DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites, “was” line 2 which appears to be intended to recite, “way.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 is missing a semi-colon at the end of line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites, “an” at the end of line 2 which appears to be a typographical error. 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(s) 1-20 is/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.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “the securely connected series of frames” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the series of frames” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 2, claim 2 recites, “the receiving portion” line 2 and in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the first receiving portion” and “the second receiving portion” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 4, claim 4 recites, “the brackets” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the first and second brackets” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 10, claim 10 recites, “a first end beam” in line 5, “a first frame” in line 5, “a second end beam” in line 6, “a second frame” in line 6, and “a second end beam” in line 7. These elements are previously introduced in claim 10, and thus, it is unclear if they refer to the same elements are different elements than those already introduced. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the first end beam,” “the first frame,” “the second end beam,” “the second frame” and “the second end beam” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 11, claim 11 recites, “the receiving portion” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a second receiving portion” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claims 11-15, claims 11-15 recite, “the method of claim 1” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the method of claim 10” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 16, claim 16 recites, “the second frame” in line 8, “the second end beam” in line 10, “a second frame” in line 10, “the second end beam” in line 14 and “the connected series of frames” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a second frame,” “a second end beam,” “a second frame,” “a second end beam” and “the series of frames” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 3, 5-9 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) 1-2, 6-8, 10-11, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chevis (US 2020/0080303).
Re claim 1, Chevis discloses a system (Fig. 9, Fig. 48) for building an indoor track system (Fig. 9 and Fig. 48 are capable of use building an indoor track system, as this is a statement of intended use), the system (Fig. 9, Fig. 48) comprising:
a series of frames (Fig. 9 424, Fig. 2 showing multiple connected in series, Fig. 48 showing two elements 532 of elements 424 connected) arranged horizontally (Fig. 2 and Fig. 48), each frame (424) comprising end beams (532), the series of frames (424) comprising at least a first frame (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424) and a second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of adjacent element 424) laid side by side (Fig. 2, Fig. 48);
a connection system (Fig. 48) to connect the series of frames (532 of 424) together in a horizontal manner (Fig. 48), the connection system (Fig. 48) comprising:
a first bracket (4817) having a first receiving portion (4820) and configured to apply a first force (via 4824) to a first end beam (left 532) of the first frame (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424) towards a first direction (to the right) towards a second end beam (right 532) of the second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424);
a second bracket (4823) having a second receiving portion (4822) and configured to apply a second force (via 4824) to the second end beam (right 532) of the second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424) towards a second direction (to the left) towards the first end beam (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424), the second direction (to the left) being opposite to (Fig. 48) the first direction (to the right); and
a fastener system (4824) configured to bring ([0177]) the first bracket (left 532) towards ([0177]) the second bracket (right 532) to squeeze ([0177]) the first end beam (left 532) towards the second end beam (right 532); and
a support system (207) to support the connection system (Fig. 48) and the series of frames (Fig. 9 424, Fig. 2 showing multiple connected in series, Fig. 48 showing two elements 532 of elements 424 connected) so that the series of frames (Fig. 9 424, Fig. 2 showing multiple connected in series, Fig. 48 showing two elements 532 of elements 424 connected) are securely connected together (Fig. 2, Fig. 48) and to allow a flooring to be laid on (the system is capable of having flooring laid on the frames either on the planar face or on the top surface, as this is a statement of intended use) the securely connected series of frames (Fig. 9 424, Fig. 2 showing multiple connected in series, Fig. 48 showing two elements 532 of elements 424 connected).
Re claim 2, Chevis discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a first piece of metal (see examiner comments; [0157] disclosing aluminum) is attached to the first end beam (left 532) and the receiving portion (4820) of the first bracket (4817) is configured to mate with (Fig. 48) the first piece of metal (see examiner comments), and wherein a second piece of metal (see examiner comments) is attached to the second end beam (right 532) and the receiving portion (4822) of the second bracket (right 532) is configured to mate with (Fig. 48) the second piece of metal (see examiner comments).
Re claim 6, Chevis discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second forces (left/right) are opposing each other (Fig. 48) and orthogonal to (Fig. 48) the first and second beams (left/right 532) so that the first and second beams (left/right 532) are pushed towards each other ([0177]).
Re claim 7, Chevis discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first and second forces (left/right) are opposing each other (Fig. 48) and orthogonal to (Fig. 48) the first and second beams (left/right 532) so that the first and second beams (left/right 532) are pushed towards each other ([0177]).
Re claim 8, Chevis discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the fastener system (4824) comprises one or more fasteners (4824) which adjusts the force applied to ([0177]) at least one of the first and second brackets (left/right 532).
Re claim 10, Chevis discloses a method (Fig. 2, Fig. 9 and Fig. 48) for building an indoor track system (Fig. 9 and Fig. 48 are capable of use building an indoor track system, as this is a statement of intended use) comprising a series of frames (Fig. 9 424, Fig. 2 showing multiple connected in series, Fig. 48 showing two elements 532 of elements 424 connected), a connection system (Fig. 48) and a support system (207), the method comprising:
disposing (Fig. 48 showing left 532 disposed) a first end beam (left 532) of a first frame (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424) beside of (Fig. 48) second end beam (right 532) of a second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424) so that the first and second frames (Fig. 48; left/right 532 of adjacent elements 424) are side by side horizontally (Fig. 48);
applying ([0177]), via a first bracket (4817), a first force ([0177]) to a first end beam (left 532) of a first frame (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424) towards (to the right) a first direction (to the right) towards a second end beam (right 532) of a second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424);
applying ([0177]), via a second bracket (4823), a second force ([0177]) to a second end beam (right 532) of the second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424) towards a second direction towards (to the left) the first end beam (left 532), the second direction (to the left) being opposite to (Fig. 48) the first direction (to the left); and
bringing ([0177]), via tightening of ([0177]) a fastener system (4824), the first bracket (4818) towards ([0177]) the second bracket (4823) to squeeze ([0177]) the first end beam (left 532) towards (Fig. 48) the second end beam (right 532).
Re claim 11, Chevis discloses the method of claim 10, attaching (Fig. 48 showing the first piece of metal attached) a first piece of metal (see examiner comments; [0157] disclosing aluminum) to the first end beam (left 532), wherein a receiving portion (4820) of the first bracket (4817) is configured to mate with (Fig. 48) the first piece of metal (see examiner comments), and attaching (Fig. 48 showing the second piece of metal attached) a second piece of metal (see examiner comments; [0157] disclosing aluminum) to the second end beam (right 532) and the receiving portion (4822) of the second bracket (right 532) is configured to mate with (Fig. 48) the second piece of metal (see examiner comments).
Re claim 15, Chevis discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising: the first and second forces (to the left, to the right) are opposing each other (being to the left, being to the right) and orthogonal to (Fig. 48) the first and second beams (left/right 532) so that the first and second beams (left/right 532) are pushed towards each other ([0177]).
Re claim 16, Chevis discloses a system (Fig. 9, Fig. 48) for building an indoor track system (Fig. 9 and Fig. 48 are capable of use building an indoor track system, as this is a statement of intended use), the system (Fig. 9, Fig. 48) comprising:
a foundation support ([0025]; the base slab); an
a connection system (Fig. 48) that is supported by the foundation support ([0025]; the base slab) and that is configured to connect a series of frames (Fig. 9 424, Fig. 2 showing multiple connected in series, Fig. 48 showing two elements 532 of elements 424 connected) together in a horizontal manner (Fig. 48), each frame (424) comprising end beams (left/right 532), the connection system (Fig. 48) comprising:
a first bracket (4817) having a first receiving portion (4820) and configured to apply a first force (via 4824) to a first end beam (left 532) of a first frame (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424) towards a first direction (to the right) towards a second end beam (right 532) of the second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424);
a second bracket (4823) having a second receiving portion (4822) and configured to apply a second force (via 4824) to the second end beam (right 532) of the second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424) towards a second direction (to the left) towards the first end beam (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424), the second direction (to the left) being opposite to (Fig. 48) the first direction (to the right); and
a system (4824) configured to bring ([0177]) the first bracket (left 532) towards ([0177]) the second bracket (right 532) to force ([0177]) the first end beam (left 532) towards the second end beam (right 532); and
wherein the series of frames (Fig. 9 424, Fig. 2 showing multiple connected in series, Fig. 48 showing two elements 532 of elements 424 connected) are securely connected together (Fig. 2, Fig. 48) so that flooring can be laid on (the system is capable of having flooring laid on the frames either on the planar face or on the top surface, as this is a statement of intended use) the securely connected series of frames (Fig. 9 424, Fig. 2 showing multiple connected in series, Fig. 48 showing two elements 532 of elements 424 connected).
Additionally, the language “can be” is language that suggests or makes optional/contingent the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferro JR et al (“Ferro”) (US 5,660,595) in view of Chevis (US 2020/0080303).
Re claim 1, Ferro discloses a system (Fig. 1-9) for building an indoor track system (Fig. 1-9 are capable of use building an indoor track system, as this is a statement of intended use), the system (Fig. 1-9) comprising:
a series of frames (30) arranged horizontally (Fig. 2, Fig. 9), each frame (30) comprising end beams (106), the series of frames (30) comprising at least a first frame (left 30) and a second frame (right 30) laid side by side (Fig. 9);
a connection system (Fig. 9) to connect the series of frames (30) together in a horizontal manner (Fig. 9), the connection system (Fig. 9) comprising:
a fastener system (114, 116, 118); and
a support system (18) to support the connection system (Fig. 9) and the series of frames (30) so that the series of frames (30) are securely connected together (Fig. 1, Fig. 9) and to allow a flooring (22) to be laid on (Fig. 1) the securely connected series of frames (30),
but fails to disclose the connection system comprising: a first bracket having a first receiving portion and configured to apply a first force to a first end beam of the first frame towards a first direction towards a second end beam of the second frame; a second bracket having a second receiving portion and configured to apply a second force to the second end beam of the second frame towards a second direction towards the first end beam, the second direction being opposite to the first direction; and the fastener system configured to bring the first bracket towards the second bracket to squeeze the first end beam towards the second end beam.
However, Chevis discloses a first bracket (4817) having a first receiving portion (4820) and configured to apply a first force (via 4824) to a first end beam (left 532) of the first frame (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424) towards a first direction (to the right) towards a second end beam (right 532) of the second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424); a second bracket (4823) having a second receiving portion (4822) and configured to apply a second force (via 4824) to the second end beam (right 532) of the second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424) towards a second direction (to the left) towards the first end beam (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424), the second direction (to the left) being opposite to (Fig. 48) the first direction (to the right); and
the fastener system (4824) configured to bring ([0177]) the first bracket (left 532) towards ([0177]) the second bracket (right 532) to squeeze ([0177]) the first end beam (left 532) towards the second end beam (right 532).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ferro with the connection system comprising: a first bracket having a first receiving portion and configured to apply a first force to a first end beam of the first frame towards a first direction towards a second end beam of the second frame; a second bracket having a second receiving portion and configured to apply a second force to the second end beam of the second frame towards a second direction towards the first end beam, the second direction being opposite to the first direction; and the fastener system configured to bring the first bracket towards the second bracket to squeeze the first end beam towards the second end beam as disclosed by Chevis in order to provide releasable, adjustable securement of adjacent frames in a tool-less manner.
Re claim 2, Ferro as modified discloses the system of claim 1, Chevis discloses wherein a first piece of metal (see examiner comments; [0157] disclosing aluminum) is attached to the first end beam (left 532) and the receiving portion (4820) of the first bracket (4817) is configured to mate with (Fig. 48) the first piece of metal (see examiner comments), and wherein a second piece of metal (see examiner comments) is attached to the second end beam (right 532) and the receiving portion (4822) of the second bracket (right 532) is configured to mate with (Fig. 48) the second piece of metal (see examiner comments).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ferro wherein a first piece of metal is attached to the first end beam and the receiving portion of the first bracket is configured to mate with the first piece of metal, and wherein a second piece of metal is attached to the second end beam and the receiving portion of the second bracket is configured to mate with the second piece of metal as disclosed by Chevis in order to provide releasable, adjustable securement of adjacent frames in a tool-less manner.
Re claim 3, Ferro as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the fastener system (114, 116, 118) is connected to the support system (18) via a central supporting truss (48; 110) so that the first and second end beams (106) are disposed on (Fig. 9) the central supporting truss (48; 110).
Re claim 4, Ferro as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the connection system (Fig. 9) further comprises a spacer (48) disposed between (Fig. 9) the first and second end beams (left/right 106) to space the first and second end beams (left/right 106) from each other (Fig. 9) when being squeezed by the brackets (Chevis: 4817, 4823).
Re claim 5, Ferro as modified discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising: a third bracket having a third receiving portion and configured to apply a third force to a third end beam of a third frame; a fourth bracket having a fourth receiving portion and configured to apply a fourth force to a fourth end beam of a fourth frame; and 2 a fastener system configured to bring the third bracket towards the fourth bracket to squeeze the third end beam towards the fourth end beam wherein the first, second, third and fourth frames are aligned together to support a continuous surface thereon.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ferro further comprising: a third bracket having a third receiving portion and configured to apply a third force to a third end beam of a third frame; a fourth bracket having a fourth receiving portion and configured to apply a fourth force to a fourth end beam of a fourth frame; and 2 a fastener system configured to bring the third bracket towards the fourth bracket to squeeze the third end beam towards the fourth end beam wherein the first, second, third and fourth frames are aligned together to support a continuous surface thereon in order to either connect to additional frames in the series of frames, and/or to strengthen an individual frame connection through use of bracket connection system. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 6, Ferro as modified discloses the system of claim 1, Chevis discloses wherein the first and second forces (left/right) are opposing each other (Fig. 48) and orthogonal to (Fig. 48) the first and second beams (left/right 532) so that the first and second beams (left/right 532) are pushed towards each other ([0177]).
