DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 03/09/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-10, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the claims, the phrase “signalling” should be corrected to—signaling—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected as failing to define the invention because the claim is narrative in form and replete with indefinite language, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examples of indefinite language include:
The phrase “advantageously a battery, an indicator and manual control means (24) of the device (1)”, wherein the term “advantageously” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “advantageously” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the term “advantageously” will be understood as optionally. In this case, language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (see MPEP 2111.04).
The recitations of “a pressure sensor”, “a strain gauge pressure sensor”, and “the sensor (8)” are indefinite, as the claim does not explain whether they refer to the same or different sensors.
The recitations of at least “the signalling and measuring unit”, “the lower parts”, “the upper parts” lack proper antecedent basis.
At least the phrases “inside this body (2) to its base (3) a strain gauge pressure sensor (8) is mounted”, “there are handles (18) for the device (1) positioning and carrying, and on the third wall (5) of the body (2) there is a casing (19) of the signalling and measuring unit”, and “advantageously a battery, an indicator and manual control means (24) of the device (1), while on the fourth wall (7) a communication antenna is located” are narrative in form.
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected as failing to define the invention because the claim is narrative in form and replete with indefinite language, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examples of indefinite language include:
The recitation of “the scaffolding structure” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The recitation of “both types of units (1, 26) forming the system include Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) units” is ambiguous because the claim does not appear to define the phrase “both types of units” and what they comprise.
The phrase “the signalling and alarm unit (26) has means for hanging it” narrative in form.
Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-7 and 9-20 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Since the claims contain numerous issues, applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested in placing the claims in better form.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nielsen et al. (Pat. No. US 11,763,109) (hereafter Nielsen).
Regarding claim 8, Nielsen teaches a system for controlling and monitoring loads on the scaffolding structure, comprising
at least one measuring unit (i.e., monitoring device 130 includes a load cell configured to measure a force exerted on the first coupling mechanism 110) (see Fig. 1) and at least one signalling and alarm unit (i.e., the monitoring device 130 may include an audible beacon/siren/alarm that may be configured to output an audible indication that the monitoring device 130 has detected a sensor reading above a predetermined threshold) (see Column 6, lines 22-47), wirelessly connected to each other (i.e., transceiver 1406 may be configured with requisite hardware, firmware and software to facilitate wired and/or wireless communication between the monitoring device 1400 and one or more external devices, such as smartphones, wireless internet routers) (see Column 6, lines 47-67), characterized in that the measuring unit is a monitoring device (1), both types of units (1, 26) forming the system include Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) units (i.e., one of the strut type and strut length associated with the in-line electronic strut monitor may be automatically identified by the monitoring device using information received from a beacon coupled to the support strut. This beacon may be an RFID tag, a Bluetooth (such as Bluetooth low energy) beacon, a barcode, a QR code, among others) (see Column 16, line 64, to Column 17, line 2), and
the signalling and alarm unit (26) has means for hanging it (i.e., coupling mechanism 404) (see Fig. 4), acoustic and light signalling means (31) (i.e., visual beacon 141 may include multiple high-intensity lights, which may be light emitting diodes (LEDs)) (see Fig. 1),
a controller (27) with a wireless communication module and with an identification module (i.e., he transceiver 1406 may receive information from a strut (e.g., strut 304) or another type of support hardware (e.g., base 302). This received information may identify the connected hardware elements, and this information may be used to determine a maximum load to which the coupled hardware may be subjected) (see Column 10, lines 11-41), a display (32) (i.e., display 134) (see Fig. 1), a replaceable power source (28) (i.e., the monitoring device 130 may include a power supply in the form of one or more batteries configured to provide electrical energy to the multiple components of the monitoring device 130) (see Column 7, lines 1-14), and means for manual control (33) of the signalling and alarm unit (26) (i.e., input knobs/buttons/joysticks 136) (see Fig. 1).
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (Pat. No. US 11,763,109) (hereafter Nielsen) in view of Schoonmaker (Pat. No. US. 10,821,945) (hereafter Schoonmaker).
Regarding claim 1, Nielsen teaches a device for controlling and monitoring loads acting on a scaffolding structure comprising
a body placed on the ground (i.e., monitor 100) (see Fig. 2A) and a pressure sensor mounted therein (i.e., monitoring device 130 includes a load cell configured to measure a force exerted on the first coupling mechanism 110) (see Fig. 1),
on which the sensor a vertical scaffolding stand acts from above (i.e., struts 202) (see Fig. 2A),
characterized in that the body (2) has a base (3) and four side walls (4,5,6,7) (see Fig. 1 and 2A-B),
inside this body (2) to its base (3) a strain gauge pressure sensor (8) is mounted (i.e., monitoring device 130 includes a load cell configured to measure a force exerted on the first coupling mechanism 110) (see Fig. 1),
whereas the lower parts (12, 13) of the linear guides (10) are attached to the base (3) of the body (2), and the upper parts (14, 15) of these guides (10) are connected with the horizontal measuring plate (11) being in constant contact (9) with the sensor (8) (i.e., the load cell of the monitoring device 130 may be subjected to a full load/force exerted by an external structure upon the housing 102 of the monitor 100. The load cell of the monitoring device 130 may utilize any load cell configuration and/or materials without departing from the scope of these disclosures. Further, the load cell of the monitoring device 130 may be configured to measure a compressive force and/or a tensile force exerted on the in-line electronic strut monitor 100) (see Column 5, lines 11-40),
whereas outside the body (2), on two opposite walls (4, 6), there are handles (18) for the device (1) positioning and carrying (i.e., first and second handle structures 161, 162) (see Fig. 1), and
on the third wall (5) of the body (2) there is a casing (19) of the signalling and measuring unit (i.e., the monitoring device 130 may include an audible beacon/siren/alarm that may be configured to output an audible indication that the monitoring device 130 has detected a sensor reading above a predetermined threshold) (see Column 6, lines 22-47),
which includes a controller (20) with a wireless communication module (i.e., the processor 1400 may execute instructions received from memory 1404. Accordingly, memory 1404 may be a form of volatile or persistent memory of any type, and may be RAM, ROM, among others. The transceiver 1406 may be configured with requisite hardware, firmware and software to facilitate wired and/or wireless communication between the monitoring device 1400 and one or more external devices, such as smartphones, wireless internet routers) (see Column 6, lines 47-67), an indicator and manual control means (24) of the device (1) (i.e., a graphical interface/screen/electronic display 134, and/or input knobs/buttons/joysticks 136) (see Fig. 1), while on the fourth wall (7) a communication antenna is located (i.e., antennae 151 and 152 to facilitate wireless communication) (see Fig. 1); but does not explicitly teach having a vertical measuring pin pointing upwards and located between two linear guides (10) with a vertical axis of operation, the horizontal measuring plate (11) being in constant contact (9) with the measuring pin of the sensor (8).
Regarding the measuring pin, Schoonmaker teaches having a vertical measuring pin pointing upwards and located between two linear guides (10) with a vertical axis of operation (i.e., sensor 32) (see Fig. 6), the horizontal measuring plate (11) being in constant contact (9) with the measuring pin of the sensor (8) (i.e., interface body 38, at one end, is configured to engage the sensor 32 and is movable relative to the sensor 32 through sliding contact on a surface of the sensor 32) (see Fig. 3). In view of the teaching of Schoonmaker, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a measuring pin in order to improve the sensitivity of the device.
Claims 2-7 and 11-20 are objected to as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights