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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "30" in Fig. 1 and "32" in Figs. 2 – 5, 8, and 9 have both been used to designate "axle assembly". Reference character “30” is illustrated once in the Figures.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: “100.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “attachment pins” 30, which must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant recites in paragraph 0033 that the singular forms “a” and “an” are intended to include the plural forms as well. Redefining “a” and “an” changes how subsequent definite article “the” behaves when referring back to the original element. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 4, “the length of the frame”, which should be changed to “the length of a frame”;
in line 12, “the rear carriage frame” which should be changed to “a rear carriage frame”;
in line 14, “pivoting retaining sleeves” which should be changed to “the pivoting retaining sleeves”;
in line 17, “extendable retaining arms” which should be changed to “the extendable retaining arms”;
in line 19, “position” which should be changed to “a position”;
in line 20, “the end” which should be changed to “an end”;
in line 22, “frame capture bars” which should be changed to “the frame capture bars”;
in line 24, “front carriage frame” which should be changed to “a front carriage frame”;
in line 26, “rear carriage frame” which should be changed to “a rear carriage frame”;
in line 30, “axle assembly” which should be changed to “the axle assembly”;
in line 32, “the sides and ends” which should be changed to “sides and ends”;
in line 34, “the frame side beams” which should be changed to “frame side beams”;
in line 36, “the exterior side” which should be changed to “an exterior side of the frame side beams”;
in line 38, “the exterior side” which should be changed to “an exterior side of the frame end beams”;
in line 42, “the corners” which should be changed to “corners”; and
the reference characters “(E)” in line 20, “(M)” in lines 34 and 36, and “(N)” in line 38 should be removed from claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites “various types of floor joists, engineered trusses, Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs), or steel bar joists” in lines 2 – 3, which leads to open ended indefiniteness. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). Likewise, the phrase "ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites" was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action, and applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§102/103 is not made because claim 1 is patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claim is not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claim, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The closest prior art of record US Pat 9,062,451 B1 to Wilson, Jr. et al (hereinafter Wilson) generally discloses a structural floor system and transport apparatus. However, Wilson does not specifically disclose pivoting retaining sleeves attached to the tongue bulkhead assembly and the axle bulkhead assembly, configured to pivot from a vertical to horizontal position and containing extendable retaining arms; extendable retaining arms designed to slip within the pivoting retaining sleeves for lateral adjustment to fit the width of the structural steel perimeter I-Beam floor frame and lock into position. US Pat 10,011,980 B1 to Shipps generally discloses a structural floor system and transport apparatus. However, Shipps does not make up for all of the deficiencies of Wilson because at a minimum Wilson does not disclose, pivoting retaining sleeves.
Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat 10,011,980 B1 – teaches a transport system in a low-profiled configuration to transport an I-beam floor structure; and
US Pat 9,062,451 B1 – teaches a transport system in a low-profiled configuration to transport a structure, the transport system comprising pivoting retaining structures attached to a tongue bulkhead assembly that are configured to laterally adjust to fit the width of the structure where a floor of the structure is located.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler Ferguson whose telephone number is (571)272-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/Tyler Ferguson/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights