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 § 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 21-40 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.
With regard to claims 21, 30, and 37 the claim states “a first angled brace”. The phrase “angled brace” in the disclosure describes element 40. However, it appears applicant is potentially intending to claim braces 28/29. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. For the purpose of examination on the merits, the examiner has assumed “a first angled brace” to be one of braces 28/29.
With regard to claims 27 and 36, the claim states “a second angled brace”. This appears to be different than the “second angled brace” introduced in claim 22 leading to ambiguity. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
With regard to claim 28, the claim states a second substructure however it is unclear if the details of the first substructure are required in the second substructure. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claims 22-26 and 28-29 and depend upon claim 21.
Claims 31-36 are dependent upon claim 30.
Claims 38-40 are dependent upon claim 37.
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.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meldrum (5,106,237).
With regard to claim 30, Meldrum discloses a pier section comprising a first substructure (eg. 50/52; fig. 2), comprising: a first end member (222); a first side member (220) connected to the first end member (fig. 2); and a first angled brace (226) oriented at a first oblique angle with respect to the first end member and a second oblique angle with respect to the first side member; and a frame (56-71), comprising a first vertical support member (56) connected to the first substructure; and a second vertical support member (58) connected to the first substructure (figs. 2-3.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25, 30-31, 33-34, 37, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (3,543,523) in view of Sullivan (4,867,093).
With regard to claims 21 and 30, Nelson discloses a pier structure configured to be used in bodies of water, comprising: a first pipe (17); a second pipe (additional 17); a first pier section (eg. fig. 1), comprising: a first vertical support member (12) mounted to the first substructure and configured to engage the first pipe (figs. 1-2, 4); and a second vertical support member (additional 12) mounted to the first substructure and configured to engage the second pipe (figs. 1-2, 4).
Nelson is silent regarding the first substructure comprises a first end member; a first side member connected to the first end member; and a first angled brace oriented at a first oblique angle with respect to the first end member and a second oblique angle with respect to the first side member.
Sullivan discloses a substructure comprising a first end member; a first side member connected to the first end member; and a first angled brace oriented at a first oblique angle with respect to the first end member and a second oblique angle with respect to the first side member (fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nelson and utilize framing of the substructure as taught in Sullivan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a rigid and efficient framing system as known within the art.
With regard to claim 22, Nelson, as modified, further discloses a second side member connected to the first end member; and a second angled brace oriented at a third oblique angle with respect to the first end member and a fourth oblique angle with respect to the second side member (Sullivan; fig. 1 above; additional side and brace).
With regard to claims 23 and 31, Nelson, as modified, further discloses a first cross bar connected to the first side member and the second side member; and the first angled brace and the second angled brace are connected to the first cross bar (Sullivan; fig. 1 above; cross beam).
With regard to claims 25 and 33-34, Nelson, as modified, further discloses the first angled brace and the second angled brace are connected between the first cross bar and the first end member (Sullivan; fig. 1 above).
With regard to method claim 37, the claimed method of assembling a pier structure would inherently be performed by the modification of Nelson to include the substructure as taught by Sullivan as discussed above. Nelson further discloses driving a first and second pipe into a body of water (figs. 1-2) and sliding the first vertical support member over the first pipe; and sliding the second vertical support member over the second pipe (Nelson; fig. 2).
With regard to claim 39, Nelson further discloses connecting a support member (13) between the first vertical support member and the second vertical support member.
Claim(s) 24 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (3,543,523) and Sullivan (4,867,093), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Shorter (4,070,980).
With regard to claims 24 and 32, Nelson, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding an attachment bar connected to the first side member and the second side member; the first vertical support member and second vertical support member are connected to the first substructure between the first end member and the attachment bar; and the first angled brace and the second angled brace are connected between the first cross bar and the attachment bar.
Shorter discloses a substructure wherein an attachment bar connected to the first side member and the second side member with the vertical support member (24) connected to the substructure between the first end member and the attachment bar (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Nelson and utilize an attachment bar as taught in Shorter, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure proper orientation of the vertical support in relation to the substructure. Further, with the addition of the attachment bar, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the angled brace to be attached between the attachment bar and cross bar.
Claim(s) 26-27 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (3,543,523) and Sullivan (4,867,093), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Moran et al. (4,398,849).
With regard to claim 26-27 and 35-36, Nelson, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding a support member coupled between the first vertical support member and the second vertical support member and a second angled brace connected between the first substructure and the support member.
Moran discloses a substructure comprising a support member (38) coupled between a first vertical support member and a second vertical support member (figs. 1-2) and a second angled brace (39) connected between the first substructure and the support member (figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Nelson and utilize a support member as taught in Moran, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the rigidity of the structure.
Claim(s) 28-29, 38, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (3,543,523) and Sullivan (4,867,093), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Spence (6,695,541).
With regard to claims 28 and 38, Nelson, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed however fails to explicitly state a third pipe; a fourth pipe; a second pier section mounted to the first pier section, comprising: a second substructure; a third vertical support member mounted to the second substructure and configured to engage the third pipe; and a fourth vertical support member mounted to the second substructure and configured to engage the fourth pipe.
Spence discloses a system with third and fourth vertical support and a second substructure mounted to a first substructure (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Nelson and utilize a second substructure and additional vertical supports as taught in Spence, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to create a custom structure based on the design conditions at hand.
With regard to claims 29 and 40, Nelson, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as well as a decking board mounted to the first substructure (Sullivan; fig. 1 above) however fails to explicitly state a first fascia board mounted to the first end member and a second fascia board mounted to the first side member.
Spence discloses a first fascia board (46) mounted to the first end member and a second fascia (44) board mounted to the first side member.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Nelson and utilize fascia as taught in Spence, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to create a seamless finish.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Numerous references disclose substructure framing with angled bracing and vertical supports over a pipe. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
07/01/2026
Prosecution Insights