DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Figs. 13 and 14 appear to be missing details because the drawings are faded.
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 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Fifth line, “manoeuvred” should be replaced with – maneuvered—
Note – manoevred is also present in the abstract.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Third line from the bottom, --wherein—should be inserted after “and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Fifth line from the bottom, “(eg by hand)” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
The above are exemplary, Applicant should review the claims for similar issues.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuroki (JPH10152983).
1. A clamp suitable for use in securing a toeboard in scaffolding (Figs. 1-3), comprising: a laterally extending slot (21, Fig. 3) with an associated first screw fastener (23); and an upwardly extending slot (11) with an associated second screw fastener (16); the clamp being formed such that: a) the laterally extending slot can be manoeuvred (intended use) by hand to extend around a longitudinal edge of a scaffolding deck (19, 20) and the first fastener (23) then screw turned to press against the scaffolding deck (the beam flange); and b) a toeboard (18) can be stood up (intended use) in the upwardly extending slot and the second fastener (16) then screw turned to press against the toeboard (18) to secure it to the clamp.
4. A clamp according to claim 1, in use with the scaffolding ([0002]: “scaffolding”) to secure the toeboard (18) to the deck (19, 20), wherein: a) the laterally extending slot (21, Fig. 3) extends around a longitudinal edge (the flange of the beam 20) of a deck (19, 20) of the scaffolding and the first fastener (23) has been screw turned to press against the deck (19, 20); and b) the toeboard (18) stands in the upwardly extending slot (11a, 11b) and the second fastener (16) has been screw turned to press against the toeboard (18) to secure it to the clamp (Fig. 2).
6. A clamp according to claim 4, wherein the toeboard (18) comprises two separate boards (see left toeboard 18 and right toeboard 18 in Fig. 2) and these are connected substantially ‘in line’ by an in-line joiner (13), the joiner having a channel (11) into which the separate boards are fitted and held by way of joiner fasteners (16) that have been screw turned to press against the separate boards to secure them to the in-line joiner (Fig. 1).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell (GB2276414).
11. A clamp suitable for use in securing a toeboard (Figure) in scaffolding, comprising: a laterally extending slot (13, 14) with an associated first screw fastener (17, 18); and an upwardly extending slot (23) with an associated second screw fastener (24); the clamp being formed such that: a) the laterally extending slot can be manoeuvred by hand to extend around a longitudinal edge of a scaffold crossbar (pg. 1, lines 31-434: “the coupling device comprising a first portion connectable to a scaffolding pole or the like”, see also pg. 3, lines 11-14: “the component 13 is provided with a bearing member 19 and a specially designed bracket 12 is pivotally mounted on this bearing member at 20”) and the first fastener (17, 18) then screw turned (eg by hand) to secure the clamp to the scaffold crossbar; and b) a toeboard can be stood up in the upwardly extending slot and the second fastener then screw turned (eg by hand) to press against the toeboard to secure it to the clamp (pg. 1, lines 34-35: “second portion subsequently connectable to a handrail, toe board or the like”); and c) both the laterally extending slot and the upwardly extending slot can be located above a scaffolding deck such that the clamp extends downwards from the scaffold cross bar (see e.g., pg. 3, lines 16-17: “downwardly extending first arm 21”).
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroki (JPH10152983) in view of Kindorf (US2642243).
2. Kuroki fails to disclose a clamp according to claim 1, comprising a cavity immediately adjacent to each slot and in each case a removable insert substantially fills the cavity and a respective one of the fasteners passes through the insert. Kindorf teaches, in the context of clamps, a cavity (14) immediately adjacent to a slot wherein a removable insert (12) substantially fills the cavity and a fastener (13) passes through the insert. It 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 to have included a cavity immediately adjacent to each slot and in each case a removable insert substantially fills the cavity and a respective one of the fasteners passes through the insert in the clamp of Kuroki according to the teachings of Kindorf in order to reduce manufacturing costs, specifically, by providing a “a C-clamp made of a simple piece of steel plate bent and punched and capable of employing a standard inexpensive nut and bolt in place of the usual clamping screw”, see Kindorf at col. 1, lines 20-34.
7. Kuroki fails to disclose a clamp according to claim 4, wherein the in-line joiner has a cavity running substantially parallel to the channel that receives the toeboard, there being an insert releasably installed in the cavity with one or more of the joiner fasteners passing through the cavity and into the channel. Kindorf teaches, in the context of clamps, a cavity (14) running substantially parallel to the channel (15, Fig. 1) of the clamp, there being an insert (12) releasably installed in the cavity (14) with a fastener (13) passing through the cavity (14) and into the channel (15). It 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 to have included wherein the in-line joiner has a cavity running substantially parallel to the channel that receives the toeboard, there being an insert releasably installed in the cavity with one or more of the joiner fasteners passing through the cavity and into the channel in the clamp of Kuroki according to the teachings of Kindorf in order to reduce manufacturing costs, specifically, by providing a clamp “made of a simple piece of steel plate bent and punched and capable of employing a standard inexpensive nut and bolt in place of the usual clamping screw”, see Kindorf at col. 1, lines 20-34.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroki (JPH10152983) in view of Kindorf (US2642243) and further in view of Gray (US3836106).
3. Kuroki in view of Kindorf fails to disclose a clamp according to claim 2, wherein the laterally extending slot has a roof comprising a series of downwardly facing teeth or ribs adapted to engage with complimentary teeth or slots of the deck. Gray teaches, in the context of toe board brackets, wherein a laterally extending slot (12, Fig. 2) has a roof (30) comprising a series of downwardly facing teeth (34) or ribs. It 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 to have included wherein the laterally extending slot has a roof comprising a series of downwardly facing teeth or ribs adapted to engage with complimentary teeth or slots of the deck in the clamp according to Kuroki in view of Kindorf in order to provide a “desired gripping action” that helps to prevent the installed toeboard from being unintentionally removed from the clamp, see col. 2, lines 27-32 of Gray.
5. Kuroki fails to disclose a clamp according to claim 4, comprising: a) a cavity immediately adjacent to each slot where in each case a removable insert substantially fills the cavity and a respective one of the fasteners passes through the insert; and b) the laterally extending slot has a roof comprising a series of downwardly facing teeth or ribs engaged with complimentary teeth or slots of the deck.
Kindorf teaches, in the context of clamps, a cavity (14) immediately adjacent to a slot wherein a removable insert (12) substantially fills the cavity and a fastener (13) passes through the insert. It 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 to have included a) a cavity immediately adjacent to each slot where in each case a removable insert substantially fills the cavity and a respective one of the fasteners passes through the insert in the clamp of Kuroki according to the teachings of Kindorf in order to reduce manufacturing costs, specifically, by providing a “a C-clamp made of a simple piece of steel plate bent and punched and capable of employing a standard inexpensive nut and bolt in place of the usual clamping screw”, see Kindorf at col. 1, lines 20-34.
Kuroki in view of Kindorf fails to disclose wherein the laterally extending slot has a roof comprising a series of downwardly facing teeth or ribs adapted to engage with complimentary teeth or slots of the deck. Gray teaches, in the context of toe board brackets, wherein a laterally extending slot (12, Fig. 2) has a roof (30) comprising a series of downwardly facing teeth (34) or ribs. It 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 to have included wherein the laterally extending slot has a roof comprising a series of downwardly facing teeth or ribs adapted to engage with complimentary teeth or slots of the deck in the clamp according to Kuroki in view of Kindorf in order to provide a “desired gripping action” that helps to prevent the installed toeboard from being unintentionally removed from the clamp, see col. 2, lines 27-32 of Gray.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroki (JPH10152983) in view of Stoppello (US1458666).
Kuroki fails to disclose a clamp according to claim 6, wherein the in-line joiner has a roof portion that sits over or against one of the separate boards. Stoppello teaches, in the context of scaffolding clamps, wherein an in-line joiner (1, Figs. 1-5) has a roof portion (2) that sits over or against one of the separate boards (3). It 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 to have included wherein the in-line joiner has a roof portion that sits over or against one of the separate boards in the clamp of Kuroki according to the teachings of Stoppello in order to further inhibit unintended upward displacement of either board during use.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroki (JPH10152983) in view of Martinez (US20230407650).
9. Kuroki discloses a clamp according to claim 4 including fasteners (16) that have been screw turned to press against two toeboards (18) respectively to secure them (see Fig. 2 of Kuroki). However, Kuroki fails to disclose wherein at least one corner-joiner supports two toeboards at a corner of the scaffolding, the corner-joiner having a first corner channel and a second corner channel formed such that they are at right angles to one another, the arrangement being such that each of the two toeboards is engaged in a respective one of the corner channels so that the toeboards are also held at right angles to one another. Martinez teaches, in the context of toeboard retainers, wherein at least one corner-joiner (61, Fig. 8B) supports two toeboards (84) at a corner of the scaffolding, the corner-joiner having a first corner channel (74) and a second corner channel (74) formed such that they are at right angles to one another (Fig. 8B), the arrangement being such that each of the two toeboards is engaged in a respective one of the corner channels so that the toeboards are also held at right angles to one another (Fig. 8B). Note further that Martinez provides holes (71) for fasteners. It 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 to have included wherein at least one corner-joiner supports two toeboards at a corner of the scaffolding, the corner-joiner having a first corner channel and a second corner channel formed such that they are at right angles to one another, the arrangement being such that each of the two toeboards is engaged in a respective one of the corner channels so that the toeboards are also held at right angles to one another, the corner-joiner also having at least a pair of corner-fasteners that have been screw turned to press against the two toeboards respectively to secure them to the corner-joiner in the clamp of Kuroki according to the teachings of Martinez and Kuroki in order to provide clamping support where the toeboards intersect at the corner of the decking.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroki (JPH10152983) in view of Martinez (US20230407650) and in view of Kindorf (US2642243) in view of Stoppello (US1458666) and further in view of Wilson (CA2549260)
10. Kuroki in view of Martinez disclose the clamp according to claim 9, wherein at least one of the corner channels (at 84 in Fig. 8B) is open at both ends so that a toeboard can run through and beyond the corner-fastener at each end thereof and wherein the laterally extending slot (21) is engaged with the deck and is below (Fig. 3 of Kuroki) the upwardly extending slot (11).
Kuroki in view of Martinez fails to disclose wherein the corner-joiner has a pair of corner cavities each running substantially parallel to a respective one of the corner channels, the arrangement being such that a corner insert is located in each corner cavity and in each case one or more of the corner fasteners passes through the corner insert. Kindorf teaches, in the context of clamps, a cavity (14) immediately adjacent to a slot wherein a removable insert (12) substantially fills the cavity and a fastener (13) passes through the insert. It 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 to have included wherein the corner-joiner has a pair of corner cavities each running substantially parallel to a respective one of the corner channels, the arrangement being such that a corner insert is located in each corner cavity and in each case one or more of the corner fasteners passes through the corner insert in the clamp of Campbell in view of Kuroki and further in view of Martinez according to the teachings of Kindorf in order to reduce manufacturing costs, specifically, by providing a “a C-clamp made of a simple piece of steel plate bent and punched and capable of employing a standard inexpensive nut and bolt in place of the usual clamping screw”, see Kindorf at col. 1, lines 20-34.
Kuroki in view of Martinez and further in view of Kindorf fail to disclose wherein each corner channel has a roof portion that sits over or against the toeboard located in that channel. Stoppello teaches, in the context of scaffolding clamps, wherein a clamp (1, Figs. 1-5) has a roof portion (2) that sits over or against one of the separate boards (3). It 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 to have included wherein each corner channel has a roof portion that sits over or against the toeboard located in that channel in the clamp of Kuroki in view of Martinez and further in view of Kindorf according to the teachings of Stopello in order to further inhibit unintended upward displacement of either board during use.
Kuroki in view of Martinez and in view of Kindorf and further in view of Stoppello fail to disclose wherein the toeboard has at least one ridge and at least one complimentary valley arranged such that the toeboard is laid against another substantially similar toeboard and the ridge of one toeboard nests in the valley of the other toeboard to resist one toeboard sliding across the other and the at least one ridge is arranged immediately below the first screw fastener so that if a toeboard in that clamp begins to move upwards said ridge runs into the first screw fastener to arrest further upwards movement of that toeboard.
Wilson teaches wherein a toeboard (10) has at least one ridge (65) and at least one complimentary valley (pg. 6, lines 7-12: “It can also be appreciated that the cross section of the toeboards 10 allows nesting of the toeboards as well as a sliding overlap of the toeboards to allow extension of the toeboards”) arranged such that the toeboard is laid against another substantially similar toeboard and the ridge of one toeboard nests in the valley of the other toeboard to resist one toeboard sliding across the other (see Wilson at pg. 4, lines 34-38: “The toeboard 10 is trapped between the latch fingers 26 and 28 and cannot move vertically as it is in engagement with the other toeboard and it cannot move along the axis of the other toeboard due to the latch fingers engaging the toeboard”) and the at least one ridge (65) is arranged immediately below a spring finger (28) so that if a toeboard in that clamp begins to move upwards said ridge runs into the spring finger (28) to arrest further upwards movement of that toeboard. It 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 to have included wherein the toeboard has at least one ridge and at least one complimentary valley arranged such that the toeboard is laid against another substantially similar toeboard and the ridge of one toeboard nests in the valley of the other toeboard to resist one toeboard sliding across the other and the at least one ridge is arranged immediately below the first screw fastener so that if a toeboard in that clamp begins to move upwards said ridge runs into the first screw fastener to arrest further upwards movement of that toeboard in the clamp of Kuroki in view of Martinez and in view of Kindorf and further in view of Stoppello according to the teachings of Wilson to further inhibit unintended displacement of the toeboards during use.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (GB2276414) in view of Kindorf (US2642243).
12. Campbell fails to disclose a clamp according to claim 11, comprising a cavity immediately adjacent to each slot and in each case a removable insert substantially fills the cavity and a respective one of the fasteners passes through the insert. Kindorf teaches, in the context of clamps, a cavity (14) immediately adjacent to a slot wherein a removable insert (12) substantially fills the cavity and a fastener (13) passes through the insert. It 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 to have included a cavity immediately adjacent to each slot and in each case a removable insert substantially fills the cavity and a respective one of the fasteners passes through the insert in the clamp of Campbell according to the teachings of Kindorf in order to reduce manufacturing costs, specifically, by providing a “a C-clamp made of a simple piece of steel plate bent and punched and capable of employing a standard inexpensive nut and bolt in place of the usual clamping screw”, see Kindorf at col. 1, lines 20-34.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (GB2276414) in view of Scott (EP3045613).
13. Campbell discloses a clamp (10, Figure) according to claim 11, in use with the scaffolding to secure the toeboard to the deck, wherein b) the toeboard stands in the upwardly extending slot (pg. 1, lines 34-35: “second portion subsequently connectable to a handrail, toe board or the like”) and the second fastener (24) has been screw turned to press against the toeboard to secure it to the clamp; and c) both the laterally extending slot and the upwardly extending slot are located above a scaffolding deck such that the clamp extends downwards from the scaffold cross bar (see e.g., pg. 3, lines 16-17: “downwardly extending first arm 21”).
Campbell further discloses wherein the a) the laterally extending slot (13, 14) extends around the longitudinal edge of the scaffold pole and the first fastener has been screw turned to secure the clamp to the scaffold crossbar (pg. 2, lines 1-4: “The first portion may comprise two components arranged so that they can be pivotally connected together to embrace a scaffolding pole and can then be tightened around the scaffolding pole using a screw-threaded connection”). Campbell fails to explicitly disclose wherein the laterally extending slot (13, 14) extends around a cross bar, more specifically, Campbell’s slot engages a vertical post or upright, not a horizontal cross bar. However, Campbell also discloses that that the laterally extending slot may be rotated relative to the upwardly extending slot, see e.g. pg. 3, lines 11-14: “the component 13 is provided with a bearing member 19 and a specially designed bracket 12 is pivotally mounted on this bearing member at 20”. Also, Scott teaches the connection of a toe board bracket (100, Fig. 1) to cross bar (25, Fig. 9). It 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 to have included wherein the laterally extending slot is extends around the longitudinal edge of the scaffold pole in the clamp of Campbell according to the teachings of Scott in order to have a greater selection of connection sites to accommodate various length toeboards.
Claims 14 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (GB2276414) in view of Kuroki (JPH10152983).
14. Campbell fails to disclose a clamp according to claim 13, wherein the toeboard comprises two separate boards and these are connected substantially ‘in line’ by an in-line joiner, the joiner having a channel into which the separate boards are fitted and held by way of joiner fasteners that have been screw turned to press against the separate boards to secure them to the in-line joiner. Kuroki teaches, in the context of toeboard clamps, wherein the toeboard (18) comprises two separate boards (see left toeboard 18 and right toeboard 18 in Fig. 2) and these are connected substantially ‘in line’ by an in-line joiner (13), the joiner having a channel (11) into which the separate boards are fitted and held by way of joiner fasteners (16) that have been screw turned to press against the separate boards to secure them to the in-line joiner (Fig. 1). It 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 to have included wherein the toeboard comprises two separate boards and these are connected substantially ‘in line’ by an in-line joiner, the joiner having a channel into which the separate boards are fitted and held by way of joiner fasteners that have been screw turned to press against the separate boards to secure them to the in-line joiner in the clamp of Campbell according to the teachings of Kuroki in order to facilitate the use of toeboards having spans less than the length of the deck.
20. Campbell in view of Kuroki disclose two clamps, each being according to claim 14, in use to secure the toeboard to the deck (see Campbell pg. 3, lines 26-31: “When it is desired to mount a handrail or toe board, one man can clamp two of my coupling devices onto two upright poles respectively, a handrail or toe board can then dropped into the spaces apart hook-like formations, and the two bolts 24 can then be tightened to lock up the whole assembly”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (GB2276414) in view of Kuroki (JPH10152983) and further in view of Kindorf (US2642243).
15. A clamp according to claim 14, wherein the in-line joiner has a cavity running substantially parallel to the channel that receives the toeboards, there being an insert releasably installed in the cavity with one or more of the joiner fasteners passing through the cavity and into the channel. Campbell in view of Kuroki fail to disclose wherein the in-line joiner has a cavity running substantially parallel to the channel that receives the toeboards, there being an insert releasably installed in the cavity with one or more of the joiner fasteners passing through the cavity and into the channel. Kindorf teaches, in the context of clamps, a cavity (14) immediately adjacent to a slot wherein a removable insert (12) substantially fills the cavity and a fastener (13) passes through the insert. It 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 to have included a cavity immediately adjacent to each slot and in each case a removable insert substantially fills the cavity and a respective one of the fasteners passes through the insert in the clamp of Kuroki according to the teachings of Kindorf in order to reduce manufacturing costs, specifically, by providing a “a C-clamp made of a simple piece of steel plate bent and punched and capable of employing a standard inexpensive nut and bolt in place of the usual clamping screw”, see Kindorf at col. 1, lines 20-34.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (GB2276414) in view of Kuroki (JPH10152983) and further in view of Stopello (US1458666).
16. Campbell in view of Kuroki fail to disclose a clamp according to claim 14, wherein the in-line joiner has a roof portion that sits over or against one of the smaller boards. Stoppello teaches, in the context of scaffolding clamps, wherein an in-line joiner (1, Figs. 1-5) has a roof portion (2) that sits over or against one of the separate boards (3). It 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 to have included wherein the in-line joiner has a roof portion that sits over or against one of the separate boards in the clamp of Campbell in view of Kuroki according to the teachings of Stoppello in order to further inhibit unintended upward displacement of either board during use.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (GB2276414) in view of Kuroki (JPH10152983) in view of Martinez (US20230407650) in view of Kindorf (US2642243) and further in view of Stoppello (US1458666).
17. Campbell in view of Kuroki disclose a clamp according to claim 14 including fasteners (16) that have been screw turned to press against two toeboards (18) respectively to secure them (see Fig. 2 of Kuroki). However, Campbell in view of Kuroki fails to disclose wherein at least one corner-joiner supports two toeboards at a corner of the scaffolding, the corner-joiner having a first corner channel and a second corner channel formed such that they are at right angles to one another, the arrangement being such that each of the two toeboards is engaged in a respective one of the corner channels so that the toeboards are also held at right angles to one another. Martinez teaches, in the context of toeboard retainers, wherein at least one corner-joiner (61, Fig. 8B) supports two toeboards (84) at a corner of the scaffolding, the corner-joiner having a first corner channel (74) and a second corner channel (74) formed such that they are at right angles to one another (Fig. 8B), the arrangement being such that each of the two toeboards is engaged in a respective one of the corner channels so that the toeboards are also held at right angles to one another (Fig. 8B). Also note that Martinez further teaches at least one of the corner channels (at 84 in Fig. 8B) is open at both ends so that a toeboard runs through and beyond the corner-fastener at each end thereof. Note further that Martinez provides holes (71) for fasteners. It 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 to have included wherein at least one corner-joiner supports two toeboards at a corner of the scaffolding, the corner-joiner having a first corner channel and a second corner channel formed such that they are at right angles to one another, the arrangement being such that each of the two toeboards is engaged in a respective one of the corner channels so that the toeboards are also held at right angles to one another, the corner-joiner also having at least a pair of corner-fasteners that have been screw turned to press against the two toeboards respectively to secure them to the corner-joiner in the clamp of Campbell in view of Kuroki according to the teachings of Martinez and Kuroki in order to provide clamping support where the toeboards intersect at the corner of the decking.
Campbell in view of Kuroki and further in view of Martinez fail to disclose wherein the corner-joiner has a pair of corner cavities each running substantially parallel to a respective one of the corner channels, the arrangement being such that a corner insert is located in each corner cavity and in each case one or more of the corner fasteners passes through the corner insert. Kindorf teaches, in the context of clamps, a cavity (14) immediately adjacent to a slot wherein a removable insert (12) substantially fills the cavity and a fastener (13) passes through the insert. It 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 to have included wherein the corner-joiner has a pair of corner cavities each running substantially parallel to a respective one of the corner channels, the arrangement being such that a corner insert is located in each corner cavity and in each case one or more of the corner fasteners passes through the corner insert in the clamp of Campbell in view of Kuroki and further in view of Martinez according to the teachings of Kindorf in order to reduce manufacturing costs, specifically, by providing a “a C-clamp made of a simple piece of steel plate bent and punched and capable of employing a standard inexpensive nut and bolt in place of the usual clamping screw”, see Kindorf at col. 1, lines 20-34.
Campbell in view of Kuroki in view of Martinez and further in view of Kindorf fail to disclose wherein each corner channel has a roof portion that sits over or against the toeboard located in that channel. Stoppello teaches, in the context of scaffolding clamps, wherein a clamp (1, Figs. 1-5) has a roof portion (2) that sits over or against one of the separate boards (3). It 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 to have included wherein each corner channel has a roof portion that sits over or against the toeboard located in that channel in the clamp of Campbell in view of Kuroki in view of Martinez and further in view of Kindorf according to the teachings of Stopello in order to further inhibit unintended upward displacement of either board during use.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (GB2276414) in view of Kuroki (JPH10152983) and further in view of Wilson (CA2549260)
18: Campbell in view of Kuroki fail to disclose a clamp according to claim 14, wherein the toeboard has at least one ridge and at least one complimentary valley arranged such that the toeboard is laid against another substantially similar toeboard the ridge of one toeboard to nest in the valley of the other toeboard to resist one toeboard sliding across the other. Wilson teaches wherein a toeboard (10) has at least one ridge (65) and at least one complimentary valley (pg. 6, lines 7-12: “It can also be appreciated that the cross section of the toeboards 10 allows nesting of the toeboards as well as a sliding overlap of the toeboards to allow extension of the toeboards”) arranged such that the toeboard is laid against another substantially similar toeboard and the ridge of one toeboard nests in the valley of the other toeboard to resist one toeboard sliding across the other (see Wilson at pg. 4, lines 34-38: “The toeboard 10 is trapped between the latch fingers 26 and 28 and cannot move vertically as it is in engagement with the other toeboard and it cannot move along the axis of the other toeboard due to the latch fingers engaging the toeboard”). It 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 to have included wherein the toeboard has at least one ridge and at least one complimentary valley arranged such that the toeboard is laid against another substantially similar toeboard the ridge of one toeboard to nest in the valley of the other toeboard to resist one toeboard sliding across the other in the clamp of Campbell in view of Kuroki according to the teachings of Wilson to further inhibit unintended displacement of the toeboards during use.
19. Campbel in view of Kuroki and further in view of Wilson disclose a clamp according to claim 18, wherein the at least one ridge is arranged immediately below the first screw fastener (28) so that if a toeboard in that clamp begins to move upwards said ridge runs into the first screw fastener (28) to arrest further upwards movement of that toeboard (10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BAP/ Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights