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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 04/22/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, lines 2-3 “a inner wall” should be amended to –an inner wall–.
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.
Claim 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recitation of claim 6 wherein “…the sloped face is at least partially between a first elongated protrusion and a second elongated protrusion…” renders the claim indefinite because the recitation contains antecedent type issue. In other words, it is unclear whether the first and second elongated protrusion are referring to the plurality of elongated protrusion or in addition to the plurality of protrusion recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arozena (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20040075042 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Arozena teaches a U-head for use with a shoring post, the U-head comprising:
a base (Figs. 4-6; element 7) comprising a bearing surface (supporting surface(s) defined between 13 and/or surface of 10);
the bearing surface comprising a central flat face (8) and a sloped face (12) extending at an angle away from the central flat face and towards a peripheral edge (peripheral edge of 7); and
a plurality of elongated protrusions (13) extending away from the bearing surface.
Regarding claim 2, Arozena teaches the angle comprises a grade in a range of about 15 percent to about 25 percent (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Arozena teaches the sloped face (12) is at least partially between a first elongated protrusion (one of 13) and a second elongated protrusion (another one of 13).
Regarding claim 7, Arozena teaches an undercut (9) below the peripheral edge.
Regarding claim 8, Arozena teaches the undercut (9) is configured to receive a fastener for attaching the U-head to a beam.
Regarding claim 9, Arozena teaches the base (7) comprises the bearing surface (supporting surface(s) defined between 13 and/oor surface of 10) on a first side (top side) of the base, wherein the base comprises a second side (bottom side), which as compared to the first side, is on an opposite side of the base.
Regarding claim 12, Arozena teaches the central flat face (8) comprises, in a first direction (along the width of 8), a first dimension (dimension of 8);
the sloped face (12) comprises, in the first direction, a second dimension (dimension of 12 along the width of 8); and
the first dimension is larger than the second dimension.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hedley (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 6009644).
Regarding claim 16, Hedley teaches a wedge adapter comprising:
a wedge-shaped body (body of 12) that tapers in thickness as it extends from a first side to a second side;
a face (top face) extending at least partially between the first side and the second side;
a centering post (11) protruding from the face and comprising a terminal end (21);
the terminal end comprising an opening (29) configured to receive a fastener (33).
Regarding claim 17, Hedley teaches the opening (29) comprises a non-circular profile.
Regarding claim 18, Hedley teaches the centering post (11) comprises a recess (Fig. 5; 28) in communication with the opening (29), and the recess comprises a inner wall (inner walls of 35).
Regarding claim 20, Hedley teaches the terminal end (21) comprises an undercut (lower tapered portion of 11) facing towards the recess.
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 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 4-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arozena (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20040075042 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, Arozena teaches the sloped face. However, Arozena is silent to disclose the sloped face comprises a surface texture and the surface texture is different from the central flat face. The Examiner takes the official notice that providing texture surface is old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sloped surface of Arozena texture such that the texture is different from the central flat face. The motivation would have been to provide friction for the supported object.
Regarding claim 13, Arozena teaches the first and second dimensions. However, Arozena is silent to disclose a ratio of the second dimension to the first dimension is at least 0.5:1. The Examiner notes that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the first and second dimensions having a ratio of at least 0.5: 1, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The motivation would have been to provide balanced load distribution by optimizing the contact area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10-11, 14-15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 pm.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights