DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 19/064,673.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1-14 are examined.
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 11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Lines 5-6 of claim 11 defines “a front side of an upper surface,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since an upper surface has already been defined in line 3 of the claim and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether separate upper surfaces are required or whether such surfaces are one and the same. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such upper surfaces are considered the same surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hemmi (JP H3-49136) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hemmi in view of Takiron (JP 2015-098675).
Regarding claim 1, Hemmi discloses a simplified staircase installed on a sloping ground (see figure 1); comprising:
a plurality of girders (#3) forming a plurality of steps (see figure 1);
one or more longitudinal connecting members (#1/2) connecting the plurality of girders in a direction with an interval between an adjacent pair of the plurality of girders (see figure 1);
a plurality of fixing piles (#5) fixing the plurality of girders to the sloping ground (see figure 2),
wherein at least one of the plurality of girders includes: one or more first protrusions (the right projections #3B of figure 2) that protrude from a front a side of an upper surface of the at least one of the plurality of girders (the right side of the girder of figure 2 is considered the front); and
one or more second protrusions (the left projections #3b of figure 2) that protrude from a rear side of the upper surface of the at least one of the plurality of girders (the left side of the girder of figure 2 is considered the rear); and
the one or more second protrusions are higher than the one or more first protrusions in height (see figure 2, where the second protrusions are positioned higher in height on the girder relative to the first protrusions).
As written, Hemmi is considered to disclose the second protrusions “are higher than the one or more first protrusions in height” since they are positioned higher than the first protrusions in height. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret such limitations and for compact prosecution purposes, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Takiron, that such stair treads #1 can comprise of protrusions #1k that protrude from a front side of the upper surface of the tread which are less in height, width, and length than protrusions #1j in the rear side of the upper surface of the tread, in order to tilt a user’s foot upwards at the edge of the tread to prevent/reduce the risk of stepping off the tread. See figure 1 and 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the protrusions of Hemmi such that the protrusions in the rear side of the upper surface are higher than the protrusions in the front side, as taught in Takiron, in order to prevent a person’s foot from slipping off of the step during use by providing a greater tilt to the user’s foot when rested on the girder.
Regarding claim 11, Hemmi discloses a girder (#3) that constitutes one step of a simplified staircase installed on a sloping ground (see figure 1), the girder comprising:
an upper surface that is configured to receive a sole of a user of the simplified staircase (the top of the girder #3 of figure 2 is configured to be stepped on and receive a sole of a user);
one or more first protrusions (the right projections #3B of figure 2) that protrude from a front a side of the upper surface of the girder (the right side of the girder of figure 2 is considered the front); and
one or more second protrusions (the left projection #3b of figure 2) that protrude from a rear side of the upper surface of the girder (the left side of the girder of figure 2 is considered the rear); wherein
the one or more second protrusions are higher than the one or more first protrusions in height (see figure 2, where the second protrusions are positioned higher in height on the girder relative to the first protrusions).
As written, Hemmi is considered to disclose the second protrusions “are higher than the one or more first protrusions in height” since they are positioned higher than the first protrusions. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret such limitations and for compact prosecution purposes, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Takiron, that such stair treads #1 can comprise of protrusions #1k that protrude from a front side of the upper surface of the tread which are less in height, width, and length than protrusions #1j in the rear side of the upper surface of the tread, in order to tilt a user’s foot upwards at the edge of the tread to prevent/reduce the risk of stepping off the tread. See figure 1 and 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the protrusions of Hemmi such that the protrusions in the rear side of the upper surface to be higher than the protrusion in the front side, as taught in Takiron, in order to prevent a person’s foot from slipping off of the step during use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmi in view of Takiron.
Regarding claim 2, Hemmi discloses the claimed invention except for the one or more second protrusions are larger than the one or more first protrusions in length. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Takiron, that such stair treads #1 can comprise of protrusions #1k that protrude from a front side of the upper surface of the tread which are less in height, width, and length than protrusions #1j in the rear side of the upper surface of the tread, in order to tilt a user’s foot upwards at the edge of the tread to prevent/reduce the risk of stepping off the tread. See figure 1 and 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the protrusions of Hemmi such that the protrusions in the rear side of the upper surface are longer in length than the protrusion in the front side, as taught in Takiron, in order to prevent a person’s foot from slipping off of the step during use.
Regarding claim 3, Hemmi in view of Takiron render obvious the one or more second protrusions are larger than the one or more first protrusions in breadth (Takiron teaches that such stair treads #1 can comprise of protrusions #1k that protrude from a front side of the upper surface of the tread which are less in height, width, and length than protrusions #1j in the rear side of the upper surface of the tread, in order to tilt a user’s foot upwards at the edge of the tread to prevent/reduce the risk of stepping off the tread, where such features would be provided within Hemmi as explained above).
Regarding claim 12, Hemmi discloses a simplified staircase comprising:
a first girder (#3) having a first surface (the top surface of figure 2), a second surface (the bottom surface of figure 1), first protrusions (the right projections #3B of figure 2) protruding from a front a side of the first side, second protrusions (the left projections #3b of figure 2) protruding from a rear side of the first surface (see figure 2), a through hole (the through hole through which the pile #5 extends through, as depicted in figures 2 and 5) extending through a thickness of the first girder between the first and second surface (see figures 2 and 5);
a second girder (one of the other girders #3 of figure 1); and
a connector (#1/2) connecting the first girder and the second girder (see figure 1).
However, Hemmi does not specifically disclose the second protrusions comprise of a height that is greater than the height of the first protrusions. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Takiron, that such stair treads #1 can comprise of protrusions #1k that protrude from a front side of the upper surface of the tread which are less in height, width, and length than protrusions #1j in the rear side of the upper surface of the tread, in order to tilt a user’s foot upwards at the edge of the tread to prevent/reduce the risk of stepping off the tread. See figure 1 and 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the protrusions of Hemmi such that the protrusions in the rear side of the upper surface are higher than the protrusions in the front side, as taught in Takiron, in order to prevent a person’s foot from slipping off of the step during use by providing a greater tilt to the user’s foot when rested on the girder.
Regarding claim 13, Hemmi in view of Takiron render obvious the first side and the second side are nonparallel (see figure 2 of Hemmi).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmi in view of Kansai (JP 4-022523), or in the alternative in view of Takiron and Kansai.
Regarding claim 4, Hemmi discloses, or in the alternative in view of Takiron render obvious, the claimed invention except for the one or more first protrusions or the one or more second protrusions are elongated and bent in a wavy manner in a lateral direction in a plan view. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Kansai, that stair tread protrusions for traction purposes can comprise of circular #9a/9b shapes, wavy shapes #9c, or rectangular shapes #9d in order to provide traction, anti-slip characteristics to the tread while also providing aesthetics as needed by an end user. See figures 8-1 through 8-4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the protrusions of Hemmi to comprise of wavy shapes instead of rectangular shapes, as taught in Kansai, in order to provide the tread with specific aesthetics as wanted by the end user, where either of such shapes would yield the same predictable result of providing anti-slip characteristics to the tread.
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmi in view of Lee (KR 20120003252), or in the alternative in view of Takiron and Lee.
Regarding claim 5, Hemmi discloses, or in the alternative in view of Takiron render obvious, the claimed invention including a raised portion that is configured to receive an arch portion or a heel portion of a sole of a user of the simplified staircase (see figure 2 of Hemmi, where the left, raised portion of the tread #3 is configured to receive an arch portion or heel portion of a sole of a user); and a brim (the flatter, lower portion on the right side of the tread #3 of figure 2 of Hemmi) that protrudes forward from a front end of the raised portion to receive a front side of the sole of the user of the simplified staircase (see figure 2 of Hemmi, where the brim is located on the right, forward part of the raised portion), the one or more first protrusions are formed on an upper surface of the brim (see figure 2 of Hemmi, where the rightmost protrusions #3b are considered the first protrusions provided on the brim), the one or more second protrusions are formed on an upper surface of the raised portion (the second, left protrusions #3b of figure 2 of Hemmi are provided on the raised portion of the tread #3). However, Hemmi depicts the raised portion is more polygonal with angled flat surfaces rather than rounded so as to be cylindrical shaped. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Lee, that such raised portions #20 of a stair tread for a ground surface can be rectangular, polygonal shapes, as depicted in figures 9 and 10, or can be cylindrical shaped, as depicted in figure 11, in order to properly support the heel of a user during use while still maintaining the tilt of a user’s foot during use. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the raised portion of Hemmi to be cylindrical in shape rather than polygonal, as taught in Lee, since either of such shapes are taught to yield the same predictable result of providing traction and support for a user’s heel during user.
Regarding claim 6, Hemmi in view of Lee, or in the alternative in view of Lee and Takiron, render obvious the one or more second protrusions are formed on the upper surface of the cylindrical surface at a position around a rear end of the cylindrical portion (figure 11 of Lee depicts the grooves #25a and protrusions #25 can be formed on a rear side of the cylindrical portion #20, where such features would be provided within Hemmi as explained above).
Regarding claim 7, Hemmi in view of Lee, or in the alternative in view of Lee and Takiron, render obvious the upper surface of the cylindrical portion is curved in a side view to protrude from the upper surface of the brim (see figure 11 of Lee, where the cylindrical portion #20 is curved to protrude from the brim portion #10, where such features would be provided within Hemmi as explained above).
Regarding claim 8, Hemmi in view of Lee, or in the alternative in view of Lee and Takiron, render obvious the cylindrical portion has a front half portion extending from a highest point of the upper surface of the cylindrical portion to a border between the cylindrical portion and the brim, and the front half portion of the cylindrical portion tilts toward a diagonally rearward upper side (Figure 11 of Lee depicts the cylindrical portion #20 has two half portions, where the front half portion extends from the apex of the cylindrical portion towards the flat brim #10, where when such a cylindrical portion of Lee is provided within the invention of Hemmi, such a cylindrical portion would tilt toward the diagonal upper side of the right brim portion as depicted in figure 2 of Hemmi, which brim portion would be diagonally rearward from the front edge of the tread.).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmi in view of Sung (KR 102413672), or in the alternative in view of Takiron and Sung.
Regarding claim 9, Hemmi discloses, or in the alternative in view of Takiron render obvious, the claimed invention except for the one or more longitudinal connecting members are fixed to the plurality of girders by the plurality of fixing piles without using an additional fixing member. Though piles #5 of Hemmi may extend through the connecting members #1/2, fasteners #4 are used to attach such treads #3 to the connecting members #1/2 and thus do not meet such limitations as defined. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Sung, that such treads #20 can be anchored to a ground with a pile #30 and can be applied upon a walking mat #10, which sits between the treads #20 and the ground and can be fastened to the treads #20 using the same pile #30 without addition fixing members, where elements #40 are considered part of the fixing piles #30 assembly in order to fasten the treads #20 where needed. See figure 17. Sung discloses use of such a clamping portion #40/50 on the piles #30 due to the material of the connecting member, where the piles #30 still extend directly through the connecting member and into the ground to attach such elements to one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Hemmi such that the piles are the only fastener to attach the connecting members to the treads and the ground without needing additional fastening members extending through the treads, as taught in Sung, in order to reduce costs of construction and allow for quicker installation. The connecting members of Hemmi already comprise of holes for receiving the piles and do not comprise of materials which would be properly engaged or assisted in connection with such a clamping profile #40 and #50 of Sung and thus would not benefit from the addition of such elements of Sung within the assembly of Hemmi.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmi in view of Lam et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0096250), or in the alternative in view of Takiron and Lam et al.
Regarding claim 10, Hemmi discloses, or in the alternative in view of Takiron render obvious, the claimed invention except for each of the plurality of girders includes a horizontal connecting mechanism that is configured to connect the girder with another girder in a lateral direction. However, as evidenced by Lam et al., the concept of attaching polymer panels #12 to another over a ground surface using dovetail connections #48 and dovetail recesses #49 is known and used in the art in order to connect such panels either laterally or longitudinally with one another. See figure 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the girders of Hemmi to comprise of dovetail connecting mechanisms, as taught in Lam et al., in order to allow for the connection of adjacent girders with one another and thus span a length as required by the end user.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmi in view of Takiron and Lee.
Regarding claim 14, Hemmi in view of Takiron render obvious the claimed invention including a raised portion that is configured to receive an arch portion or a heel portion of a sole of a user of the simplified staircase (see figure 2 of Hemmi, where the left, raised portion of the tread #3 is configured to receive an arch portion or heel portion of a sole of a user); and a brim (the flatter, lower portion on the right side of the tread #3 of figure 2 of Hemmi) that protrudes forward from a front end of the raised portion to receive a front side of the sole of the user of the simplified staircase (see figure 2 of Hemmi, where the brim is located on the right, forward part of the raised portion), the first protrusions are formed on an upper surface of the brim (see figure 2 of Hemmi, where the rightmost protrusions #3b are considered the first protrusions provided on the brim), the second protrusions are formed on an upper surface of the raised portion (the second, left protrusions #3b of figure 2 of Hemmi are provided on the raised portion of the tread #3). However, Hemmi depicts the raised portion is more polygonal with flat surfaces rather than rounded so as to be cylindrical shaped. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Lee, that such raised portions #20 of a stair tread for a ground surface can be rectangular, polygonal shapes, as depicted in figures 9 and 10, or can be cylindrical shaped, as depicted in figure 11, in order to properly support the heel of a user during use. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the raised portion of Hemmi to be cylindrical in shape rather than polygonal, as taught in Lee, since either of such shapes are taught to yield the same predictable result of providing traction and support for a user’s heel during user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
