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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman (5822936) in view of Marshall (7234890).
Regarding claim 1, Bateman (Figure 8) teaches a bullet trap having a joint plate mounting mechanism comprising: a first plate (Fig. 8, Part No. 310) disposed generally horizontally; a second plate (310) disposed generally vertically; a facing strip (Fig. 8, Part No. 314) having a first arm and a second arm (See fig. 8) (Col. 8, Lines 9-17), the first arm of the facing strip engaging the first plate and the second arm of the facing strip engaging the second plate (See fig. 8); and a backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) having a first arm and a second arm (See fig. 8), the first arm of the backing strip engaging the first plate and the second arm of the backing strip engaging the second plate (See fig. 8) (Col. 8, Lines 9-17).
Bateman does not teach a beveled backing strip.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “a beveled backing strip” is directed to the shape of the backing strip. Changing the shape of the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Marshall is being used to teach a “beveled backing strip”.
Marshall teaches a beveled backing strip (Fig. 3, Part No. 34) (Col. 3, Lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bateman with a beveled backing strip as taught by Marshall a means of providing a bullet trap member used for holding plates together with a beveled design so that it has outwardly and rearwardly sloping walls (Col. 2, Lines 6-15; Col. 3, Lines 40-44).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches the first arm of the beveled backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) has an outer edge and wherein the second arm of the beveled backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) has an outer edge (Col. 8, Lines 9-17).
The modified Bateman does not teach at least one of the first arm of the backing strip and the second arm of the backing strip has a bevel along the outer edge of the arm, such that the first arm of the backing strip or the second arm of the backing strip has a width that reduces as it approaches an end of the backing strip.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “at least one of the first arm of the backing strip and the second arm of the backing strip has a bevel along the outer edge of the arm, such that the first arm of the backing strip or the second arm of the backing strip has a width that reduces as it approaches an end of the backing strip” is directed to the shape of the backing strip. Changing the shape of the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches a backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) (Col. 8, Lines 9-17).
The modified Bateman does not teach the outer edge of the first arm of the backing strip is beveled as it extends to both ends of the backing strip.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the outer edge of the first arm of the backing strip is beveled as it extends to both ends of the backing strip” is directed to the shape of the backing strip. Changing the shape of the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches a backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) (Col. 8, Lines 9-17).
The modified Bateman does not teach the outer edges of the first arm of the backing strip and the second arm of the backing strip both bevel as they approach a common end of the backing strip.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the outer edges of the first arm of the backing strip and the second arm of the backing strip both bevel as they approach a common end of the backing strip” is directed to the shape of the backing strip. Changing the shape of the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman in view of Marshall, further in view of Dalbec (4028856).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches a backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) having a first arm and a second arm (See fig. 8) (Col. 8, Lines 9-17).
The modified Bateman does not teach the backing strip has a middle portion disposed between the first arm of the beveled backing strip and the second arm of the beveled backing strip, the middle portion being generally flat .
Dalbec (Figures 1-7) teaches the backing strip has a middle portion (Fig. 5, Part No. 32) (Col. 3, Lines 38-51) disposed between the first arm (34) of the beveled backing strip and the second arm (34) of the beveled backing strip, the middle portion (32) being generally flat (See fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with the backing strip has a middle portion disposed between the first arm of the beveled backing strip and the second arm of the beveled backing strip as taught by Dalbec as a means of providing a backing strip with an inwardly offset middle portion (Dalbec: Col. 3, Lines 38-51).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches a backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) having a first arm and a second arm (See fig. 8) (Col. 8, Lines 9-17).
The modified Bateman does not teach the first arm of the backing strip and the middle portion of the backing strip are disposed at an angle of between 40 and 50 degrees with respect to one another and wherein the middle portion of the backing strip and the second arm of the backing strip are disposed at an angle of between 40 and 50 degrees from one another.
Dalbec (Figures 1-7) teaches the first arm (34) of the backing strip and the middle portion (Fig. 5, Part No. 32) (Col. 3, Lines 38-51) of the backing strip are disposed at an angle of between 40 and 50 degrees with respect to one another and wherein the middle portion (32) of the backing strip and the second arm (34) of the backing strip are disposed at an angle of between 40 and 50 degrees from one another (See fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with the first arm of the backing strip and the middle portion of the backing strip are disposed at an angle of between 40 and 50 degrees with respect to one another as taught by Dalbec as a means of providing a backing strip with an inwardly offset middle portion (Dalbec: Col. 3, Lines 38-51).
Claims 4-5 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman in view of Marshall, further in view of Corden (6612090).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches the backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) has a length (See fig. 8) (Col. 8, Lines 9-17).
The modified Bateman does not teach the first arm of the backing strip has a plurality of slots extending through said first arm, the slots extending lengthwise generally perpendicular to the length of the backing strip.
Corden (Figures 1-4) teaches the first arm of the backing strip has a plurality of openings (Fig. 2, Part No. 41) (Col. 3, Lines 53-65) extending through said first arm, the openings extending lengthwise generally perpendicular to the length of the backing strip (Col. 5, Lines 13-21).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the slots extending lengthwise generally perpendicular to the length of the backing strip” is directed to the orientation/position of the openings in the backing strip. Changing the orientation/position of the openings in the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where the court held that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device) (See: In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), where the court held that the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with the first arm of the backing strip has a plurality of openings extending through said first arm as taught by Corden as a means of providing a backing strip with openings that aid in securing parts of an apparatus together (Corden: Col. 5, Lines 13-21).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches a backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) (Col. 8, Lines 9-17).
The modified Bateman does not teach the beveled backing strip has a middle portion which includes a plurality of elongate slots extending therethrough, and wherein the elongate slots in the middle portion of the backing strip extend generally parallel with the length of the backing strip.
Corden (Figures 1-4) teaches the backing strip (12) has a middle portion (Fig. 2, Part No. 26) which includes a plurality of elongate slots (Fig. 1, Part No. 96) (Col. 5, Lines 13-21) extending therethrough, and wherein the elongate slots in the middle portion of the backing strip (12) extend generally parallel with the length of the backing strip (Col. 5, Lines 13-21).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “elongate slots extending therethrough, and wherein the elongate slots in the middle portion of the backing strip extend generally parallel with the length of the backing strip” is directed to the orientation/position of the openings in the backing strip. Changing the orientation/position of the openings in the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where the court held that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device) (See: In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), where the court held that the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with a middle portion which includes a plurality of elongate slots extending therethrough as taught by Corden as a means of providing a backing strip with slots that aid in securing parts of an apparatus together (Corden: Col. 5, Lines 13-21).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches a backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) (Col. 8, Lines 9-17).
The modified Bateman does not teach the middle portion has a flat surface running from one end of the backing strip to the other and a plurality of slots formed along the flat surface.
Corden (Figures 1-4) teaches the middle portion (Fig. 2, Part No. 26) has a flat surface running from one end of the backing strip to the other and a plurality of slots (Fig. 1, Part No. 94, 96) (Col. 5, Lines 13-21) formed along the flat surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with the middle portion has a plurality of slots formed along the flat surface as taught by Corden as a means of providing a backing strip with slots that aid in securing parts of an apparatus together (Corden: Col. 5, Lines 13-21).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman in view of Marshall, further in view of Plumlee (3927500).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches the first plate (Fig. 8, Part No. 310) disposed generally horizontally has a length which extends horizontally and thickness which extends vertically, and wherein the second plate (310) has a length which extends vertically and a thickness that extends generally horizontally (Col. 8, Lines 9-17).
The modified Bateman does not teach the bullet trap furtherdisposed perpendicular to the first arm of the backing band and the middle portion of the backing band being disposed at an angle relative to the first arm of the backing band and at an angle relative to the second arm of the backing band.
Plumlee (Figures 1-5) teaches a backing band (Fig. 3, Part No. 30) disposed adjacent the backing strip (Fig. 5, Part No. 40), the backing band having a first arm (26), a middle portion (24), and a second arm (28), the second arm of the backing band being disposed perpendicular to the first arm of the backing band (See fig. 5) and the middle portion of the backing band being disposed at an angle relative to the first arm of the backing band and at an angle relative to the second arm of the backing band (See fig. 5) (Col. 2, Lines 65-68; Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with a backing band disposed adjacent the backing strip as taught by Plumlee as a means of providing a corner connection or two plates with a cribbing member used to secure plates of a paneling system together (Plumlee: Col. 2, Lines 5-14 and Lines 28-35).
Claims 13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman in view of Jenstrom (4818629).
Regarding claim 13, Bateman (Figure 8) teaches a backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) for holding together plates in a bullet trap, the backing strip comprising a first arm (See fig. 8), a second arm (See fig. 8), the first arm and the second arm being oriented 90 degrees from one another (See fig. 8).
Bateman does not teach a middle portion, the middle portion disposed between the first arm and the second arm, the middle portion being disposed at an angle of 40 to 50 degrees from the first arm and an angle or 40 to 50 degrees from the second arm relative to a width of the backing strip.
Jenstrom teaches the backing strip (Fig. 1, Part No. 114) has a middle portion (Fig. 1, Part No. 116) disposed between the first arm (See fig. 1) and the second arm (See fig. 1) (Col. 5, Lines 56-62), the middle portion (116) being disposed at an angle of 40 to 50 degrees from the first arm and an angle or 40 to 50 degrees from the second arm relative to a width of the backing strip (See fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bateman with the middle portion being disposed at an angle of 40 to 50 degrees from the first arm and an angle or 40 to 50 degrees from the second arm as taught by Jenstrom as a means of providing a backing strip with a convolution that serves to compensate for the differential in thermal expansion between materials (Jenstrom: Col. 5, Lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches the backing strip has a length (though a specific value is not disclosed).
The modified Bateman does not teach the first arm has an outer edge opposite the middle portion and wherein the first arm tapers along the outer edge as the outer edge approaches an end of the backing strip.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the first arm tapers along the outer edge as the outer edge approaches an end of the backing strip” is directed to the shape of the backing strip. Changing the shape of the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches the backing strip has a length (though a specific value is not disclosed).
The modified Bateman does not teach the second arm has an outer edge opposite the middle portion and wherein the second arm tapers along the outer edge as the outer edge approaches an end of the backing strip.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the second arm tapers along the outer edge as the outer edge approaches an end of the backing strip” is directed to the shape of the backing strip. Changing the shape of the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Jenstrom teaches the second arm (See fig. 1) (Col. 5, Lines 56-62) has an outer edge opposite the middle portion (116) (See fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with the second arm has an outer edge opposite the middle portion as taught by Jenstrom as a means of providing a backing strip with a convolution that serves to compensate for the differential in thermal expansion between materials (Jenstrom: Col. 5, Lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches the backing strip has a length (though a specific value is not disclosed).
The modified Bateman does not teach the first arm tapers adjacent both ends of the backing strip and wherein the second arm tapers adjacent both ends of the backing strip.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the first arm tapers adjacent both ends of the backing strip and wherein the second arm tapers adjacent both ends of the backing strip” is directed to the shape of the backing strip. Changing the shape of the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Regarding claim 20, Bateman (Figure 8) teaches a method for forming an inlet of a bullet trap, the method comprising: selecting a first plate (Fig. 8, Part No. 310) and a second plate (310) and disposing the plates generally perpendicular to one another (See fig. 8); disposing a facing strip (Fig. 8, Part No. 314) and a backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) on opposing sides of the plates and tightening bolts (Fig. 8, Part No. 322) which engage the facing strip and the backing strip to clamp the facing strip and the backing strip against the first plate and the second plate (See fig. 8) (Col. 8, Lines 9-17), and where the backing strip has a first arm and a second arm, and wherein the first arm is disposed to engage the first plate, the second arm is disposed to engage the second plate (See fig. 8).
Bateman does not teach the backing strip has a middle portion, the middle portion is disposed at a 45-degree angle to the first arm and the second arm and does not touch either the first plate or the second plate
Jenstrom teaches the backing strip (Fig. 1, Part No. 114) has a middle portion (Fig. 1, Part No. 116), the middle portion is disposed at a 45-degree angle to the first arm and the second arm (See fig. 1) and does not touch either the first plate or the second plate (See fig. 1) (Col. 5, Lines 56-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bateman with the middle portion is disposed at a 45-degree angle to the first arm and the second arm as taught by Jenstrom as a means of providing a backing strip with a convolution that serves to compensate for the differential in thermal expansion between materials (Jenstrom: Col. 5, Lines 56-62).
Claim 14-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman in view of Jenstrom, further in view of Corden.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches the backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) a first arm and a second arm.
The modified Bateman does not teach the first arm has a plurality of slots formed therein and wherein the second arm has a plurality of slots formed therein and wherein the middle portion has a plurality of slots formed therein.
Corden (Figures 1-4) teaches the first arm has a plurality of slots (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 41) formed therein and wherein the second arm has a plurality of slots (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 41) (Col. 3, Lines 53-65) formed therein and wherein the middle portion (Fig. 2, Part No. 26) has a plurality of slots (Fig. 1, Part No. 96) (Col. 5, Lines 13-21) formed therein.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with the second arm has a plurality of slots formed therein as taught by Corden as a means of providing a backing strip with openings that aid in securing parts of an apparatus together (Corden: Col. 5, Lines 13-21).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches the backing strip has a length (though a specific value is not disclosed).
The modified Bateman does not teach the slots in the middle portion run generally parallel to the length of the backing strip and wherein the slots in the first arm and the slots in the second arm run generally perpendicular to the length of the backing strip.
Corden (Figures 1-4) teaches the slots (Fig. 1, Part No. 96) (Col. 5, Lines 13-21) in the middle portion run generally parallel to the length of the backing strip and wherein the slots (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 41) in the first arm and the slots (41) in the second arm run generally perpendicular to the length of the backing strip.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the slots in the middle portion run generally parallel to the length of the backing strip and wherein the slots in the first arm and the slots in the second arm run generally perpendicular to the length of the backing strip” is directed to the orientation/position of the openings in the backing strip. Changing the orientation/position of the openings in the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where the court held that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device) (See: In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), where the court held that the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with the slots in the middle portion run generally parallel to the length of the backing strip as taught by Corden as a means of providing a backing strip with slots that aid in securing parts of an apparatus together (Corden: Col. 5, Lines 13-21).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches the backing strip has a length (though a specific value is not disclosed).
The modified Bateman does not teach the slots in the middle portion are larger than the slots in the first arm and larger than the slots in the second arm.
Corden (Figures 1-4) teaches the slots (Fig. 1, Part No. 96) (Col. 5, Lines 13-21) in the middle portion in the middle portion are larger than the slots (41) in the first arm and larger than the slots (41) in the second arm.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the slots in the middle portion are larger than the slots in the first arm and larger than the slots in the second arm” is directed to the size of the openings on the backing strip. Changing the size of the openings would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), where the court held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with the slots in the middle portion are larger than the slots in the first arm as taught by Corden as a means of providing a backing strip with slots that aid in securing parts of an apparatus together (Corden: Col. 5, Lines 13-21).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman in view of Jenstrom, further in view of Corden (6612090) and Thomas (1803514).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches the backing strip (Fig. 8, Par No. 330) has a length (See fig. 8) (Col. 8, Lines 9-17).
The modified Bateman does not teach the middle portion has a plurality of slots formed therein, the slots extending generally parallel with the length of the backing strip and wherein the method further comprises extending bolts through the middle portion and the facing strip to hold an angle plate in front of the facing strip.
Corden (Figures 1-4) teaches the middle portion (Fig. 2, Part No. 26) has a plurality of slots (Fig. 1, Part No. 96) (Col. 5, Lines 13-21) formed therein, the slots extending generally parallel with the length of the backing strip.
Thomas (Figures 1-3) teaches extending bolts (Fig. 2, Part No. 73) through the middle portion (71) and the facing strip (74) to hold an angle strip (75) in front of the facing strip (74) (Page 3, Lines 85-98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with the middle portion has a plurality of slots formed therein as taught by Corden as a means of providing a backing strip with openings that aid in securing parts of an apparatus together (Corden: Col. 5, Lines 13-21), and to provide the modified Bateman with bolts through the middle portion and the facing strip to hold an angle strip in front of the facing strip as taught by Thomas as a means of providing a backing strip with cushioned strips to protect plates held by the backing strip (Thomas: Page 3, Lines 85-98).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bateman in view of Jenstrom, further in view of Dalbec.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Bateman (Figure 8) teaches the first arm is flat, the second arm is flat (See fig. 8).
The modified Bateman does not teach the middle portion is flat.
Dalbec (Figures 1-7) teaches the middle portion (32) is flat (See fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Bateman with the middle portion is flat as taught by Dalbec as a means of providing a backing strip with an inwardly offset middle portion (Dalbec: Col. 3, Lines 38-51).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 and 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record (Bateman (5822936), Marshall (7234890), Dalbec (4028856), Corden (6612090), Jenstrom (4818629), Thomas (1803514)) does not teach the recitation in claim 10 of “the first arm of the backing band engages the second plate and the second arm of the backing band engages the third plate” and the recitation in claim 24 of “the method comprises disposing a backing band having a first arm, a second arm and a middle portion disposed between the first arm of the backing band the second arm of the backing band so that the first arm engages and clamps the third plate against the first plate”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the recitation in claim 1 of “a beveled backing strip”, this is not found persuasive because Marshall (Col. 3, Lines 40-44) discloses: “beveled facing plate 34”. Applicant argues that the combination of Bateman and Marshall in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 is improper because Marshall does not show or suggest use of a beveled backing strip, this is not found persuasive because Marshall discloses use of a beveled backing strip as claimed (See Marshall: Col. 3, Lines 40-44). It is noted that Marshall teaches providing a backing plate that is beveled where the bevel is a change in shape of the plate. Providing Bateman with a beveled plate as taught by Marshall would have been obvious as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Applicant argues (to claim 4) that recitation of “the slots extending lengthwise generally perpendicular to the length of the backing strip” is not directed to the orientation/position of the openings. This is not found persuasive because the claim recitation of “the slots extending lengthwise generally perpendicular to the length of the backing strip” is directed to the orientation/position of the openings in the backing strip. Changing the orientation/position of the openings in the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where the court held that claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device) (See: In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), where the court held that the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 13 over Bateman in view of Jenstrom is based on hindsight construction because the structure of Jenstrom is not addressing building a bullet trap or some similar structure, this is not found persuasive because obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant’s claimed invention is directed to securing joints of an apparatus. The prior art of Jenstrom is directed to securing joints of an apparatus together and suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art designs and configurations for a backing strip used in securing joints of an apparatus.
Applicant argues that limitations directed to the shape of backing strip are not directed to design choice, this is not found persuasive because changing the shape of the backing strip would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 20 is improper because the office action fails to address what the differences in thermal expansion are between steel plates and steel strips, this is not found persuasive obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant’s claimed invention is directed to securing joints of an apparatus. The prior art of Jenstrom is directed to securing joints of an apparatus together and suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art designs and configurations for a backing strip used in securing joints of an apparatus.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claims 14-16 are improper because the prior art of Corden does not teach “slots”, this is not found persuasive because claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “slots” is being interpreted to mean “a groove or channel into which something fits or in which something works”. The prior art of Corden teaches slots that are “grooves or channels into which something fits or in which something works”.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Thomas does not teach the recitation in claim 21 of “extending bolts through the middle portion and the facing strip to hold an angle plate in front of the facing strip”, this is not found persuasive because Thomas teaches extending bolts (Fig. 2, Part No. 73) through the middle portion (71) and the facing strip (74) to hold an angle strip (75) in front of the facing strip (74) (Page 3, Lines 85-98). Applicant argues that the angle plate (75) of Thomas is not “in front” of the facing strip (74) of Thomas. This is not found persuasive because (as shown in figure 2 of Thomas) the angle strip (75) of Thomas is “in front” of the facing strip (74) of Thomas (See orientation of the parts shown in figure 2 of Thomas). Applicant argues that the angle plate (75) of Thomas is not an angle plate, this is not found persuasive because the plate (75) of Thomas is at an angle relative to other parts of the apparatus. It is noted that the recitation in claim 21 of “an angle plate” does not structurally distinguish the claimed plate from the plate of Thomas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-3 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights