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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to because the headings for the different parts are missing. The specification should include a heading for each of the different sections of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a flange” at line 5 should be “the flange” because a flange was introduced at line 4 of the claim. 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.
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 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "particularly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "particularly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "particularly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the plate bodies" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regard to claim 13, the scope of the claim is unclear. The examiner is not certain as to what the claim is trying to claim. Is the floor part in claim in claim 13 different from the floor part in claim 1? Further clarification is required.
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) 1-3, 7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urfalilar (WO2020/005177) in view of Mikic (DE102018218849A1).
In regard to claim 1, Ufalilar discloses a scaffold floor 1, comprising a floor part with a walking surface 7 and a set of flanks (fig. 5) hanging downward on either side thereof, which floor part is provided on opposite outer ends with a head piece 3 with claws 2 with which the floor part engages in a scaffolding round a ledger (not shown) of the scaffolding, wherein the head piece is provided at least substantially as a folded plate body (as shown in the figures), the head piece provides a front plate with at least one first slotted hole 6 and at least one second slotted hole 6, that each of the claws 2 comprises on a side facing toward the front plate at least one hook member 4 which is received fittingly in a slotted hole in the front plate and hooks round an edge of the slotted hole here, and that the claws are attached durably to the head piece by a mechanical connection. Ufalilar does not specifically disclose that the head piece includes a set of opposite wings which are connected to the flanks of the floor part. Mikic teaches that it is known to provide a head part of a scaffold floor with a set of opposite wings 22a-22d that are to be connected to the flanks of a floor part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a set of wings into Ufalilar’s invention, because the wings will help to provide a more secure connection between the head piece and the floor part of the scaffold floor.
In regard to claim 2, Ufalilar in view of Mikic disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the wings protrude between the flanks of the floor part and under the walking surface of the floor part. The examiner would like to note that when the wings are located at the ends of Ufalilar’s head piece, they will be located within the flanks shown in figure 5.
In regard to claim 3, Ufalilar in view of Mikic disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the front plate comprises on an underside remote from the walking surface a folded strip part (where 3 is pointing in figure 5 of Ufalilar) which extends substantially parallel to the walking surface, that the claws comprise a protruding tongue (where 2 is pointing to in figure 5 of Ufalilar) with which the claws protrude under the strip part of the front plate, and that the hook members hook round the edge of a relevant slotted hole 6 in a direction away from the tongue.
In regard to claim 7, Ufalilar in view of Mikic disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Ufalilar further discloses that the front plate comprises on an upper side facing toward the floor part a folded strip part (where 3 is pointing to in figures 1-3) with which the head piece lies on the walking surface (figure 5).
In regard to claim 10, Ufalilar in view of Mikic disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Mikic further teaches that at least one of the wings of the head piece comprises a protruding tongue 14a or 14b with which the floor part supports on a ledge of the scaffolding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also incorporate the tongues of Mikic into Ufalilar’s head piece, because the tongues will provide additional support of the floor part.
In regard to claim 11, Ufalilar in view of Mikic disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Ufalilar further teaches that the flanks of the floor part comprises on a side remote from the walking surface an inward directed flange and that the wings of the head piece protrude fittingly between a flange of the floor part and the walking surface (figure 5 Ufalilar).
In regard to claim 12, as “best understood” Ufalilar in view of Mikic disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the folded plate of the head piece is made of steel or aluminum, page 1, lines 7-9 Ufalilar.
In regard to claim 13, as “best understood”, Ufalilar in view of Mikic disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the invention is a floor part as applied in the scaffold floor according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urfalilar (WO2020/005177) in view of Mikic (DE102018218849A1) and further in view of de Almeida Madureira (EP 2039848).
In regard to claim 4, as “best understood”, Ufalilar in view of Mikic disclose the basic claimed invention except for specifically disclosing that the mechanical connection is brought about by a continuous connecting member in the form a of a rivet or screw bolt. de Almeida Madureira teaches that it is known to connect claws 1 to a head piece 3 by at least one continuous connecting member, i.e. a screw bolt 8, 9, 10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fasten the claws of Ufalilar to the head piece with a continuous connecting member as taught by de Almeida Madureira because by doing so the claws will not become separated from the head piece during transportation, during assembly, or during use. The claws will be firmly attached to the head piece.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urfalilar (WO2020/005177) in view of Mikic (DE102018218849A1) and further in view of Sarno (3509966).
In regard to claim 5, Ufalilar in view of Mikic disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing that the head piece comprises a locking body which lies received for axial movement in a passage in the front plate, that the locking body is received on a downward directed guide surface of a guide, and that the locking body is lifted from a path of the ledger when touched by a ledger and is able and configured to slide under the ledger when released. Sarno teaches that it is known to provide a locking body 38 on a downward directed guide surface of a guide 36, such that the locking body is lifted from a path of the ledger 14 when touched by the ledger and is able and configured to slide under the ledger when released. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sarno’s teaching into Ufalilar in view of Mikic’s invention, because the locking member will prevent the scaffold floor from unintentionally becoming dislodged and separated from the ledger. This will prevent possible unwanted injuries of those using the scaffolding.
In regard to claim 6, as “best understood”, Ufalilar in view of Mikic and Sarno disclose the basic claimed invention, as “best understood”, wherein the guide 36 is formed by a third folded plate body and is connected mechanically to the head piece. Sarno teaches that the guide is “welded or otherwise fastened” column 2, lines 54-55. Therefore, if the applicant intended to positively claim a screw bolt or rivet, the examiner contends that these would be obvious variants and covered by Sarno’s teaching of “or otherwise fastened” since there are only a limited number of different types of connecting means to fasten metal elements together, bolts, screws, and rivets being the most popular.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urfalilar (WO2020/005177) in view of Mikic (DE102018218849A1) and further in view of Krogstrup (US 2008/0093170).
In regard to claim 8, Ufalilar in view of Mikic disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing that each of the claws is provided as a second folded plate body. Krogstrup teaches that it is known to make claws 9 out of folded plate bodies as shown in the figures. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Ufalilar’s claws out of folded plates because folded plates are simple to produce. They can be formed in an efficient manner that will allow them to be produced quickly and at a low cost. Further, the examiner contends that both folded plate claws and that claws that are stamped or cut out of a plate are both well-known forms of claws and using either one would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the prior art references of record disclose similar features of applicant’s claims, they fail to show the combination of elements, wherein each of the hooks have opposite flanks formed from a second folded plate with a strengthening body located between the opposite flanks. The examiner can find no proper motivation to place a strengthening body between any of the folds in the claw members in the prior art references of record. For example, Krogstrup (US2008/0093170) teaches a claw made of a folded plate, but it would not be obvious to place a strengthening member therebetween because if one were place in the opening, it would block access for the claw to receive the ledger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights