DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 11/19/2024. Claims 1-14 are pending and are under consideration.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 11/19/2024 and 5/9/2025 are being considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/19/2024 are acceptable for examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract recites, “Provided are a trestle base” (line 1). This objection can be overcome by deleting “Provided are” and reciting “A trestle base”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites, “Error! No sequence specified” (page 1, line 3). This objection can be overcome by deleting the recitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, “one or plurality of the mounting holes” is objected to because the limitation appears to be missing an introductory clause before “plurality”. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “one or a plurality of the mounting holes” or equivalent.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fixing unit” in claim 1, “installation object” in claim 8..
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5, “height of the fixing unit is adjusted” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. A height of the fixing unit is not previously defined in the claims and thus the height lacks antecedent basis. Further, the limitation lacks a point of reference with respect to being adjusted, as an original or starting position is not previously recited. For examination purposes, the limitation was treated as “adjusted” being a final position of the fixing unit in a product claim. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
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 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 20230318521).
Claim 1, Li provides a trestle base for fixing an installation object to be installed on a roof surface of a building, the trestle base comprising:
a bottom plate 21 on which mounting holes 212 are provided (Fig. 2);
a standing plate 22 that is erected on the bottom plate (Fig. 3) and that supports a fixing unit for fixing the installation object (note that several items could be reasonably construed as a fixing unit for fixing the installation object, such as items 31 or 41 or 42, as exceedingly broadly claimed, and the installation object is not positively recited and thus not required, but the fixing unit is suitable to fix an installation object, as exceedingly broadly claimed),
wherein a cross-section of the bottom plate and the standing plate is formed in a T shape (Fig. 3).
Claim 3, Li further provides wherein the bottom plate includes a first region (left region as viewed in Fig. 3) and a second region (right region as viewed in Fig. 3), and the standing plate is erected between the first region and the second region of the bottom plate (Fig. 3).
Claim 4, Li further provides wherein each of the first region and the second region has one or plurality of the mounting holes (Figs. 2-3).
Claim 5, Li further provides wherein the standing plate includes a height direction adjusting groove 221 extending in a height direction (Figs. 2 and 4), and a fastener 24 for mounting the fixing unit is inserted into the height direction adjusting groove (Figs. 2 and 4), and height of the fixing unit is adjusted (as shown in Figs. 1-4, several items that could be reasonably construed as the fixing unit, such as item 31, item 41 or item 42 are shown as being adjusted in a final position, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4).
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 20110272545).
Claim 1, Liu provides a trestle base for fixing an installation object to be installed on a roof surface of a building, the trestle base comprising:
a bottom plate (148, 150, 152, 154) on which mounting holes (112, 114, 116 and fourth mounting hole now shown in Fig. 3) are provided (Fig. 3);
a standing plate 170 that is erected on the bottom plate (Figs. 1-3) and that supports a fixing unit for fixing the installation object (“for attaching equipment to the equipment-mounting portion 170, for example, a mechanical fastener, a mechanical clamp, a clip, or a hoop” [0034]; Figs. 1-4), wherein a cross-section of the bottom plate and the standing plate is formed in a T shape (Figs. 1-4).
Claim 3, Liu further provides wherein the bottom plate includes a first region (left region including reference characters 148 and 150; Fig. 2) and a second region (right region including reference characters 152 and 154; Fig. 2), and the standing plate is erected between the first region and the second region of the bottom plate (Fig. 2).
Claim 4, Liu further provides wherein each of the first region and the second region has one or plurality of the mounting holes (Figs. 1-4).
Claim 6, Liu further provides wherein a back surface of the bottom plate has a plurality of grooves (118, 120).
Claim 7, Liu provides a trestle, comprising: the trestle base according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 as above); and a pedestal (122, 124) mounted on a back surface of the bottom plate (Figs. 1-4) and having a plurality of grooves (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of 122 and 124 has a groove on the bottom as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young et al. (US 10951157) (‘Young’).
Claim 1, Young provides a trestle base for fixing an installation object to be installed on a roof surface of a building, the trestle base comprising:
a bottom plate 13 on which mounting holes are provided (mounting holes in 13 shown in Figs. 1, 3-4 and 9-11);
a standing plate (14 and/or 16) that is erected on the bottom plate and that supports a fixing unit for fixing the installation object (note that several items could be considered the fixing unit, such as items 30, 31, 52, 53, for fixing an installation object, such as 30, 52, 53 or the panel itself 64), wherein a cross-section of the bottom plate and the standing plate is formed in a T shape (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 13 and 14 and/or 16 defines a T shape, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4 and 9-11).
