DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
the “each connected to the tube via bracket like holders” of claim 1 – note that the drawings appear not to show multiple holders for each connecting means,
the “handrail piece detachably connected to the tube” of claim 2, and,
the bracket-like holder having “the same cross section as the piece of tubing of the bracket” of claim 8,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalitiespg. 13, lines 21-22, “angled one or more times” is unclear.
Pg. 14, line 11, “300” should be replaced with –100—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Third line from bottom, “are each connected to the tube” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “hand rail” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, “pipe” should be replaced with –tube--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “latch” should be replaced with –lock--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “angular” is unclear, and,
Lines 3-4 “is folded angularly one or more time” is unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4, --element—should be inserted after the first incidence of “post”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “strut” should be replaced with –post--.
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) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is 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. Specifically, the recitation of “each connected to the tube via bracket-like holders” is unclear because multiple holders appear to be required for each connecting means.
Regarding claim 1, 3, 6, 8, and 20, the phrase "bracket-like holder" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 4, 12, 13, and 17, the phrase "rosette-like connector" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henneberry (US20170114555).
1. A compensating element for extending a modular set of stairs, in an area of top step or bottom step, comprising; a tube (404A.1, Fig. 5) with a longitudinal axis and with a first end section (top) and a second end section (bottom), a bracket (22) for the reception of a step element (20), wherein the bracket (22) is connected to the tube (404A.1) in the region of the second end section (bottom) and is arranged at an angle (ninety degrees) with respect to the longitudinal axis of the tube (404A.1), connecting means (see wedge in Fig. 5) for connecting the tube to a vertical post (10.1) or a vertical post element wherein the connecting means (wedges) are connected to the tube in the region of the first end section (top) and in the region of the second end section (bottom) are each connected to the tube via bracket like holders (the portion between 22 and 404A.1) wherein the bracket-like holders are arranged at an angle (ninety degrees) with respect to the longitudinal axis of the tube (404A.1).
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 1, 3, 8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer (EP0402815).
1. A compensating element (110.1, far left of Figs. 1 and 3 and right side of Fig. 7) for extending a modular set of stairs (Fig. 1), in an area of top step or bottom step, comprising; a tube (110.1, Fig. 7) with a longitudinal axis and with a first end section (top) and a second end section (bottom), a bracket (130) for the reception of a step element (52), wherein the bracket (130) is connected to the tube (110.1) in the region of the second end section (bottom) and is arranged at an angle (ninety degrees) with respect to the longitudinal axis of the tube (110.1), and bracket- like holders (123, 125) wherein the bracket-like holders are arranged at an angle (ninety degrees) with respect to the longitudinal axis of the tube (110.1) and wherein the bracket like holders are connected to the tube (110.1) in the region of the first end section (top) and in the region of the second end section (bottom).
Langer further discloses connecting means (76, 115, Fig. 3) for connecting the tube (110.1) to a vertical post (114.1, Fig. 3) or a vertical post element. However, Langer fails to disclose wherein the connecting means (76, 115, Fig. 3) are connected to the bracket-like holders (123, 125) on the tube (110.1). Instead, Langer discloses wherein the connecting means (76, 115, Fig. 3) are connected to the vertical post (114.1). Per MPEP 2144.VI.A, reversal of parts is a prima facie obvious modification. Accordingly, 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 connecting means are connected to the tube via bracket- like holders in the compensating element disclosed by Langer in order to leverage scaffold type connections for railing supports, see [0012] of Langer.
3. Langer (as modified per MPEP 2144.VI.A) discloses the compensating element according to claim 1 wherein the pipe (110.1, Fig. 3) has at least three bracket-like holders (123, 125, Fig. 3) with connecting means (76, 115), wherein at least two bracket-like holders (123, 125) are arranged on opposite sides of the pipe (see 123 and 125 on opposite sides of pipe 110.3 in Fig. 3) or are offset in height relative to one another.
8. Langer (as modified per MPEP 2144.VI.A) discloses the compensating element (110.1) according to claim 1, wherein the bracket-like holders (123) are made from a piece of tubing (see Fig. 6), comprising a rectangular tube, which has the same cross section (note that the tubing 110.1 and the bracket 123 have the same cross-section in the sense that both are rectangular) as the piece of tubing (110.1) of the bracket (123).
11. Langer discloses a modular set of stairs (50, Fig. 1) comprising; at least two compensating elements (110.1, 110.2, 110.3, Fig. 3) according to claim 1 and at least one step element (52, Fig. 7), wherein the compensating elements (110.1, 110.2, 110.3) are each detachably connected to a vertical post or vertical post element (114.1, 114.2) via connecting means (76, 115, Fig. 3).
12. Langer (as modified per MPEP 2144.VI.A) discloses the modular set of stairs according to claim 11, wherein the vertical posts or the vertical post elements (114.1) have rosette-like connector elements (123, 125) each having at least one recess for reception of the connecting means (80, 115) of the compensating elements (110.1).
13. Langer discloses the modular set of stairs according to claim 11, wherein a horizontal ledger (73, Fig. 1) is arranged between two vertical stringer elements (67) and is detachably connected to the vertical stringer elements in a releasable manner, wherein the connecting means (76) preferably engage in recesses of the rosette-like connector elements (70) of the vertical post elements (67, see [0016] of Langer: “Horizontal beams 73, diagonal bars 74 and stiffening frames 75 are provided for stiffening the columns 67 to each other. These each have at their connection ends the connection heads 80 known from general scaffolding technology, which have horizontal slots by means of which they are inserted over the perforated discs 70. Wedges 76, which can be inserted through wedge slots in the connection heads 80, serve to provide the respective fixed connection in a known manner”).
14. Langer discloses the modular set of stairs according to claim 11, wherein the step element (52) is angular or forms a stepping step (top face of step 52) and a setting step (front vertical portion of the step 52 that forms a riser for the previous step), wherein the free end of the setting step is folded angularly one or more times (note from Fig. 7 that the lateral side of the step 52 includes a face and thereby forming an angularly folded portion).
15. Langer (as modified per MPEP 2144.VI.A) discloses a method for extending a modular set of stairs (50) in a region of a top step or bottom step (52), using at least one compensating element (110.1) according to claim 1 and at least one step element (52), wherein the compensating element (110.1) is detachably connected to a vertical post (114.1) of the set of stairs (50) by means of the connecting means (76, 80).
16. Langer fails to disclose the method according to claim 15, wherein a second compensating element is releasably connected to a second vertical post by means of the connecting means and the step element is placed on the brackets of the compensating elements in between. Per MPEP 2144.IV.B, duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. 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 a second railing assembly is disposed at the opposite ends of the modular stairs disclosed in Fig. 1 of Langer, specifically, wherein a second compensating element (110.1) is releasably connected to a second vertical post (114.1) by means of the connecting means (76, 80) and the step element (51) is placed on the brackets (130) of the compensating elements (110.1) in between.
17. Langer discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein the compensating elements (110.1) are each releasably connected to a vertical post element (114.1) by further connecting means (76, 80), which are arranged on the side facing away from the vertical post element (114.1), which vertical post element (114.1) has rosette- like connector elements (123,125 – in the sense that they include a passage for receiving the connecting means 76, 80).
18. Langer discloses the method according to claim 17, wherein the compensating elements (110) are each detachably connected to a further compensating element (110) or a horizontal ledge via the vertical strut elements ([0020]: “The connections on all three depicted railing supports 110 are designed in exactly the same way. Two railing supports 110.2 and 110.3, positioned close together but in planes rotated 90° to each other, are used as rear corner posts with the corresponding suspension devices. This eliminates the need for special corner railing supports, yet still provides sufficiently rigid supports in the rear corner for the side railings 55 and the back railings 58, suitable even for the leaning of a large number of visitors”).
19. The method according to claim 15, wherein a plurality of compensating elements (110) are connected via at least one diagonal brace (note that the compensating elements are connected via diagonal braces such as 74, 77.1 and 77.2 in Fig. 1 connected to the verticals such as 70 an 80 in Fig. 1).
20. Langer discloses the compensating element according to claim 1, wherein the tube is a rectangular tube (see e.g., Figs. 5 and 6), wherein the bracket is welded to the tube in the region of the second end section ([0023]: ”To fasten the perforated tabs 125 and the hanging pockets 123, square profile pieces 127 are welded to the posts in the height and length shown in Figs. 4 and 7), wherein the angle of the bracket is a perpendicular angle (130, see Fig. 7), wherein the connecting means (80, 115) are welded to the tube (as modified per MPEP 2144.VI.A) in the region of the first end section and in the region of the second end section are each welded to the tube via bracket-like holders (note that the connecting means 80 and 115 extend from a bracket-like holder in Fig. 3), and wherein the angle of the bracket-like holders is a perpendicular angle (Fig. 3, ninety degrees).
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer (EP0402815) in view of Welter (DE102012014707).
2. Langer fails to disclose the compensating element according to claim 1, wherein a handrail piece is detachably connected to the tube in the area of the first end section, wherein the hand rail handrail piece has a longitudinal axis which extends at an angle, the angle comprising one of: an oblique angle or a perpendicular angle to the longitudinal axis of the tube. Welter teaches (see Fig. 1), in the context of scaffold steps, wherein a handrail piece (4) is detachably connected to a tube (1) in the area of the end section (top), wherein the hand rail handrail piece (4) has a longitudinal axis which extends at an angle (Fig. 1), the angle comprising one of: an oblique angle (see Fig. 1) or a perpendicular angle to the longitudinal axis of the tube (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 a handrail piece is detachably connected to the tube in the area of the first end section, wherein the hand rail handrail piece has a longitudinal axis which extends at an angle, the angle comprising one of: an oblique angle or a perpendicular angle to the longitudinal axis of the tube in the compensating element of Langer according to the teachings of Welter in order to maintain the handrail uninterrupted from the compensating element to the vertical post of the railing, see e.g., the far right of Fig. 1 of Welter.
5. Langer in view of Welter disclose the compensating element according to claim 2, wherein the handrail piece (4) is made from a pipe piece which preferably has a circular cross section (the handrail piece of Welter appears to have a “round” tubular profile similar to the scaffolding bar 1a, 1b, 1c, see abstract of Welter).
6. Langer in view of Welter disclose the compensating element according to claim 2, wherein the handrail piece (4, Fig. 1 of Welter) is arranged in the center of the tube (1, Fig. 1 of Welter) in the plan view projection and extends beyond the tube (1) on both sides in alignment with the bracket or the bracket-like holders (123, 125, Fig. 3 of Langer).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer (EP0402815) in view of Schwurer (US6027276).
4. Langer fails to disclose the compensating element according to claim 1, wherein the connecting means each comprise a latch element and a wedge element that can be brought into engagement with a recess of a rosette-like connector element of a vertical post or a vertical post element. Schwurer teaches, in the context of scaffolding, wherein connecting means each comprise a latch element (12) and a wedge element (7) that can be brought into engagement with a recess (4) of a rosette-like connector element (2) of a vertical post or a vertical post element. 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 connecting means each comprise a latch element and a wedge element that can be brought into engagement with a recess of a rosette-like connector element of a vertical post or a vertical post element in the compensating element of Langer according to the teachings of Schwurer in order to provide a positive locking engagement of the connecting means with the rosette.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer (EP0402815) in view of
Langer fails to disclose the compensating element according to claim 1, wherein the bracket for the reception of the step element is made of a pipe piece comprising a rectangular pipe, and a crossbar element with a flat bearing surface is arranged on the pipe piece projecting beyond the pipe piece on both sides. Brinkmann teaches, in the context of scaffolding, wherein a bracket (18, Fig. 7A) for the reception of a step element (46) is made of a pipe piece (33) comprising a rectangular pipe (Fig. 7A), and a crossbar element (37, 40) with a flat bearing surface is arranged on the pipe piece projecting beyond the pipe piece on both sides. 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 bracket for the reception of the step element is made of a pipe piece comprising a rectangular pipe, and a crossbar element with a flat bearing surface is arranged on the pipe piece projecting beyond the pipe piece on both sides in the compensating element of Langer according to the teachings of Brinkmann in order to lock the compensating element in place (see Fig. 7B of Brinkmann).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer (EP0402815) in view of Kreller (US20180266123).
9. Langer fails to disclose the compensating element according to claim 1, wherein an eyelet for fastening a diagonal brace is arranged on the tube, wherein the eyelet is arranged in the region of the first end section of the tube. Kreller teaches, in the context of scaffolding, wherein an eyelet (48, Fig. 1) for fastening a diagonal brace (23) is arranged on a tube (21), wherein the eyelet is arranged in the region of the first end section (top) of the tube (21). 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 an eyelet for fastening a diagonal brace is arranged on the tube, wherein the eyelet is preferably arranged in the region of the first end section of the tube in the compensating element of Langer according to the teachings of Kreller in order to strengthen the structure of which the compensating element is a part.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langer (EP0402815) in view of Manier (FR2799783).
10. Langer discloses tube connected diagonals in modular stair sets, see e.g., 74 in Fig. 1. However, Langer fails to explicitly disclose the compensating element according to claim 1, wherein a recess for fastening a diagonal brace is formed in the tube, wherein the recess arranged in the region of the second end section of the tube. Manier teaches, in the context of scaffolding, wherein a recess (37, see top right of Fig. 1) for fastening a diagonal brace (3) is formed in the tube (5), wherein the recess (37) is arranged in the region of the second end section (bottom, see the right hand end of the diagonal 3 in Fig. 1) of the tube (5). 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 a recess for fastening a diagonal brace is formed in the tube, wherein the recess arranged in the region of the second end section of the tube in the compensating element of Langer according to the teachings of Manier in order to reduce play in the connection between the diagonal and the tube.
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