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.
Claim 3-14 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 3-14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, which recites a “starting block kit,” so “starting block of claim …” creates inconsistency in claim terminology and the metes and bounds are unclear.
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) 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by McCafferty (3,401,931).
As to claim 1, McCafferty (3,401,931) discloses a starting block kit having all of the claimed subject matter
“a foot support module comprising” is shown in figure 1 and 2
“a base” is met by base unit 6;
“a platform pivotably coupled to the base at a front end of the base, the platform being positionable in a collapsed position with respect to the base in which the platform rests atop the base” an upper surface of the platform facing upwardly away from the base when the platform is positioned in the collapsed position” is met by panel 22;
“and a prop pivotably coupled to the platform, a distal end of the prop with respect to the platform being adjustably positionable atop to the base to adjust a support angle of the platform with respect to the base” is met by second panel 30 and related elements.
As to claim 2, McCafferty recognizes that two blocks are required for proper use.
As to claim 5. McCafferty teaches that the base unit’s upper surface has a planar shape.
As to claim 6, McCafferty teaches (see abstract) that the bottom surface of the base has a planar shape; and the upper surface of the panel is oriented parallel to the bottom surface of the panel when the panel is positioned in the collapsed position.
As to claim 7, McCafferty teaches that based comprises a support wall and a pair of side walls, the pair of side walls being coupled to and extending away from the platform, the pair of side walls being laterally spaced from each other with respect to the base, the pair of side walls extending between the support wall and the base when the platform is positioned in the collapsed position. (see figure 1-3).
As to claim 12. McCafferty teaches that keeper seat 64 and 66 function as an angle adjustment member mounted atop the base, the angle adjustment member defining a plurality of bays wherein the distal end of the prop is alternately receivable into each bay of the plurality of bays to adjust the support angle of the platform.
As to claim 13 and 14, McCaffery teaches the use of removeable anchoring pins to secure the device.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bresnahan (2,144,962).
As to claim 1, Bresnahan (2,144,962). discloses a starting block kit having all of the claimed subject matter
“a foot support module comprising” is shown in figure 1, 2 and 3;
“a base” is met by plate A;
“a platform pivotably coupled to the base at a front end of the base, the platform being positionable in a collapsed position with respect to the base in which the platform rests atop the base” an upper surface of the platform facing upwardly away from the base when the platform is positioned in the collapsed position” is met by plate B;
“and a prop pivotably coupled to the platform, a distal end of the prop with respect to the platform being adjustably positionable atop to the base to adjust a support angle of the platform with respect to the base” is met brace C and related elements.
As to claim 2, Bresnahan recognizes that two blocks are required for proper use.
As to claim 5. Bresnahan teaches that plate A’s upper surface has a planar shape.
As to claim 6, Bresnahan shows in figure 2 that the bottom surface of plate A has a planar shape; and the upper surface of the plate B is oriented parallel to the bottom surface of Plate A when Plate B is positioned in the collapsed position.
As to claim 8, Bresnahan shows in figure 2 that brace C positioned between the plate B and plate A when in the collapsed position, the Brace C extending rearwardly of the base when the platform is positioned in the collapsed position.
As to claim 12. Bresnahan teaches that stops 6 function as an angle adjustment member mounted atop the base, the angle adjustment member defining a plurality of bays wherein the distal end of the prop is alternately receivable into each bay of the plurality of bays to adjust the support angle of the platform.
As to claim 13 and 14, Bresnahan teaches the use of removable nails D to secure the device.
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) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCafferty (3.401,931) in view of Hauser (D992,980).
As to claims 9, McCaffery does not teach the use of a continuous rod, the continuous rod comprising a distal section and a pair of extension sections, the pair of extension sections being coupled to and extending between the platform and the distal section, the distal section being coupled to and extending between the pair of extension sections. Instead of a rod, McCaffery teaches the use of a solid plate.
Hauser teaches that a properly bent solid rod can be used to support a plate at an inclined angle (see figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the solid plate of McCaffery with the rod of Hauser because it would reduce weight and material cost.
As to claim 11, Hauser further show in figure 2 that each side wall of the pair of side walls of the platform defines a pivot hole which extends therethrough; and the continuous rod of the prop further comprises a pair of axle sections, each axle section of the pair of axle sections being coupled to an associated extension section of the pair of extension sections, each axle section of the pair of axle sections being rotatable within the pivot hole of an associated side wall of the pair of side walls of the platform.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 10 and 15 appear to contain allowable subject matter
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN J FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-1915. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-4 M-F.
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.
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.
/NATHAN J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2421