Claim 3, Young further provides wherein the bottom plate includes a first region and a second region (left and right regions, respectively as shown in Fig. 2), and the standing plate is erected between the first region and the second region of the bottom plate (either or both of 14, 16 are located between the first and second regions as shown in Fig. 2).
Claim 4, Young further provides wherein each of the first region and the second region has one or plurality of the mounting holes (Figs. 1-4 and 9-11).
Claim 5, Young further provides wherein the standing plate includes a height direction adjusting groove 15 extending in a height direction (Figs. 1-4 and 9-11), and a fastener 31 for mounting the fixing unit (the fixing unit being 30, 52 or 53, as exceedingly broadly claimed) is inserted into the height direction adjusting groove, and height of the fixing unit is adjusted (the fastener is shown to be inserted into the height direction adjusting groove and adjusted to a final assembly Figs. 1-4 and 9-11).
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 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20230318521) in view of Schuit et al. (US 20170155356) (‘Schuit’).
Claim 2, Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Li does not teach wherein the mounting holes include a long hole extending in a direction perpendicular to the standing plate. However, Schuit teaches a trestle base comprising a bottom plate (see horizontal base element 28 in Fig. 27) and a standing plate (see vertical plate element 28 in Fig. 27) comprising mounting holes (holes in bottom plate in Fig. 27) including a long hole extending in a direction perpendicular to the standing plate (note that the holes are elongated long holes that extend in a direction perpendicular to a standing plate; Fig. 27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the mounting holes to be long holes extending in a direction perpendicular to the standing plate, with the reasonable expectation of success of permitting adjustable positioning along a length of the mounting holes, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 11, as modified above, the combination of Li and Schuit teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the bottom plate includes a first region (Li left region as viewed in Fig. 3) and a second region (Li right region as viewed in Fig. 3), and the standing plate is erected between the first region and the second region of the bottom plate (Li Fig. 4).
Claim 12, as modified above, the combination of Li and Schuit teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the standing plate includes a height direction adjusting groove 221 extending in a height direction (Figs. 2-3), and a fastener 24 for mounting the fixing unit is inserted into the height direction adjusting groove (Figs. 2 and 4), and height of the fixing unit is adjusted (as shown in Figs. 1-4, several items that could be reasonably construed as the fixing unit, such as item 31, item 41 or item 42 are shown as being adjusted in a final position, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4).
Claim(s) 2 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 10951157) (‘Young’) in view of Schuit et al. (US 20170155356) (‘Schuit’).
Claim 2, Young teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Young does not teach wherein the mounting holes include a long hole extending in a direction perpendicular to the standing plate. However, Schuit teaches a trestle base comprising a bottom plate (see horizontal base element 28 in Fig. 27) and a standing plate (see vertical plate element 28 in Fig. 27) comprising mounting holes (holes in bottom plate in Fig. 27) including a long hole extending in a direction perpendicular to the standing plate (note that the holes are elongated long holes that extend in a direction perpendicular to a standing plate; Fig. 27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the mounting holes to be long holes extending in a direction perpendicular to the standing plate, with the reasonable expectation of success of permitting adjustable positioning along a length of the mounting holes, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 11, as modified above, the combination of Young and Schuit teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the bottom plate includes a first region (Young left region as viewed in Fig. 2) and a second region (Young right region as viewed in Fig. 2), and the standing plate is erected between the first region and the second region of the bottom plate (Young Fig. 2).
Claim 12, as modified above, the combination of Young and Schuit teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the standing plate includes a height direction adjusting groove (Young 15) extending in a height direction (Figs. 1, 3-4 and 9-11), and a fastener 31 for mounting the fixing unit is inserted into the height direction adjusting groove (Figs. 1, 3-4 and 9-11), and height of the fixing unit is adjusted (as shown in Figs. 1, 6-9 and 11, several items that could be reasonably construed as the fixing unit, such as item 52 or 53 are shown as being adjusted in a final position, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1, 3-4 and 9-11).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 10951157) (‘Young’) in view of Liu (US 20110272545).
Claim 6, Young teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Young does not teach wherein a back surface of the bottom plate has a plurality of grooves. However, Liu teaches a trestle base 106 comprising a bottom plate (plate comprising 148, 150, 152, 154; Fig. 3), a back surface of the bottom plate having a plurality of grooves (118, 120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the back plate such that a back surface of the bottom plate has a plurality of grooves, with the reasonable expectation of success of permitting the bottom plate to be mounted to a metal roof, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of Young and Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches a trestle comprising the trestle base (see rejection of claim 1 as above) and a pedestal (Liu 122, 124) mounted on a back surface of the bottom plate and having a plurality of grooves (Liu grooves on 122, 124).
Claim 8, as modified above, the combination of Young and Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches a fixing unit (Young 30, 52 or 53) that is mounted on the trestle base and that fixes the installation object to be installed on a roof surface of the building (Young Figs. 1-4 and 6-11).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 10951157) (‘Young’) in view of Knutson (US 20160108943).
Claim 7, Young teaches a trestle, comprising:
the trestle base according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 as above).
Young does not teach a pedestal mounted on a back surface of the bottom plate and having a plurality of grooves.
However, Knutson teaches an incremental adjustment tool that is used for mounting a first object 202 to a second object 204, comprising grooved surfaces (110, 120, 130) mounted on a back surface of the first object and having a plurality of grooves (plurality of grooves in 110, 120, 130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the trestle by incorporating a pedestal mounted on a back surface of the bottom plate and having a plurality of grooves, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to secure the trestle base to the roof surface in such a way that permits adjustment of the trestle base relative to the roof surface, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Claim 8, as modified above, the combination of Young and Knutson teaches all the limitations of claim 7, and further teaches a fixing unit (Young 30, 52 or 53) that is mounted on the trestle base and that fixes the installation object to be installed on a roof surface of the building (Young Figs. 1-4 and 6-11).
Claims 9-10, Young and Knutson teach all the limitations of claim 7 as above. Young does not teach [claim 9] wherein the trestle base is adjustable in an eave-ridge direction with respect to the pedestal, and when the trestle base is adjusted to a ridge side, one end on a ridge side of the pedestal is located at a same position as one end on a ridge side of the trestle base or arranged on a ridge side of one end on a ridge side of the trestle base, and [claim 10] wherein when the trestle base is adjusted to an eave side, the other end on an eave side of the trestle base is arranged on an eave side of the other end on an eave side of the pedestal. However, Knutson teaches the incremental adjustment tool being specifically for making small adjustments between the two objects. The grooved surfaces (110, 120, 130) are suitable to have at least a portion of which arranged on one side of an object when mounted ([0010]-[0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the trestle base to be adjustable in an eave-ridge direction with respect to the pedestal, and when the trestle base is adjusted to a ridge side, one end on a ridge side of the pedestal is located at a same position as one end on a ridge side of the trestle base or arranged on a ridge side of one end on a ridge side of the trestle base, wherein when the trestle base is adjusted to an eave side, the other end on an eave side of the trestle base is arranged on an eave side of the other end on an eave side of the pedestal, with the reasonable expectation of success of utilizing known means of attaching a first object to a second object in an adjustable manner, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20110272545) in view of Li (US 20230318521).
Claim 8, Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as above. Although Liu further teaches the trestle base supporting a fixing unit [0034], Liu does not specify a fixing unit that is mounted on the trestle base and that fixes the installation object to be installed on a roof surface of the building. However, Li teaches a trestle, comprising a fixing unit (note that several items could be reasonably construed as a fixing unit for fixing the installation object, such as items 31 or 41 or 42, as exceedingly broadly claimed) that is mounted on the trestle base and that fixes an installation object (note that several items could be reasonably construed an installation object, such as one of items 5, 41, or 42, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4) to be installed on a roof surface of a building (Figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the trestle of Liu by incorporating a fixing unit that is mounted on the trestle base and that fixes the installation object to be installed on a roof surface of the building, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to mount an installation object to the roof surface in a secure manner, since both Liu and Li are concerned with mounting items, such as solar panels on a roof surface of a building (Liu [0048]; Li [0032]).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 10951157) (‘Young’) in view of Schuit et al. (US 20170155356) (‘Schuit’) and further in view of Knutson (US 20160108943).
Claim 13, Young and Schuit teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as above. Young does not teach wherein a back surface of the bottom plate has a plurality of grooves. However, Knutson teaches an incremental adjustment tool that is used for mounting a first object 202 to a second object 204, comprising grooved surfaces (110, 120, 130) mounted on a back surface of the first object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the trestle base by incorporating onto a back surface of the bottom plate a plurality of grooves, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to secure the trestle base to the roof surface in such a way that permits adjustment of the trestle base relative to the roof surface, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Claim 14, Young and Schuit teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as above. Young teaches a trestle, comprising:
the trestle base according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 as above).
Young does not teach a pedestal mounted on a back surface of the bottom plate and having a plurality of grooves.
However, Knutson teaches an incremental adjustment tool that is used for mounting a first object 202 to a second object 204, comprising grooved surfaces (110, 120, 130) mounted on a back surface of the first object and having a plurality of grooves (plurality of grooves in 110, 120, 130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the trestle by incorporating a pedestal mounted on a back surface of the bottom plate and having a plurality of grooves, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to secure the trestle base to the roof surface in such a way that permits adjustment of the trestle base relative to the roof surface, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights