Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on the merits of application SN 18/876,016 and filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 standard twist-lock style connectors of claim 2, 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.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,709,458 in view of US Patent 5,639,174 to Gonska. The claims of Patent 12,709,458 recite a platform with all the details claimed except side wing extensions.
Gonska teaches a platform with two side wing extensions (14,22). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the platform of the claims of Patent 12,709,458 by adding side extension to the ends as taught by Gonska to allow for stacking and to act as a ramp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 1-4, 7-11, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 5,639,174 to Gonska.
Gonska teaches
1. A transport platform comprising - a center platform (12) comprising two side rails (26) connected with two or more cross beams (12b) and two end sills (28, as best seen in figures 4 and 7); and - two side wing extensions (14, 22) reversibly attached to the center platform; wherein the side wing extensions can be detached, stacked, and secured on top of the center platform (as best seen in figures 1-3, the side wing extension are stacked and secured and considered cable of being detached via reversing the attachment that is shown in figure 7 or cutting the pin 42).
2. wherein the side wing extensions are reversibly attached to the center platform using standard twist-lock style connectors (18, as best seen in figure 14; or the connector 42 as best seen in figure 5-13).
3. wherein the side rails and end sills are connected using standardized ISO 1161 style corner castings (20a, 20b, 20c; Col 2, lines 31-43).
4. further comprising multiple tie-down points, threaded and pass-through bolt locations, hooks, forklift slots, D-rings, or shipping container style corner castings (20a, 20b, 20c).
7. further comprising one or more corner castings (20a,20b,20c).
8. wherein the center platform comprises 8 corner castings, and each side wing comprises four corner castings (as best seen in figure 1-4).
9. further comprising one or more bottom corner castings (20a, 20b,20c).
10. further comprising one or more cross beams (12b, as best seen in figure 4).
11. comprising four cross beams (12b, as best seen in figure 4).
13. further comprising four lifting points (20a or 20b or 20c) for dual crane lifting operations set at end corners of the center platform.
18. configured to accept jack legs (the corner castings are considered capable of receiving jack legs).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,639,174 to Gonska.
Gonska is silent to the material of the platform and the panel and therefore does not expressly disclose the platform is Corten steel and the panel is steel mesh. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the beams and rails from Corten steel and the panel from steel mesh, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 15,
Gonska is silent to the shape of the rails of the platform and therefore does not expressly disclose the rail is an “I” beam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the beams as an “I” shaped beam as a matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that having this shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the box shape would perform equally well. It has also been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.04
Claim(s) 14, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,639,174 to Gonska in view of US Patent Publication 2008/0250986 to Boon.
Gonska discloses every element as claimed and discussed above except forklift tubes.
Boon teaches a platform with side rails (5) having rectangular openings (12) that align with the hollow rectangular tubes (9) for fork lift tines (par 44).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the platform of Gonska by having openings align with the cross beam as taught by Boon to receive fork lift tines.
Claim(s) 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,639,174 to Gonska in view of US Patent 7,565,868 to Relland.
Gonska discloses every element as claimed an discussed above except a notch in the top center of the cross beam.
Relland teaches a platform with a side rail (2) that is a steel “I” beam (Col 2, lines 1-7) as best seen in figure 1 and 4. Cross beams (3) connect to the rails as best seen I figure 2. A notch (14, 19) in the cross beam allows for a shackle (18).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the platform of Gonska by adding a notch and making the rails I beams as taught by Relland to allow room for a tie down and lift shackle and as functional equivalent beam shapes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY MICHAEL AYRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30-8.
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, Dan Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/TIMOTHY M AYRES/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
