DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure, including the preliminary amendment filed on 9/11/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending. No claims have been withdrawn, cancelled or added.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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 9/16/2024 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figures 1-8, the poor line quality renders part or all of the drawing illegible when reproduced. The lines in the drawings, especially the callout lines (see callout lines to 100 and 120 in Fig. 1) and the text are blurry and pixelated. Applicant is requested to submit replacement drawings with darker37 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.”
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 and Claim Rejections Under 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 1-10 are objected to or 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.
Claims are reproduced below with the examiner’s comments regarding claim objections and 112 rejections in bold italics. Appropriate correction is required. Any claim listed in this section that is not shown below is rejected by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 1. A grid structure dismantling method, wherein the grid structure (“the grid structure” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a grid structure dismantling method, but not a grid structure) comprises a plurality of rod member groups and a plurality of upright posts, the plurality of rod member groups comprise a first rod member group and a second rod member group, the first rod member group is connected to the second rod member group, and each of the plurality of upright posts is connected to the second rod member group respectively; wherein the grid structure dismantling method comprises:
identifying a plurality of key rod member groups from the plurality of rod member groups, with each of the plurality of key rod member groups corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of upright posts; and
dismantling all key rod members (“all key rod members” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim does not previously recite key rod members; this rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim reciting a plurality of rod members and subsequently referring to such elements collectively as the plurality of rod members) in each of the plurality of key rod member groups to make the grid structure collapse.
Claim 2. The grid structure dismantling method of claim 1, wherein the identifying comprises: simulating and analyzing dismantling of the grid structure with finite element analysis software; and identifying each of the plurality of key rod member groups based on a stress change of at least one of non-dismantled rod members (“non-dismantled rod members” is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited rod members; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to at least one non-dismantled rod member of the plurality of rod members or different/additional ones?) during a dismantling process.
Claim 3. The grid structure dismantling method of claim 2, wherein the dismantling comprises making the grid structure completely collapse by repetitively:
selecting two adjacent upright posts from the plurality of upright posts to be a first upright post and a second upright post, respectively; wherein the dismantling comprises: dismantling all rod members (“all rod members” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited rod members; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the rod members”) of a key rod member group corresponding to the first upright post (“a key rod member group” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited key rod member groups; this objection can be overcome by amending the limitation to clarify that the key rod member group is one of the previously recited key rod member groups, not an additional/different key rod member group);
dismantling all rod members of a key rod member group corresponding to the second upright post (“a key rod member group” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited key rod member groups; this objection can be overcome by amending the limitation to clarify that the key rod member group is one of the previously recited key rod member groups, not an additional/different key rod member group), so that portions of the grid structure corresponding to the first upright post and the second upright post collapse.
Claim 5. The grid structure dismantling method of claim 4, wherein the simulating comprises:
a first round of simulation, in which, on a basis of dismantling all the rod members (“all rod members” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited rod members; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the rod members”) of the key rod member group corresponding to the first upright post, stress changes of the at least one of non-dismantled rod members of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post are successively simulated and analyzed after each single rod member of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post is dismantled, and after being dismantled, a rod member that results in a greatest stress change of the at least one of non-dismantled rod members of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post is determined as the first key rod member;
a second round of simulation, in which, on a basis of dismantling the first key rod member, stress changes of the at least one of non-dismantled rod members of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post are further successively simulated and analyzed after each single rod member of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post is dismantled, and after being dismantled, a rod member that results in a greatest stress change of the at least one of non-dismantled members of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post is determined as the second key rod member; and
repeating above simulating and analyzing processes (“above simulating and analyzing processes” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited simulating and analyzing dismantling of the grid structure with finite element analysis software; this objection can be overcome by clarifying the claim language to define the simulating and analyzing processes as, “the simulating and analyzing dismantling of the grid structure with finite element analysis software” or equivalent) until a portion of the grid structure collapses, thereby identifying all the key rod members included in the key rod member group corresponding to the second upright post (“all the key rod members” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited key rod members; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the key rod members” or equivalent).
Claim 7. The grid structure dismantling method of claim 1, wherein the grid structure comprises a rectangular square pyramid grid structure, the second rod member group comprises a plurality of web rods, each of the plurality of upright posts is connected to a plurality of corresponding web rods which form a respective one of the key rod member group corresponding to the each of the plurality of upright posts, and the plurality of upright posts comprise a first upright post, a second upright post, and a third upright post; wherein the first upright post is adjacent to the second upright post, wherein the second upright post is adjacent to the third upright post; wherein the dismantling comprises:
dismantling all corresponding web rods (“all corresponding web rods” is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis as the claims do not previously define corresponding web rods; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to each of the key web rods that correspond to the first upright post, or different web rods?) connected to the first upright post;
retaining at least one of corresponding web rods (“one of corresponding web rods” is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis as the claims do not previously define corresponding web rods; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to each of the key web rods that correspond to the second upright post, or different web rods?) connected to the second upright post, and dismantling other web rods (“other web rods” is objected to because the limitation does not refer to any of the previously recited web rods; this objection can be overcome by providing antecedent basis for the web rods in which the limitation is referring to in the claim) connected to the second upright post except the at least one of the corresponding web rods which is retained;
dismantling all corresponding web rods connected to the third upright post (“all corresponding web rods” is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis as the claims do not previously define corresponding web rods; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to each of the key web rods that correspond to the third upright post, or different web rods?); and
dismantling the at least one of the web rods retained at the second upright post.
Claim 8. The grid structure dismantling method of claim 1, wherein the grid structure comprises a rectangular square pyramid grid structure, the second rod member group comprises a plurality of web rods, each of the plurality of upright posts is connected to a plurality of corresponding web rods (“a plurality of corresponding web rods” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite, as it is unclear which web rods the limitation is referring to in the claims, as the claims recite several different web rods; which web rods are considered corresponding web rods?) which form a respective one of the key rod member group corresponding to the each of the plurality of upright posts, the plurality of upright posts comprise a first upright post, a second upright post, a third upright post, and a fourth upright post; and the first upright post, the second upright post, the third upright post and the fourth upright post are arranged in sequence (“in sequence” is objected to for lacking an introductory term; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “in a sequence”) at four corners of a rectangle; wherein the dismantling comprises:
dismantling all corresponding web rods (“all corresponding web rods” is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis as the claims do not previously define corresponding web rods; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to each of the key web rods that correspond to the first upright post, or different web rods?) connected to the first upright post;
retaining at least one of corresponding web rods (“one of corresponding web rods” is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis as the claims do not previously define corresponding web rods; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to each of the key web rods that correspond to the second upright post, or different web rods?) connected to the second upright post, and dismantling other web rods connected to the second upright post except the at least one of the corresponding web rods which is retained;
dismantling all corresponding web rods connected to the third upright post (“all corresponding web rods” is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis as the claims do not previously define corresponding web rods; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to each of the key web rods that correspond to the third upright post, or different web rods?); and
dismantling all corresponding web rods connected to the fourth upright post (“all corresponding web rods” is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis as the claims do not previously define corresponding web rods; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to each of the key web rods that correspond to the fourth upright post, or different web rods?).
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
CN 113123635 (‘CN ‘635’) (as cited by applicant) in view of Zhan (“The global and local approaches to determine key elements in member structures”, Spatial Structures, Vol. 20 No. 1, March 2014) (‘Zhan’) (as provided by applicant).
Claim 1, CN ‘635 teaches a grid structure dismantling method, wherein the grid structure comprises a plurality of rod member groups (“upper and lower chord members” throughout the specification) and a plurality of upright posts (“vertical supports” throughout the specification), the plurality of rod member groups comprise a first rod member group (“upper chord member” throughout the specification) and a second rod member group (“lower chord member” throughout the specification), the first rod member group is connected to the second rod member group (it is understood that the upper and lower chord members are connected; Figs. 1-14), and each of the plurality of upright posts is connected to the second rod member group respectively (each of the vertical supports is nonetheless connected to the lower chord members, respectively; Figs. 2-14); wherein the grid structure dismantling method comprises:
surrounding a support system of an existing grid frame, and dividing the whole net rack into a plurality of parts; dividing each part by taking the single truss as a minimum dismantling unit, and each dismantling unit obtained by dividing has a support of a supporting system; performing simulation analysis on the dismantling construction process by adopting a dead unit method, adjusting the division of the dismantling unit, ensuring that each dismantling unit meets the stress requirement in the dismantling construction process; and dismantling construction of the units one by one is performed one by one according to the division result of the adjusted dismantling unit (abstract; specification paragraphs 42-81; Figs. 1-14).
CN ‘635 does not teach a column connected to a second rod member group, a plurality of key rod member groups being identified, each key rod member group corresponds to a respective one of the plurality of upright posts, and all key rods in the key rod member group are removed to collapse the grid structure.
However, Zhan teaches a method for judging the whole and part of key elements of a truss structure, and specifically teaches that destruction of key elements will cause the collapse of the whole structure or cause disproportionate damage near the element (it is disclosed that the key elements in the grid structure will collapse; page 59, right column, line 5 to page 62, the last line). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the above-mentioned distinctive features in CN ‘635 to quickly and efficiently dismantle the grid by identifying a plurality of key rod member groups from the plurality of rod member groups, with each of the plurality of key rod member groups corresponding to a respective one of the plurality of upright posts; and dismantling all key rod members in each of the plurality of key rod member groups to make the grid structure collapse, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known technique to dismantle the grid quickly and efficiently.
Claim 2, as modified above, the combination of CN ‘635 and Zhan teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the identifying comprises: simulating and analyzing dismantling of the grid structure with finite element analysis software; and identifying each of the plurality of key rod member groups based on a stress change of at least one of non-dismantled rod members during a dismantling process (CN ‘365 structural analysis software using FEA is used to simulate the construction process to simulate dismantling of the grid structure; Zhan teaches simulation analysis of demolition of a grid structure with key member groups being identified based on stress changes of other members that have not been removed during demolition; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, such teachings account for such identification to encompass the scope of simulating and analyzing dismantling of the grid structure with finite element analysis software; and identifying each of the plurality of key rod member groups based on a stress change of at least one of non-dismantled rod members during a dismantling process, as exceedingly broadly claimed).
Claim 3, as modified above, the combination of CN ‘635 and Zhan teaches all the limitations of claim 2. CN ‘635 further teaches splitting of row units, such that two adjacent columns could be selected to be set as the first and second column, and all the members of the key bar group corresponding to the first column could be dismantled, such that the parts of the grid corresponding to the first column and the second column collapse, and such process could be repeated until the grid completely collapses). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sequence of dismantling to make the grid structure completely collapse by repetitively by selecting two adjacent upright posts from the plurality of upright posts to be a first upright post and a second upright post, respectively; wherein the dismantling comprises: dismantling all rod members of a key rod member group corresponding to the first upright post; dismantling all rod members of a key rod member group corresponding to the second upright post, so that portions of the grid structure corresponding to the first upright post and the second upright post collapse, with the reasonable expectation of success of dismantling a structure using known processes in a repeatable order to collapse the grid structure completely, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in sequence of adding components. A change in sequence is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Claim 4, as modified above, the combination of CN ‘635 and Zhan teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the grid structure comprises a rectangular square pyramid grid structure (Zhan page 61, Fig. 6), and CN ‘635 further teaches splitting of the row unit, such that the key bar group corresponding to the second column into the first key bar, the second key bar and the third key bar when identifying the key bars. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the teachings as claimed using known methods with no change in their respective functions. Such a combination would have yielded predictable results of dismantling the grid structure using known techniques to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected.
Claim 5, as modified above, the combination of CN ‘635 and Zhan teaches all the limitations of claim 4. CN ‘635 further teaches splitting into row units (Figs. 2-14), such that when a first unit is dismantled, in order to determine the key members in the first unit, in a first simulation: when dismantling all the members of the key member group corresponding to the first column, the stress changes of the unremoved members connected with the second column in the second member group are simulated and analyzed, and the member that makes the unremoved members connected with the second column in the second member group have the greatest stress changes after dismantling is determined; and in the second simulation: when dismantling the first key bar, continue to simulate and analyze the stress changes of the unmasked bar connected with the second column in the second bar group after dismantling a single bar connected with the second column, and determine the bar which makes the stress changes of the unmasked bar connected with the second column the largest in the second bar group after dismantling as the second key bar; this is repeated until the grid partially collapses, so as to identify the key members included in the key member group corresponding to the second column as a known treatment method. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the order of simulating such that a first round of simulation, in which, on a basis of dismantling all the rod members of the key rod member group corresponding to the first upright post, stress changes of the at least one of non-dismantled rod members of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post are successively simulated and analyzed after each single rod member of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post is dismantled, and after being dismantled, a rod member that results in a greatest stress change of the at least one of non-dismantled rod members of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post is determined as the first key rod member; a second round of simulation, in which, on a basis of dismantling the first key rod member, stress changes of the at least one of non-dismantled rod members of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post are further successively simulated and analyzed after each single rod member of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post is dismantled, and after being dismantled, a rod member that results in a greatest stress change of the at least one of non-dismantled members of the second rod member group which is connected to the second upright post is determined as the second key rod member; and repeating above simulating and analyzing processes until a portion of the grid structure collapses, thereby identifying all the key rod members included in the key rod member group corresponding to the second upright post, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known method in a desired order to safely and securely dismantle the grid structure, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in sequence of adding components. A change in sequence is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Claims 6-8, as modified above, the combination of CN ‘635 and Zhan teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches [claims 6, 7 and 8] wherein the grid structure comprises a rectangular square pyramid grid structure (Zhan page 61, Fig. 6), and the second member group includes a plurality of web members, and each column is correspondingly connected with a plurality of web members, which provide support for the upper and lower chord members of the grid. It would have followed naturally that one of ordinary skill in the art could set each key member of the key member group corresponding to the column as all web members correspondingly connected with the column. CN ‘635 further teaches dividing into multiple disassembly units (CN ‘635 Figs. 2-8). Zhan further teaches studying one local region for a certain member in structures to investigate the collapse relay from initial failure of a single member to overall collapse of the structure, and in a latticed grid, the higher importance the structural configuration modules have, the closer they are to a support, and the sideward modules have higher importance than those in an interior regions (Zhan abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the second rod member group comprising a plurality of rods, each of the plurality of upright posts is connected to a plurality of web rods which form a respective one of the key rod member group corresponding to the each of the plurality of upright posts, to form the second rod member group comprising a plurality of web rods, each of the plurality of upright posts is connected to a plurality of corresponding web rods which form a respective one of the key rod member group corresponding to the each of the plurality of upright posts, and the plurality of upright posts comprising a first upright post, a second upright post, and a third upright post; wherein the first upright post is adjacent to the second upright post, wherein the second upright post is adjacent to the third upright post; wherein the dismantling comprises: dismantling all corresponding web rods connected to the first upright post; retaining at least one of corresponding web rods connected to the second upright post, and dismantling other web rods connected to the second upright post except the at least one of the corresponding web rods which is retained; dismantling all corresponding web rods connected to the third upright post; and dismantling the at least one of the web rods retained at the second upright post, and forming the second rod member group comprising a plurality of web rods, each of the plurality of upright posts being connected to a plurality of corresponding web rods which form a respective one of the key rod member group corresponding to the each of the plurality of upright posts, the plurality of upright posts comprising a first upright post, a second upright post, a third upright post, and a fourth upright post; and the first upright post, the second upright post, the third upright post and the fourth upright post being arranged in sequence at four corners of a rectangle; wherein the dismantling comprises: dismantling all corresponding web rods connected to the first upright post; retaining at least one of corresponding web rods connected to the second upright post, and dismantling other web rods connected to the second upright post except the at least one of the corresponding web rods which is retained; dismantling all corresponding web rods connected to the third upright post; and dismantling all corresponding web rods connected to the fourth upright post, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known techniques to dismantle the grid safely and securely, and in an efficient manner, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in sequence of adding components. A change in sequence is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Claim 9, as modified above, the combination of CN ‘635 and Zhan teaches all the limitations of claim 1. CN ‘635 further teaches improving the structure bearing safety in the dismounting construction process and ensuring dismounting construction safety by first removing the attachment of the net structure, “firstly removing the metal roof boarding the roof” and “dismounting the suspended ceiling part below the net rack” CN ‘635 specification English translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to break roof panels around the plurality of upright posts and around the plurality of rod member groups before dismantling the plurality of the key rod member groups, with the reasonable expectation of success of increasing improving structure bearing safety and ensuring dismounting construction safety, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in sequence of adding components. A change in sequence is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
CN 113123635 (‘CN ‘635’) (as cited by applicant) in view of Zhan (“The global and local approaches to determine key elements in member structures”, Spatial Structures, Vol. 20 No. 1, March 2014) (‘Zhan’) (as provided by applicant) as above and further in view of Moldow (US 5622237).
Claim 10, as modified above, the combination of CN ‘635 and Zhan teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches preparing a lifting device (“crane” CN ‘635 English translation) and further teaches a worker dismantling the plurality of rod members (“the operator should hang the safety belt, safety belt life line” CN ‘635 specification English translation) CN ‘635 does not specifically teach allowing a person to be hoisted in air to dismantle the plurality of key rod member groups before dismantling the plurality of key rod member groups. However, Moldow teaches a portable hoist system for hoisting a person in the air on a building (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 method by including preparing a lifting device to allow a person to be hoisted in air to dismantle the plurality of key rod member groups before dismantling the plurality of key rod member groups, with the reasonable expectation of success of preventing a worker from falling off the grid structure.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
CN 113123635 (‘CN ‘635’) (as cited by applicant) in view of Zhan (“The global and local approaches to determine key elements in member structures”, Spatial Structures, Vol. 20 No. 1, March 2014) (‘Zhan’) (as provided by applicant) as above and further in view of JP 2017203368 A (‘JP ‘368’).
Claim 10, as modified above, the combination of CN ‘635 and Zhan teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches preparing a lifting device (“crane” CN ‘635 English translation) and further teaches a worker dismantling the plurality of rod members (“the operator should hang the safety belt, safety belt life line” CN ‘635 specification English translation) CN ‘635 does not specifically teach allowing a person to be hoisted in air to dismantle the plurality of key rod member groups before dismantling the plurality of key rod member groups. However, JP ‘368 teaches a hoist system for hoisting a person in the air during dismantling of a building (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 method by including preparing a lifting device to allow a person to be hoisted in air to dismantle the plurality of key rod member groups before dismantling the plurality of key rod member groups, with the reasonable expectation of success of preventing a worker from falling off the grid structure.
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 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