Re claim 7, Ferro as modified discloses the system of claim 1, Chevis discloses wherein the first and second forces (left/right) are opposing each other (Fig. 48) and orthogonal to (Fig. 48) the first and second beams (left/right 532) so that the first and second beams (left/right 532) are pushed towards each other ([0177]).
Re claim 8, Ferro as modified discloses the system of claim 1, Chevis discloses wherein the fastener system (4824) comprises one or more fasteners (4824) which adjusts the force applied to ([0177]) at least one of the first and second brackets (left/right 532).
Re claim 9, Ferro as modified discloses the system of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the first and second brackets are shaped to have a curved portion to receive the first piece of metal and second piece of metal, respectively.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ferro wherein the first and second brackets are shaped to have a curved portion to receive the first piece of metal and second piece of metal, respectively in order to ease assembly but allowing smoother, simpler insertion of each element, as compared to a square/rectangular/sharp cornered insertion. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Re claim 10, Ferro discloses a method (Fig. 1-9) for building an indoor track system (Fig. 1-9 are capable of use building an indoor track system, as this is a statement of intended use) comprising a series of frames (30), a connection system (Fig. 9) and a support system (18), the method comprising:
disposing (Fig. 9 showing left 106 disposed) a first end beam (left 106) of a first frame (left 30) beside of (Fig. 9) second end beam (right 106) of a second frame (right 30) so that the first and second frames (left/right 30) are side by side horizontally (Fig. 9);
a fastener system (1214, 116, 118);
but fails to disclose applying, via a first bracket, a first force to a first end beam of a first frame towards a first direction towards a second end beam of a second frame; applying, via a second bracket, a second force to a second end beam of the second frame towards a second direction towards the first end beam, the second direction being opposite to the first direction; and bringing, via tightening of a fastener system, the first bracket towards the second bracket to squeeze the first end beam towards the second end beam.
However, Chevis discloses applying ([0177]), via a first bracket (4817), a first force ([0177]) to a first end beam (left 532) of a first frame (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424) towards (to the right) a first direction (to the right) towards a second end beam (right 532) of a second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424); applying ([0177]), via a second bracket (4823), a second force ([0177]) to a second end beam (right 532) of the second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424) towards a second direction towards (to the left) the first end beam (left 532), the second direction (to the left) being opposite to (Fig. 48) the first direction (to the left); and bringing ([0177]), via tightening of ([0177]) a fastener system (4824), the first bracket (4818) towards ([0177]) the second bracket (4823) to squeeze ([0177]) the first end beam (left 532) towards (Fig. 48) the second end beam (right 532).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferro with applying, via a first bracket, a first force to a first end beam of a first frame towards a first direction towards a second end beam of a second frame; applying, via a second bracket, a second force to a second end beam of the second frame towards a second direction towards the first end beam, the second direction being opposite to the first direction; and bringing, via tightening of a fastener system, the first bracket towards the second bracket to squeeze the first end beam towards the second end beam as disclosed by Chevis in order to provide releasable, adjustable securement of adjacent frames in a tool-less manner.
Re claim 11, Ferro as modified discloses the method of claim 10, Chevis discloses attaching (Fig. 48 showing the first piece of metal attached) a first piece of metal (see examiner comments; [0157] disclosing aluminum) to the first end beam (left 532), wherein a receiving portion (4820) of the first bracket (4817) is configured to mate with (Fig. 48) the first piece of metal (see examiner comments), and attaching (Fig. 48 showing the second piece of metal attached) a second piece of metal (see examiner comments; [0157] disclosing aluminum) to the second end beam (right 532) and the receiving portion (4822) of the second bracket (right 532) is configured to mate with (Fig. 48) the second piece of metal (see examiner comments).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferro further comprising: attaching a first piece of metal to the first end beam, wherein a receiving portion of the first bracket is configured to mate with the first piece of metal, and attaching a second piece of metal to the second end beam and the receiving portion of the second bracket is configured to mate with the second piece of metal as disclosed by Chevis in order to provide releasable, adjustable securement of adjacent frames in a tool-less manner.
Re claim 12, Ferro as modified discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising: connecting (Fig. 9 showing all elements connected) the fastener system (114, 116, 118) to the support system (18) via a central supporting truss (110; 48) so that the first and second end beams (left/right 106) are disposed on (Fig. 9) the central supporting truss (110; 48).
Re claim 13, Ferro as modified discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising connecting (Fig. 9 showing 48 connected) a spacer (48) between (Fig. 9) the first and second end beams (left/right 106) in a was so as to space the first and second end beams (left/right 106) from each other (Fig. 9) when being squeezed by the brackets (Chevis: 4817, 4823).
Re claim 14, Ferro as modified discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising: aligning (Fig. 2, Fig. 8-9) the first frame (30), the second frame (another 30), a third frame (another 30) and a fourth frames (another 30) aligned together to support a continuous surface (for 22) thereon (Fig. 2, Fig. 8-9), but fails to disclose providing a third bracket having a third receiving portion and configured to apply a third force to a third end beam of the third frame; providing a fourth bracket having a fourth receiving portion and configured to apply a fourth force to a fourth end beam of the fourth frame; and bringing, using a fastener system, the third bracket towards the fourth bracket to squeeze the third end beam towards the fourth end beam..
It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferro with providing a third bracket having a third receiving portion and configured to apply a third force to a third end beam of the third frame; providing a fourth bracket having a fourth receiving portion and configured to apply a fourth force to a fourth end beam of the fourth frame; and bringing, using a fastener system, the third bracket towards the fourth bracket to squeeze the third end beam towards the fourth end beam in order to either connect to additional frames in the series of frames, and/or to strengthen an individual frame connection through use of bracket connection system. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
In the even the examiner over broadly construed the language, “further comprising: aligning the first frame, the second frame, a third frame and a fourth frames aligned together to support a continuous surface thereon” with respect to the disclosure of Ferro, it is noted that it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ferro further comprising: aligning the first frame, the second frame, a third frame and a fourth frames aligned together to support a continuous surface thereon in order to provide a larger floor surface area for use. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 15, Ferro as modified discloses the system of claim 1, Chevis discloses further comprising: the first and second forces (left/right) are opposing each other (Fig. 48) and orthogonal to (Fig. 48) the first and second beams (left/right 532) so that the first and second beams (left/right 532) are pushed towards each other ([0177]).
Re claim 16, Ferro discloses a system (Fig. 1-9) for building an indoor track system (Fig. 1-9), the system (Fig. 1-9) comprising:
a foundation support (20); an
a connection system (Fig. 9) that is supported by the foundation support (20) and that is configured to connect a series of frames (30) together in a horizontal manner (Fig. 9), each frame (30) comprising end beams (left/right 206), the connection system (Fig. 9) comprising:
a system (114, 116, 118);
wherein the series of frames (30) are securely connected together (Fig. 2, Fig. 9) so that flooring (22) can be laid on (Fig. 1) the securely connected series of frames (30),
but fails to disclose the connection system comprising: a first bracket having a first receiving portion and configured to apply a first force to a first end beam of a first frame towards a first direction towards a second end beam of the second frame; a second bracket having a second receiving portion and configured to apply a second force to the second end beam of a second frame towards a second direction towards the first end beam, the second direction being opposite to the first direction; and the system configured to bring the first bracket towards the second bracket to force the first end beam towards the second end beam.
However, Chevis discloses a first bracket (4817) having a first receiving portion (4820) and configured to apply a first force (via 4824) to a first end beam (left 532) of a first frame (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424) towards a first direction (to the right) towards a second end beam (right 532) of the second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424); a second bracket (4823) having a second receiving portion (4822) and configured to apply a second force (via 4824) to the second end beam (right 532) of the second frame (Fig. 48; right 532 of one element 424) towards a second direction (to the left) towards the first end beam (Fig. 48; left 532 of one element 424), the second direction (to the left) being opposite to (Fig. 48) the first direction (to the right); and a system (4824) configured to bring ([0177]) the first bracket (left 532) towards ([0177]) the second bracket (right 532) to force ([0177]) the first end beam (left 532) towards the second end beam (right 532).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ferro with the connection system comprising: a first bracket having a first receiving portion and configured to apply a first force to a first end beam of a first frame towards a first direction towards a second end beam of the second frame; a second bracket having a second receiving portion and configured to apply a second force to the second end beam of a second frame towards a second direction towards the first end beam, the second direction being opposite to the first direction; and the system configured to bring the first bracket towards the second bracket to force the first end beam towards the second end beam as disclosed by Chevis in order to provide releasable, adjustable securement of adjacent frames in a tool-less manner.
Additionally, the language “can be” is language that suggests or makes optional/contingent the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
345
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights