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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Figure 2 fails to illustrate recesses (28) per specification (pg. 8 [0042] line 6).
Figure 2 fails to illustrate longitudinal edges (30) per specification (pg. 8 [0042] line 6).
Figure 3-5 fails to illustrate reference elements 12, 14, 16, 18 per specification (pg. 8 [0043] line 2 & 5).
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. 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 informalities:
In regard to the specification at page 8 [0043] line 2, page 8 [0043] line 5, as well as page 9 [0044] line 4 inconsistent nomenclature of “sides” and “faces” for reference elements (12, 14, 16, 18) are used.
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.
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 6, 7, 12-15 are 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 6, 12, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
The lack of structural relationship between the adjacent longitudinal chords being located with respect to the non-adjacent longitudinal chords. Furthermore, the applicant presents a square truss and all the chords appear to be adjacent. This case will be examined as “best understood” until further clarification is provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pereira (9371662).
In regards to claim 1, Pereira discloses a truss structure 50 capable of supporting pieces of equipment for scenes or stages the truss structure 50 comprising:
An elongated structure having a plurality of sides (as seen in fig. 4); and
A reinforcement member (as seen in fig. 3, reference element 40), the reinforcement member 40 secured to one of the plurality of sides of the elongated structure (as seen in fig. 4), the reinforcement member 40 covering a substantial portion of the corresponding truss side (as seen in fig. 5), wherein the reinforcement member 40 is enhancing rigidity of the truss structure 50 and resistance of the truss structure 50 to torsion or shearing forces (as seen in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 2, Pereira discloses a reinforcement member 40 is embodied as a unitary plate (as seen in fig. 3).
In regards to claim 3, Pereira discloses wherein each reinforcement member 40 has a planar surface (as seen in fig. 3).
In regards to claim 4, Pereira discloses wherein each reinforcement member 40 includes a plurality of recesses along its edges, creating a plurality of void spaces suitable for attaching pieces of equipment to the truss structure 50 (as seen in fig. 3, reference elements 46a & 46b). The examiner contends that the openings are clearly along the edges as shown.
In regards to claim 5, Pereira discloses wherein the elongated structure comprises a plurality of longitudinal chords (as seen in fig. 4, reference elements 52).
In regards to claim 6, as best understood, Pereira discloses an elongated structure comprises link chords coupling adjacent longitudinal chords 52 and cross-link chords (reference element 64) coupling non-adjacent longitudinal chords 52 (as seen in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 7, as best understood, Pereira discloses the reinforcement member 40 being secured to a plurality of the link chords 64 (as seen in fig. 5). The examiner would like to point out that all of the parts of the truss are connected and form an integral unit.
In regards to claim 9, Pereira discloses where the truss structure 50 provides a substantially hollow conduit between the sides (as seen in fig. 9A and 9B).
In regards to claim 10, Pereira discloses a truss assembly comprising:
An elongated truss structure 50 having longitudinal chords (as seen in fig. 4, reference elements 52) and a plurality of sides extending Between the longitudinal chords 52 (as seen in fig. 4); and
Reinforcement members 40 comprising longitudinal edges (as seen in fig. 3), each of the reinforcement members 40 being secured along one of the plurality of sides of the truss structure 50 such that each one of the reinforcement members 40 is covering a substantial portion of a corresponding side of the truss structure 50 (as seen in fig. 4), the reinforcement members 40 comprising a plurality of recesses along their longitudinal edges (as seen in fig. 3, reference elements 46a and 46b) that is capable of supporting pieces of equipment to the truss structure 50, wherein the reinforcement member 40 is increasing resistance against torsion or shear forces (as seen in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 11, Pereira discloses each reinforcement member 40 is embodied as a unitary plate (as seen in fig. 3).
In regards to claim 12, as best understood, Pereira discloses a plurality of cross-link chords (reference element 64) coupling non-adjacent longitudinal chords 52 (as seen in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 13, as best understood, Pereira discloses a plurality of side-link chords (reference element 64) coupling adjacent longitudinal chords 52 (as seen in fig. 5).
In regards to claim 19, Pereira discloses a method for reinforcing a truss structure 50 comprising the steps of: providing an elongated truss structure 50 having a plurality of sides (as seen in fig. 4); and securing reinforcement members 40 (as seen in fig. 4), embodied as a unitary plate (as seen in fig. 3), to a plurality of the sides of the truss structure 50 (as seen in fig. 4), the reinforcement members 40 comprising two longitudinal edges and recesses distributed along these longitudinal edges (as seen in fig. 3, reference elements 46a and 46b), wherein each one of reinforcement member 40 covers a substantial portion of one of the sides (as seen in fig. 4), and wherein the recesses are capable to secure pieces of equipment to the truss structure 50 without comprising structural integrity of the truss structure 50 (as seen in fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 8, 17, 18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira (9371662) in view of Fernandes (5412552).
In regards to claim 8, Pereira discloses the claimed invention by teaching a truss structure 50 having longitudinal chords 52 with a substantially cylindric profile (as seen in fig. 4, col. 4 [0002] lines 14-15).
However, Pereira does not specifically disclose wherein the cylindric profile comprising at least one non-protruding flat surface. Fernandes teaches a cylindric profile comprising at least one non-protruding flat surface for a self-supporting truss (as seen in fig. 3 and fig. 7, reference element 64) also It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Fernandes non-protruding profile to the longitudinal chords 52 to allow the reinforcement member 40 to connect easier on each side of the longitudinal chord 52.
In regards to claim 17, Pereira discloses the claimed invention wherein having a longitudinal chord 52 comprising a generally cylindrical profile (as seen in fig. 4). However, Pereira does not teach over more than 50% of its periphery, and a first flat side not protruding relative to the cylindrical profile of the longitudinal chords.
However, Fernandes teaches a truss structure having a longitudinal chord that has a generally cylindrical profile (pg. 3 [0002] lines 23-25). Fernandes further teaches that the cylindrical profile can be over more than 50% of its periphery and include a first flat side not protruding relative to the cylindrical profile (as seen in fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a first flat side that takes up less than 50% of the periphery of the chord into Pereira’s invention for the purpose of allowing the reinforcement member 40 to sit firmly on the flat surface on the longitudinal chord 52.
In regards to claim 18, Pereira in view of Fernandes teach the claimed invention. However, Pereira does not teach the longitudinal chord 52 having a second flat side, wherein the first flat side and second flat side are distributed orthogonally relative to one another. However, Fernandes teaches that the cylindric profile can be modified to allow additional flat sides to exist (as seen in fig. 7). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindric profiles to add as many flat sides as necessary to allow the reinforcement member 40 to sit securely on the longitudinal chord 52. The examiner also wants to point out that it would also obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flat sides for the attachment of lights like Fernandes teaches.
In regards to claim 20, Pereira discloses wherein the truss structure 50 comprises chords and multiple recesses. However, Pereira does not specially disclose further steps of attaching pieces of equipment to the truss structure 50 by clamping the pieces of equipment onto one of the chords through one of the recesses.
However, Fernandes teaches that stage equipment can be attached to chords (as seen in fig. 1, reference element 42) as it is well known in the art to attach stage equipment through recesses. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach audio, light, and other types of performance equipment to Pereira’s truss structure 50 within the recesses using a semi-permanent fastener mechanism such as a clamp, bolts, screws or the like.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira (9371662).
In regards to claim 14, as best understood, Pereira discloses the reinforcement members 40 are superposed over at least part of the side-link chords 64 (as seen in fig. 5). However, Pereira does not teach that the reinforcement member 40 is on the outside of the side-link chords 64. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the location of the reinforcement member 40 and the side-link chords 64 of Pereira’s truss structure, which would yield predictable results of a reinforcement member 40 being connected to a side-link chord 64 to enhance the rigidity of the truss structure and resistance to torsion and shear forces. A simple modification of reversal of parts would have been an obvious modification before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.). Such a combination, to one of the ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from having the reinforcement member 40 being connected to the outside of the side-link chords 64.
In regards to claim 15, as best understood, Pereira does not specifically teach the reinforcement member being riveted to the side-link chords. However, Pereira does teach the reinforcement member 40 being welded to the longitudinal chords. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute rivets instead of welding to install the reinforcement member to side-link chords because welding requires months of practice and accumulating skill by passing welder qualifications tests to receive certificates while riveting only requires mere hours to perfect. Those of ordinary skill in the art know it would be easier to substitute one permanent attachment mechanism for another for easier efficiency, cheaper costs, and faster installation.
In regards to claim 16, Pereira discloses the claimed invention consisting of plurality of recesses along their longitudinal edges (as seen in fig. 3, reference element 46a & 46b). However, Pereira does not specifically disclose having a ratio of lengths of recesses over lengths of edges adjacent to the longitudinal chords of the truss structure of at least 1.25:1.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reinforcement plate’s edge such that the ratio of the recesses over lengths of edges adjacent to the longitudinal chord can be achieved so that certain equipment can fit in certain recesses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARRETT C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7.30am-5pm.
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 at (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.
/Garrett Patterson/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights