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.
Claims 7-10 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.
With respect to claim 7, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is the scope of the first and second extension members. The examiner cannot determine what are these extension members extending between the centering bar and the structural members. Claim 7 depends from claim 1, which claimed the centering bar is slidably engaged with the tracks of the base plates in each of the structural members. Thus, the examiner doesn’t know what are these “further” extension members between the centering bar and the structural members, considering that the centering bar had already been claimed as being engaged with the structural members.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas US 5,400,559 (hereinafter ‘Nicholas’) in view of Derrigan et al. US 8,887,463 B2 (hereinafter ‘Derrigan’).
In regard to claim 1, Nicholas teaches a cover plate assembly (shown in fig. 1) for an expansion gap formed between a first structural member (10) and a second structural member (11), the cover plate assembly comprising:
a first base plate (14/16 on one side) having a first track (18) and a second base plate (14/16 on other side) having a second track (18), the first track of the first base plate being configured to affix to the first structural member and the second track of the second base plate being configured to affix to the second structural member (as seen in fig. 1);
a centering bar slidably engaged with the first track of the first base plate and the second track of the second base plate (see col. 2, ln. 63), the centering bar having a centering bar opening (30) configured to receive a fastener;
a guide (28) coupled to the centering bar (see fig. 3), the guide configured to align the fastener with the centering bar opening (this is a functional limitation met by the extension 28 because the fastener enters the opening due to the presence of the extension 28);
a cover plate (19) having a cover plate aperture (for fastener 22, see fig. 1) configured to be aligned with the guide and the centering bar opening (see fig. 1, the openings are aligned).
Nicholas does not explicitly teach a spring assembly attached to the centering bar and configured to receive the fastener after the fastener is inserted through the cover plate aperture and the centering bar opening.
Derrigan teaches a cover plate assembly comprising base plates (18, 20), a cover plate (24), a centering bar (62) and a spring assembly (64) attached to the centering bar and configured to receive the fastener after the fastener is inserted through the cover plate and centering bar openings (See fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a spring in the cover plate assembly of Nicholas, as taught by Derrigan, so as to maintain or restore the contact between the cover plate and base plates after they have been displaced (see Derrigan col. 6, ln. 33).
In regard to claim 2, the combination of Nicholas/Derrigan teaches the claimed invention wherein the first and second tracks are each curved concave tracks (seen in Nicholas’ figs. 1-7).
In regard to claim 3, the combination of Nicholas/Derrigan teaches the guide is hollow (see fig. 3 of Nicholas) but does not explicitly teach the guide is conical.
It would have been an obvious to modify the shape of the guide of the combination as a matter of design choice and make it conical because doing so improves the functionality of the extension 28, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to change the shape absent persuasive evidence that the conical shape is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 IV).
In regard to claims 4 and 5, the combination of Nicholas/Derrigan teaches the claimed invention wherein the centering bar further comprises first and second spherical shaped ends (24) opposite one another (see fig. 2-3) and they both slidably engage the first and second tracks of the base plates respectively (see col. 2, ln. 63).
In regard to claim 6, the combination of Nicholas/Derrigan teaches the centering bar can be made of metal (see col. 2, ln. 1) but is silent regarding the specific metal, thus leaving it up to the person of ordinary skill in the art to select a metal that is suitable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide a centering bar of extruded aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. Extruded aluminum provides great strength and durability and thus would have been obvious to use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a cover plate assembly having all the claimed limitations of claim 1 and having first and second extension members that extend between the centering bar and the first and second structural members respectively as recited within the context of the claim.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
For claims 11-15, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a cover plate assembly comprising a cover plate, a guide, a centering bar having upper and lower cavities, each defining a slit, and an opening in a central portion of the upper cavity, and a spring having a flange positioned at an end via which the spring is detachably coupled to the lower cavity of the centering bar. And wherein the guide detachably secured within the centering bar opening, as recited within the context of the claim.
For claims 16-20, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a cover plate assembly comprising a cover plate with an aperture, a centering bar with an opening, a fastener, and a guide detachably attached to the centering bar between the cover plate aperture and the centering bar opening. The guide aligning the fastener with the aperture and opening so as to insert the fastener and couple the cover plate to the centering bar, as recited within the context of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 5PM.
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 E Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights