This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 18/820387.
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 .
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.
Claim 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation "the interior cavity" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11702842. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US Patent No. 11702842 and the application both disclose:
Claim 1. A roof equipment support comprising: a platform having a length and a width; a pair of sidewalls extending from the platform, wherein an angle between the platform and at least one of the pair of sidewalls within the interior cavity is an acute angle; a top wall extending between the pair of sidewalls and offset from the platform, wherein the platform, the pair of sidewalls, and the top wall define an interior cavity that extends the length of the platform from a first end to a second end, and wherein the cavity is open at both the first end and the second end; and a pair of strut extensions extending from the top wall, wherein each of the strut extensions comprises a hook at a distal end that includes a substantially 180 degree bend, wherein each of the strut extensions has a planar portion substantially perpendicular to the platform, and wherein the pair of strut extensions and the top wall define a channel that extends the length of the platform; wherein a cross-sectional profile of the support is constant along an entirety of the length of the platform.
Claim 2. The roof equipment support of claim 1, wherein the platform, the pair of sidewalls, the top wall, and the pair of strut extensions are formed from a same material in an extrusion process.
Claim 3. The roof equipment support of claim 1, wherein the platform, the pair of sidewalls, the top wall, and the pair of strut extensions are unitary.
Claim 4. The roof equipment support of claim 1, wherein a cross-section of the interior cavity has a trapezoidal shape.
Claim 5. The roof equipment support of claim 1, wherein the width of the platform is greater than a spacing between the pair of sidewalls proximate the platform.
Claim 6. The roof equipment support of claim 1, wherein the width of the top wall is less than the width of the platform.
Claim 10. A roof equipment support comprising: a platform having a length and a width; a pair of sidewalls extending from the platform, wherein an angle between the platform and at least one of the pair of sidewalls within the interior cavity is an acute angle; a top wall extending between the pair of sidewalls and offset from the platform, wherein the platform, the pair of sidewalls, and the top wall define an interior cavity that extends the length of the platform from a first end to a second end; a pair of strut extensions extending from the top wall, wherein the pair of strut extensions and the top wall define a channel; and wherein a cross-sectional profile of the support is constant along an entirety of the length of the platform.
Claims 7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11702842 in view of Askerdal 20150136571.
11702842 discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the platform is discontinuous. Askerdal teaches that it is known to have the platform is discontinuous (56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified U.S. Patent No. 11702842 to have the platform is discontinuous as taught by Askerdal for the purpose of providing a means to reduce material therefore being cost effective.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (platform)][AltContent: textbox ( Platform is Discontinuous )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
644
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11702842 in view of Hardy Jr. et al. (Hardy) 2004/0031228. 11702842 discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for at least one support wall disposed in the interior cavity and extending between two or more of the platform, the sidewalls, and the top wall.
Hardy teaches it is known to have:
Claim 8 at least one support wall disposed in the interior cavity and extending between two or more of the platform, the sidewalls, and the top. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified US Patent No.11702842 to have included at least one support wall disposed in the interior cavity and extending between two or more of the platform, the sidewalls, and the top wall as taught by Hardy for the purpose of providing supplemental vertical support to the top wall to prevent failure.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (platform)][AltContent: textbox (Support wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top wall)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
448
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11702842 in view of Sorkin 7,322,158. 11702842 discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for at least one support wall disposed in the interior cavity and extending between two or more of the platform, the sidewalls, and the top wall and the at least one support wall defines a pipe rest portion that is curved with a concavity in an upwards direction relative to the platform.
Sorkin teaches it is known to have:
Claim 8. The roof equipment support of claim 1, further comprising at least one support wall disposed in the interior cavity and extending between two or more of the platform, the sidewalls, and the top wall.
Claim 9 The roof equipment support of claim 8, wherein the at least one support wall defines a pipe rest portion that is curved with a concavity in an upwards direction relative to the platform.
[AltContent: textbox (Support wall 52)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (platform)][AltContent: textbox (Pipe rest)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
518
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified U.S. Patent No. 11702842 to have at least one support wall extending from the sidewalls and wherein the at least one support wall defines a pipe rest portion that is curved with a concavity in an upwards direction relative to the platform as taught by Sorkin for the purpose of providing supplemental vertical support to the top wall to prevent failure and to provide a means for supporting additional objects.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Anselmo 9,431,802.
Anselmo discloses:
Claim 10. A roof equipment support comprising: a platform having a length and a width; a pair of sidewalls extending from the platform, wherein an angle between the platform and at least one of the pair of sidewalls within the interior cavity is an acute angle; a top wall extending between the pair of sidewalls and offset from the platform, wherein the platform, the pair of sidewalls, and the top wall define an interior cavity that extends the length of the platform from a first end to a second end; a pair of strut extensions extending from the top wall, wherein the pair of strut extensions and the top wall define a channel; and wherein a cross-sectional profile of the support is constant along an entirety of the length of the platform.
Claim 11. The roof equipment support of claim 10, wherein the platform, the pair of sidewalls, the top wall, and the pair of strut extensions are unitary.
Claim 13. A roof equipment support comprising: a platform configured to be coupled to a roof; a pair of sidewalls extending from the platform, wherein the pair of sidewalls define an interior cavity that is open at at least one end; a top wall extending between the pair of sidewalls and offset from the platform and configured to support at least a portion of a structural or mechanical unit; and a pair of strut extensions extending from the top wall, wherein each of the strut extensions comprises a hook at a distal end that defines a substantially 180 degree bend, wherein the pair of strut extensions and the top wall define a channel that extends at least a portion of the length of the roof equipment support, and wherein a cross-sectional profile of the roof equipment support is constant along an entirety of the length of the platform.
Claim 14. The roof equipment support of claim 13, wherein the platform, the pair of sidewalls, the top wall, and the pair of strut extensions are formed from a same material.
Claim 15. The roof equipment support of claim 14, wherein the platform, the pair of sidewalls, the top wall, and the pair of strut extensions are unitary.
Claim 16. The roof equipment support of claim 13, wherein a cross-section of the interior cavity has a substantially trapezoidal shape.
Claim 17 The roof equipment support of claim 13, wherein a width of the platform is greater than a spacing (since the spacing can between a width shorter than the platform width which is closest to the top wall) between the pair of sidewalls.
Claim 18. The roof equipment support of claim 13, wherein a width of the top wall is less than the width of the platform.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Structural or mechanical unit)][AltContent: textbox (channel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Interior cavity)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (180 degree bend)][AltContent: textbox (Pair of Strut extensions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (sidewalls)][AltContent: textbox (platform)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
644
524
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anselmo 9,431,802 in view of Sorkin 7,322,158.
Anselmo discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for at least one support wall disposed in the interior cavity and extending between two or more of the platform, the sidewalls, and the top wall, wherein the at least one support wall defines a pipe rest portion that is curved with a concavity in an upwards direction relative to the platform.
Sorkin teaches it is known to have:
Claim 12 The roof equipment support of claim 10, further comprising at least one support wall disposed in the interior cavity and extending between two or more of the platform, the sidewalls, and the top wall, wherein the at least one support wall defines a pipe rest portion that is curved with a concavity in an upwards direction relative to the platform.
[AltContent: textbox (Support wall 52)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (platform)][AltContent: textbox (Pipe rest)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
518
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Anselmo to have included at least one support wall disposed in the interior cavity and extending between two or more of the platform, the sidewalls, and the top wall, wherein the at least one support wall defines a pipe rest portion that is curved with a concavity in an upwards direction relative to the platform as taught by Sorking for the purpose of providing supplemental vertical support to the top wall to prevent failure and to provide a means for supporting additional objects.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anselmo 9,431,802 in view of Sorkin 7,322,158.
Anselmo discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for further comprising at least one support wall extending from the sidewalls and wherein the at least one support wall defines a pipe rest portion that is curved with a concavity in an upwards direction relative to the platform.
Sorkin teaches it is known to have:
Claim 19. further comprising at least one support wall extending from the sidewalls.
Claim 20. the at least one support wall defines a pipe rest portion that is curved with a concavity in an upwards direction relative to the platform.
[AltContent: textbox (Support wall 52)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (platform)][AltContent: textbox (Pipe rest)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
518
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Anselmo to have at least one support wall extending from the sidewalls and wherein the at least one support wall defines a pipe rest portion that is curved with a concavity in an upwards direction relative to the platform as taught by Sorkin for the purpose of providing supplemental vertical support to the top wall to prevent failure and to provide a means for supporting additional objects.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art discloses conventional supports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631