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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 5, 2025 has been entered. Currently claims 23, 5, 6, and 8-14 are pending in the application.
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) 2, 3, 5, 6, 814 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simlund (WO 2017/188886).
Referring to claim 2: Simlund teaches a system comprising: a plate system (items 33 and 211) embedded in a concrete support structure of a building; and a support member (items 10.1, 10.2, 10.3) coupled to the embedded plate system, the support member including a channel unit (item 17.2) configured to support at least one barrier member (item 20) outward from a perimeter of the building. Simlund does not teach the support structure is cast-in-place. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the support structure of Simlund could be either cast-in-place or delivered to a site. Cast-in-place ensures exact fit of the support structure into its installed location.
Referring to claim 3: Simlund teaches a method comprising: embedding a plate system (items 33 and 211) in a concrete support structure (item 210) of a building; and attaching a support member (items 10.1, 10.2, 10.3) to the embedded plate system, the support member including a channel unit (item 17.2) configured to support a barrier member (item 20) outward from a perimeter of the building. Simlund does not teach the support structure is cast-in-place. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the support structure of Simlund could be either cast-in-place or delivered to a site. Cast-in-place ensures exact fit of the support structure into its installed location.
Referring to claims 5 and 8: Simlund teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 3 as noted above. Additionally, Simlund teaches the concrete support structure is a floor (figure 3, item 210). Additionally, as noted in claim 2 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the floor cast-in-place.
Referring to claims 6 and 9: Simlund teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 3 as noted above. Simlund does not teach the cast-in-place support structure is a cast-in-place column. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Simlund with a cast-in-place column in order to allow for supporting a containment system in multiple directions and allow for extended coverage over a structure by having support on floors and/or columns.
Referring to claim 10: Simlund teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Simlund teaches the at least one barrier member supported by the support member (figure 2, items 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 support item 20 on adjacent sides).
Referring to claim 11: Simlund teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Simlund teaches the at least one barrier member supported by the support member (figures 8 and 9).
Referring to claim 12: Simlund teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Simlund teaches comprising the building (figure 2).
Referring to claim 13: Simlund teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Additionally, Simlund teaches the support member is configured to support two barrier members (figures 8 and 9, item 20 comprises at least two barriers).
Referring to claim 14: Simlund teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Additionally, Simlund teaches further comprising: using the support member to support the at least one barrier member outward from the perimeter of the building (figure 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Simlund does not teach a plate system. However, as noted in the rejection above, items 33 and 211 are considered a “plate system” and would meet the structural limitations of being a plate and being embedded. As noted above and in the prior rejection the channel 211, part of the plate system, can be embedded using a cast-in-place method. The method not being relevant in an apparatus claim, only the final product. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the component of Simlund capable of being cast-in-place in order to install the proper length at the proper location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635