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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6-10, 12-14, & 19-20 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.
Regarding claims 6-8, 12, & 19-20, “the square portion” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering “the square portion” to refer to the same component(s) as “an elongated square portion” in claims 1 & 16.
Claims 9-10, 13-14, & 20 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12371252. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of both U.S. Patent No. 12371252 and the instant application teach a platform comprising a casting; and a leg comprising an elongated square portion, an anchor, and a casting. Thus, the invention of the claims in U.S. Patent No. 12371252 is in effect a species of the generic invention of claims 1-20. It has been held that the generic invention is anticipated by the species, see In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed Cir. 1993). Since claims 1-20 are anticipated (fully encompassed) by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12371252, they are not patentably distinct there from, regardless of any additional subject matter present in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12371252.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, & 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore (20160101893).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 & 16, Moore teaches an intermodal warehousing system comprising: a platform (20) comprising a casting (E in Fig. 7 Annotated) located between the ends of a side of the platform (Fig. 7); and a leg (140) adapted to be connected to the casting of the platform, wherein the leg comprises an elongated square portion (141), an anchor (144) located at one end of the elongated square portion (Fig. 3a) that is adapted to be secured to the casting of the platform (par. 68), and a casting (148) located at the other end of the elongated square portion (Fig. 3a) that is adapted to connect to another anchor (implied by par. 68 & 83).
Regarding claims 2 & 17, Moore teaches a casting (E) of a platform (20) that is located substantially equidistant between the ends of the platform (Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 3 & 18, Moore teaches a casting (E) of a platform (20) that is configured to allow for use of the leg (140) to carry another platform mounted above the platform (implied by Figs. 3, 4-5, & 9 and par. 68).
Regarding claims 4 & 18, Moore teaches a leg (140) configured to provide support to another platform (Figs. 3, 4-5, & 9).
Regarding claim 6, Moore teaches an anchor (144) carried by a plate (142) that is attached (Fig. 3b) to the square portion (141).
Regarding claim 16, Moore teaches a leg (140) for an intermodal warehousing system (Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (20160101893) in view of Wishart (20030094124).
Regarding claims 5 & 19, Moore teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a leg (140) comprising an elongated square portion (141) and a casting (148); but fail(s) to teach making the elongated square portion & casting from aluminum. However, Wishart teaches making parts of a leg (40) from aluminum (par. 53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the elongated square portion & casting of Moore from aluminum, as taught by Wishart, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase corrosion resistance & reduce weight.
Regarding claim 19, Moore teaches an anchor (144) carried by a plate (142) that is attached (Fig. 3b) to the square portion (141).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (20160101893) in view of Amadardo (20190100937). Moore teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a leg having a square portion (141) secured to a plate (142) via unspecified securing means; but fail(s) to teach aluminum bushings. However, Amadardo teaches securing means (14, 16) for connecting a square portion (P1 or P2’) of a leg (P1 or P2’) to a plate (B or side of P1), said connecting means comprising aluminum bushings (14, 16 - see par. 55, 59, 62, 68) attached to the square portion adjacent the plate (Fig. 10, 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute securing means, as taught by Amadardo, for the unspecified securing means of Moore, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate repair & replacement of the plate. Hence, Moore as modified would teach a square portion (141 of Moore) of the leg (140 of Moore) that comprises aluminum bushings (14, 16 of Amadardo) attached thereto adjacent the plate (142 of Moore).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (20160101893) in view of Black (3850295).
Regarding claim 11, Moore teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a leg (140) comprising an elongated square portion (141); but fail(s) to teach telescoping parts. However, Black teaches the inclusion, on an elongated square portion (5) of a leg (5), of telescoping means (21, 23-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add telescoping means, as taught by Black, to each of the elongated square portions of Moore, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the system to accommodate loads of different heights. Hence, Moore as modified would teach an elongated square portion (141 of Moore and 21 & 23-32 of Black) that comprises a plurality of telescoping parts (141 of Moore & 21 of Black) and is configured so that the length of the elongated square portion is adjustable (as in col. 4, lines 23-61 of Black).
Regarding claim 12, Moore teaches a handle (145) located on the exterior of the square portion (141), wherein the handle comprises a handle bolt (B in Fig. 3b Annotated) extending into the interior of the leg (140) and threaded into a wedge (147) located with the leg for moving the wedge laterally when the handle is rotated (implied by Fig. 3b & par. 84), wherein the anchor (144) comprises an upper portion (C) within the leg cooperating with the wedge and configured so that rotation of the handle moves the anchor up or down (par. 84).
PNG
media_image2.png
291
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (20160101893) & Black (3850295) in view of Adducci (20070210686).
Regarding claim 13, Moore as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a handle bolt (B) and a leg (140) having an interior & an exterior (Fig. 3b); but fail(s) to teach lock washers. However, Adducci teaches the inclusion of lock washers (50-51 - see Fig. 2c) on a bolt (45), wherein one (51) of said washers is located in the interior of a leg (135) and another (50) of said washers being located on the exterior of said leg (Fig. 3), wherein the lock washers are configured to prevent lateral movement of the bolt (par. 60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add lock washers, as taught by Adducci, to the handle bolt of Moore as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent extraneous axial movement by said bolt.
Regarding claim 14, Moore teaches a handle bolt (B), a wedge (147), and an anchor (144) that are configured so that a rotation of 180 degrees of the handle (145) moves the anchor up or down an unspecified distance (par. 84). Additionally, altering the shape & size of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify each of the legs of Moore as modified, by reshaping & resizing said wedge & anchor so that a rotation of 180 degrees of the handle moves the anchor up or down 1/4”, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the legs (e.g., intended use of the legs, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (20160101893). Moore teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a casting (148) on a leg (140) that include four sides and an opening on at least one side (Fig. 3a), said opening being center on said side; but fail(s) to teach a centered opening on each side. However, mere duplication of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a centered opening to each of the sides of each of the castings of Moore as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the weight of the leg.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights