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 .
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(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 8,881,469 to Meyer.
Regarding claim 1, Meyer discloses a metal (steel column 1, lines 15-20) deck system having ribs (fig. 6: flat portions 92, 94) provided alternatively and continuously with planer portions (86) and the bottoms of the ribs may contact the plane portions when another deck plate is stacked upside down on a first deck plate. As the bottom of 92 may contact the bottom of 86 when a second plate is overlaid upside down. The Applicant should note that if a second (and third) structure of fig. 6 is inverted and placed in a manner as shown below, the ribs of one may contact the plane portions of others. To understand the figure below, the three structures are to be pushed together such that the upper comes down, and the lower two rise up until contact of all three. Also, component 82 is removable and not used in this scenario presented below.
PNG
media_image1.png
207
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the bottoms of the ribs and the contact parts are planar.
Regarding claim 3, when the plates are stacked while upside down, relative to each other, the entire bottom of the ribs (92, 94) may contact the contact parts.
Regarding claim 4, the plane portions have protruding streaks (sections adjacent to 86, fig. 6) and the bottom of the ribs may contact the streak portion when an upside-down plate is stacked and may be complimentary to each other.
Regarding claim 5, the entire bottom of the ribs may contact the streaks when an upside-down plate is stacked.
Regarding claim 6, the streaks may contact other streaks from an adjacent stacked upside-down plate.
Regarding claim 7, entire regions of streaks of one deck plate may contact those of another deck plate when stacked upside down.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the streaks have portions (side edges) protruding toward a surface on which the ribs are provided (downward) and a second opposite direction (upward).
Regarding claim 9, the deck plates may be stacked upside down and minimize height and width in a transverse direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues Meyer does not suggest the feature of stacking as in the claims of the application. However, the Applicant should note that the claims contain functional language and merely recite that the structure is capable of mating in an inverted manner. Meyer is also capable of mating in an inverted manner as in the claims. The claim limitations, structurally, are met by Meyer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 Glessner can be reached on (571)272-6754. 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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights