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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Glickman (US 5,061,219 A).
Regarding claim 1, Glickman discloses a connector (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a longitudinally extending cylindrical member (11);
a first elongate web member (12 in Fig. 1) extending outwardly from the cylindrical member in a first direction (see Fig. 1);
a second elongate web member (12 on opposing side of 11 as 12 labeled in Fig. 1) extending outwardly from the cylindrical member in a second direction that is different from the first direction (see Fig. 1);
a pair of first and second elongate members (16 extending from 12 in Fig. 1) extending outward from one end of the first web member away from the cylindrical member and at a first angle relative to each other (see Fig. 1), the first and second elongate members each comprising a respective longitudinal free end (see Fig. 1); and
a pair of third and fourth elongate members (16 extending from the second elongate web member) extending outward from one end of the second web member away from the cylindrical member and at a second angle relative to each other (see Fig. 1), the third and fourth elongate members each comprising a respective longitudinal free end (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Glickman discloses wherein the first (12 in Fig. 1) and second directions (12 on opposing side of 11 as 12 labeled in Fig. 1) are opposite to each other (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Glickman discloses wherein the first (A in annotated Figure 1 below) and second angles (B in annotated Figure 1 below) are the same (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 8, Glickman discloses wherein the first (A in annotated Figure 1 above) and second angles (B in annotated Figure 1 above) are between about ten degrees and seventy degrees (see NOTE below).
NOTE: As seen in Fig. 1, the first and second angles are less than ninety degrees (see Fig. 1) and greater than zero degrees (see Fig. 1). Therefore the angles are between about ten to seventy degrees.
Regarding claim 9, Glickman discloses wherein a width of each of the first (16 extending from 12 in Fig. 1), second (16 extending from 12 in Fig. 1), third (16 extending from the second elongate web member), and fourth (16 extending from the second elongate web member)elongate members is substantially the same (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Glickman discloses wherein the connector (see Fig. 1) is fabricated from aluminum or polymeric material (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Glickman discloses a structure (see Fig. 1), comprising:
a first element (struts 13 accepted in slots shown by L in annotated Figure 1 below) comprising a surface with a pair of angled elongate slots (39);
a second element (struts 13 accepted in slots shown by M in annotated Figure 1 below) comprising a surface with a pair of angled elongate slots (39); and
a connector (10, see Fig. 1) joining the first and second elements, the connector comprising:
a longitudinally extending cylindrical member (11):
a first elongate web member (12 in Fig. 1) extending outwardly from the cylindrical member in a first direction (see Fig. 1);
a second elongate web member (12 on opposing side of 11 as 12 labeled in Fig. 1) extending outwardly from the cylindrical member in a second direction that is different from the first direction (see Fig. 1);
a pair of first and second elongate members (16 extending from 12 in Fig. 1) extending outward from one end of the first web member away from the cylindrical member and at a first angle relative to each other (see Fig. 1), the first and second elongate members each comprising a respective longitudinal free end, and wherein the first and second elongate members are inserted into the pair of angled elongate slots of the first element (see Figs. 11-12); and
a pair of third and fourth elongate members (16 extending from the second elongate web member) extending outward from one end of the second web member away from the cylindrical member and at a second angle relative to each other (see Fig. 1), the third and fourth elongate members each comprising a respective longitudinal free end (see Fig. 1), and wherein the third and fourth elongate members are inserted into the pair of angled elongate slots of the second element (see Figs. 11-12).
PNG
media_image2.png
624
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1.
Claim(s) 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Bernard (US 3,086,627 A).
Regarding claim 12, Bernard discloses a connector (see Fig. 1), comprising:
an elongate cylindrical member (inner surface C in annotated Figure 8 below);
a first elongate web member (D in annotated Figure 8 below) extending outwardly from the elongate cylindrical member along a length thereof, the first web member comprising a pair of first (F in annotated Figure 8 below) and second (G in annotated Figure 8 below) elongate members extending outward from one end thereof and away from the cylindrical member (see Fig. 8 below), wherein the first and second elongate members are oriented at a first angle relative to each other (see J in annotated Figure 8 below); and
a second elongate web member (E in annotated Figure 8 below) extending outwardly from the elongate cylindrical member along a length thereof in circumferential spaced-apart relationship with the first web member (see Fig. 8), the second web member comprising a pair of third (H in annotated Figure 8 below) and fourth (I in annotated Figure 8 below) elongate members extending outward from one end thereof and away from the cylindrical member (see Fig. 8), wherein the third and fourth elongate members are oriented at a second angle relative to each other (K in annotated Figure 8 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
738
709
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 8.
PNG
media_image4.png
540
743
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 8.
PNG
media_image5.png
720
725
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Annotated Figure 8.
PNG
media_image6.png
858
637
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Annotated Figure 8.
Regarding claim 14, Bernard discloses wherein the first (J in annotated Figure 8 above) and second (K in annotated Figure 8 above) angles are the same (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15, Bernard discloses wherein the first (J in annotated Figure 8 above) and second (K in annotated Figure 8 above) angles are between about ten degrees and seventy degrees (see NOTE below).
NOTE: As seen in annotated Figure 8 above, the first and second angles are less than ninety degrees (see Fig. 1) and greater than zero degrees (see Fig. 1). Therefore the angles are between about ten to seventy degrees.
Regarding claim 16, Bernard discloses wherein a width of each of the first (F in annotated Figure 8 above), second (G in annotated Figure 8 above), third (H in annotated Figure 8 above), and fourth (I in annotated Figure 8 above) elongate members is substantially the same.
Regarding claim 17, Bernard discloses wherein the connector (see Fig. 8) is fabricated from aluminum (see Column 4 lines 23-26) or polymeric material.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glickman (US 5,061,219 A) in view of Bernard (US 3,086,627 A) and Keller (US 2006.0182492 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Glickman discloses wherein the connector is extruded from a polymeric material but fails to disclose as claimed wherein an outer surface thereof comprises an anodized coating.
However, Bernard teaches a connector that can be extruded from a polymeric material or aluminum, in order to provide a suitable option when a metallic material is preferred.
Applicant is reminded that 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, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Glickman, with Bernard, such that it comprises an aluminum connector, in order to provide a suitable option when a metallic material is preferred.
The combination of Glickman and Bernard still fails to disclose as claimed that the connector has an outer surface comprising an anodized coating.
Keller teaches an assembly than can be made from aluminum or anodized aluminum (see Keller paragraph [0174]), in order to assist with corrosion resistance.
Applicant is reminded that 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, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Glickman and Bernard, with Keller, such that it comprises an outer surface having an anodized coating, in order to assist with corrosion resistance.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard (US 3,086,627 A) in view of Keller (US 2006/0182492 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Bernard discloses wherein the connector (see Fig. 8) is extruded from aluminum (see Column 4 lines 23-26) but fails to disclose as claimed wherein an outer surface thereof comprises an anodized coating.
However, Keller teaches an assembly than can be made from aluminum or anodized aluminum (see Keller paragraph [0174]), in order to assist with corrosion resistance.
Applicant is reminded that 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, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Bernard, with Keller, such that it comprises an outer surface having an anodized coating, in order to assist with corrosion resistance.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rixen (US 6,553,738 B1) in view of Bernard (US 3,086,627 A).
Regarding claim 20, Rixen discloses a structure (see Fig. 2), comprising:
a first element (42) comprising a surface with a pair of angled elongate slots (see Fig. 3a);
a second element (42) comprising a surface with a pair of angled elongate slots (see Fig. 3a); and
a connector (10) joining the first and second elements (see Fig. 3a), the connector comprising:
a cylindrical member (see Fig. 3a);
a first elongate web member (N in annotated Figure 3a below) extending outwardly from the elongate cylindrical member along a length thereof (see Fig. 3a), the first web member comprising a pair of first and second elongate members (O in annotated Figure 3a below) extending outward from one end thereof and away from the cylindrical member, wherein the first and second elongate members are oriented at a first angle relative to each other (see Fig. 3a), the first and second elongate members each comprising a respective longitudinal free end (see Fig. 3a), wherein the first and second elongate members are inserted into the pair of angled elongate slots of the first element (see Fig. 3a); and
a second elongate web member (P in annotated Figure 3a below) extending outwardly from the elongate cylindrical member along a length thereof in circumferential spaced-apart relationship with the first web member (see Fig. 3a), the second web member comprising a pair of third and fourth elongate members (Q in annotated Figure 3a below) extending outward from one end thereof and away from the cylindrical member, wherein the third and fourth elongate members are oriented at a second angle relative to each other (see Fig. 3A), the third and fourth elongate members each comprising a respective longitudinal free end (see Fig. 3a), wherein the third and fourth elongate members are inserted into the pair of angled elongate slots of the second element (see Fig. 3a).
Rixen fails to disclose as claimed that the cylindrical member is an elongate cylindrical hollow member.
However, Bernard teaches a structure comprising an elongate cylindrical member (see Figs. 1-2) for supporting panels and similar members, in order to provide an elongate cylindrical member than can produce a barrier or structure of varying heights based on specific needs (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Rixen, with Bernard, such that it comprises an elongate cylindrical member, in order to provide an elongate cylindrical member than can produce a barrier or structure of varying heights based on specific needs (see Fig. 1 of Bernard).
PNG
media_image7.png
768
551
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7. Annotated Figure 3a.
Claim(s) 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rixen (US 6,553,738 B1) in view of Bernard (US 3,086,627 A), as applied to claim 20, and further in view of Franklin (US 6,098,357 A).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Rixen and Bernard discloses further comprising a threaded rod (3 of Bernard) extending through the elongate cylindrical member (see Fig. 1 of Bernard), but fails to teach as claimed that one end of the threaded rod is secured to a foundation in the ground, and wherein a nut threadingly engages an opposite end of the threaded rod to secure the structure to the foundation in the ground.
However, Franklin teaches a structure with one end of a threaded rod (24, see Fig. 10) is secured to a foundation (122) in the ground (124), and wherein a nut (22) threadingly engages an opposite end of the threaded rod to secure the structure to the foundation in the ground (see Figs. 7 and 10), in order to provide a secure and strong means to fix a structure to a foundation such that no unwanted movement occurs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Rixen and Bernard, with Franklin, in order to provide a secure and strong means to fix a structure to a foundation such that no unwanted movement occurs.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Rixen, Bernard, and Franklin teaches wherein the foundation (122 of Franklin) in the ground (124 of Franklin) comprises concrete (see Column 12 lines 45-59 of Franklin).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 14-22 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 ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678