning adjacent corners of all four of the UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units (Figs. 1, 2 and 4), [claim 26] wherein the locator element is disposed between and connected to adjacent corner posts 36 of all four of the UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units (Figs. 1, 2 and 4), [claim 27] wherein the locator element tilts between adjacent corner posts (angular adjustment between adjacent corner posts; col. 3, lines 48-71), [claim 29] wherein the locator element is a locator plate 102 and wherein the locator plate comprises adjustable bevels (surfaces of 38 and/or 40 that permit such tilting; Figs. 2 and 4) such that a lower surface of the locator plate is tilted between and relative to adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units and an upper surface of the locator plate is level between and relative to adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame- complementary RAF panel units (col. 3, lines 48-71; Figs. 2 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that at least a first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and a second UFCSS 3-D frame- complementary RAF panel unit and the system further comprises at least one locator element disposed between each of the first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and the second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit to hold the respective first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and the second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit at a selected position relative to each other, wherein the locator element is connected between a) a first corner post of the first UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and b) a second corner post of the second UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit, wherein [the] underfloor cubic support system [further] comprises at least a third UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and a fourth UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel unit and wherein locator elements are located between and positioning adjacent corners of all four of the UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units, wherein the locator element is disposed between and connected to adjacent corner posts of all four of the UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units, wherein the locator element tilts between adjacent corner posts, and wherein the locator element is a locator plate and wherein the locator plate comprises adjustable bevels such that a lower surface of the locator plate is tilted between and relative to adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame-complementary RAF panel units and an upper surface of the locator plate is level between and relative to adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame- complementary RAF panel units, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to attach the panels to the posts to permit angular adjustability to account for various slopes, grades or irregularities in subfloors, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Claim(s) 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’) in view of Kayalar et al. (US 20230306218) (‘Kayalar’).
Claims 33-35, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gardner does not teach [claim 33] wherein at least one of the UFCSS 3-D frame, the complementary RAF panel or the complementary RAF panel unit comprises information thereon describing components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit, respectively, [claim 34] wherein the information comprises printed words, maps or diagrams identifying underfloor components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit, and [claim 35] wherein the information comprises printing identifying underfloor components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit and at least one adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame or complementary RAF panel unit, respectively. However, Kayalar teaches applying a readable code (such as a QR code, among various possibilities; [0394]-[0403]) on a surface of various objects, including building construction objects, including flooring and panels ([0306], [0381]), the readable code comprises information thereon ([0001], [0088], [0317]). It is understood that such readable codes could provide virtually any information, including that of component information, words, maps, diagrams identifying components, or printing identifying adjacent components. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that at least one of the UFCSS 3-D frame, the complementary RAF panel or the complementary RAF panel unit comprises information thereon describing components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit, respectively, wherein the information comprises printed words, maps or diagrams identifying underfloor components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit, wherein the information comprises printing identifying underfloor components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit and at least one adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame or complementary RAF panel unit, respectively, using known means to permit a user to obtain information without physically removing a panel. Note that the courts have found that matters relating to ornamentation only, which have no mechanical function, cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). MPEP 21105(B).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’) in view of Spransy et al. (US 7360343) (‘Spransy’).
Claim 33, Gardner teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Gardner does not teach [claim 33] wherein at least one of the UFCSS 3-D frame, the complementary RAF panel or the complementary RAF panel unit comprises information thereon describing components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit, respectively, [claim 34] wherein the information comprises printed words, maps or diagrams identifying underfloor components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit, and [claim 35] wherein the information comprises printing identifying underfloor components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit and at least one adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame or complementary RAF panel unit, respectively. However, Spransy teaches a underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) comprising a UFCSS 3-D frame (frame shown in Fig. 1) comprising information thereon (“text, logos, serial numbers, lot information or the like may be printed on the corner members 56; col. 10, lines 56-60; Fig. 1) describing components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit, respectively (components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame; col. 10, lines 56-60; Fig. 1), wherein the information comprises printed words, maps or diagrams identifying underfloor components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit (words identifying underfloor components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame; col. 10, lines 56-60; Fig. 1), wherein the information comprises printing identifying underfloor components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit and at least one adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame or complementary RAF panel unit, respectively (printing identifying components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame; col. 10, lines 56-60; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the underfloor cubic support system (UFCSS) such that at least one of the UFCSS 3-D frame, the complementary RAF panel or the complementary RAF panel unit comprises information thereon describing components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit, respectively, wherein the information comprises printed words, maps or diagrams identifying underfloor components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit, wherein the information comprises printing identifying underfloor components contained within the UFCSS 3-D frame or under the complementary RAF panel unit and at least one adjacent UFCSS 3-D frame or complementary RAF panel unit, respectively, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to identify components for maintenance and troubleshooting, tracking inventory and improving installation quality. Note that the courts have found that matters relating to ornamentation only, which have no mechanical function, cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). MPEP 21105(B).
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
533
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Gardner et al. (US 20140238705) (‘Gardner’)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mead (US 20050166483) additionally teaches a locator comprising a locator plate as claimed (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights