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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 13-16, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 13-15, they recite the limitation “lower profiles” which is unclear what the limitation refers.
As per claim 16 and 19-20, they recite the limitation “upper profiles” which is unclear what the limitation refers.
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.
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.
3. Claims 1-10 and 13-20 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.
As per Claim 1, 13, and 16, they recite the limitation "...at least in part,..." which is indefinite and vague because there is no other alternative feature claimed for "least in part" alternative limitation.
As per claim 6, it recites the limitation “major side surface” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “major” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As per claim 8, it recites the limitation “innermost edge” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “innermost” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As per Claim 14-15 and 17-20, they recite the limitation “best fit” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “best” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) The claim 1-10 recite steps or acts including generating instructions for building a fence panel; thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim 11-12 recite steps or acts including supporting a spirit level on the first and second wedges; and the claims 13-20 recite steps or acts including presenting the dynamically updated visual representation of the first and second fence panels; thus, the claims11-20 are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
The claim 1 recites:
presenting a visual representation of a fence run including a plurality of fence panels (under its broadest reasonable mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example drawing or visualizing a portion of a fence);
providing a first user interface for receiving user input of fence run characteristics and/or modifying the fence run characteristics (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
dynamically updating the visual representation of the fence run based at least in part on changes made to the fence run characteristics by the user (under its broadest reasonable mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example changing the mental visualization or changing the drawn-out portions of the fence based on changes made to the fence); and
generating instructions for building a fence panel shown in the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run, wherein building the fence panel includes applying a first mark to the fence panel and applying a second mark to the fence panel, wherein a line extending from the first mark to the second mark is level when the fence panel is installed in an orientation presented in the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run. (under its broadest reasonable mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example making a judgement on how to build the fence as shown in the drawing including drawing a mark for level on the drawing)
The claim 11 recites:
driving a first wedge between a first fence board and a second fence board of a fence panel (under its broadest reasonable mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example drawing fences with space between each other);
driving a second wedge between a third fence board and a fourth fence board of the fence panel (under its broadest reasonable mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example drawing fences with space between each other); and
supporting a spirit level on the first and second wedges (under its broadest reasonable mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example evaluating a level on the space).
The claim 13 recites:
presenting, to a user via a first user interface, a visual representation of a first fence panel and a second fence panel adjacent to the first fence panel within a fence run (under its broadest reasonable mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example drawing or visualizing a portion of a fence);
providing, to the user, a second user interface for receiving user input specifying a degree to which lower profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
receiving, from the user via the second user interface, at least one input that specifies the degree to which lower profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
dynamically updating the visual representation of the first and second fence panels based at least in part on user input specifying the degree to which the lower profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another (under its broadest reasonable mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example changing the mental visualization or changing the drawn-out portions of the fence based on changes made to the fence); and
presenting the dynamically updated visual representation of the first and second fence panels to the user via the first user interface (under its broadest reasonable mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example changing the mental visualization or changing the finished drawn-out portions of the fence).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements of “to a user via a first user interface”, “to a user via a second user interface” and “to a user via a third user interface” which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Further the additional elements of “fence run”, “fence board”, “fence panel” and “a spirit level” are an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 13 recites the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): “providing, to the user, a second user interface for receiving user input specifying a degree to which lower profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
receiving, from the user via the second user interface, at least one input that specifies the degree to which lower profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);”.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “to a user via a first user interface”, “to a user via a second user interface” and “to a user via a third user interface” which is recited at high level generality and recited so generally that they represent more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional elements of “fence run”, “fence board”, “fence panel” and “a spirit level” are an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Further as discussed above Claim 13 recites the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93): “providing, to the user, a second user interface for receiving user input specifying a degree to which lower profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
receiving, from the user via the second user interface, at least one input that specifies the degree to which lower profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);”.
Further dependent claims 2-10, 12, and 14-20 recite:
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the fence panel is a first fence panel, the line is a first line, and the method further comprises:
generating instructions for building a second fence panel shown in the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run, wherein building the second fence panel includes applying a third mark to the second fence panel and applying a fourth mark to the second fence panel, wherein a second line extending from the third mark to the fourth mark is level when the second fence panel is installed in an orientation presented in the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run. (under its broadest reasonable mental process that convers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, for example making a judgement how to build the fence as shown in the drawing including drawing a mark for level on the drawing)
3. The method of claim 2 wherein the first line is coincident with the second line (mental process - narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim).
4. The method of claim 2 wherein the first line is offset from the second line (mental process - narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim).
5. The method of claim 1 wherein the fence panel has a first rail and a second rail, and the first and second marks are located between the first rail and the second rail (mental process - narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim).
6. The method of claim 5 wherein the first and second rails and the first and second marks are each located on a first major side surface of the fence panel (mental process - narrows the abstract idea i. e. narrowing drawing).
7. The method of claim 1 wherein the first mark is located on a first fence board and the second mark is located on a second fence board (mental process - narrows the abstract idea i. e. narrowing drawing).
8. The method of claim 7 wherein the first mark is located at an innermost edge of the first fence board and the first fence board is located at an edge of the fence panel (mental process - narrows the abstract idea i. e. narrowing drawing).
9. The method of claim 8 wherein the second fence board is located at a center of the fence panel (mental process - narrows the abstract idea i. e. narrowing drawing).
10. The method of claim 1 wherein a distance between the first and second marks is at least 24 inches and no more than 46 inches (mental process - narrows the abstract idea i. e. narrowing drawing).
12. The method of claim 11 wherein driving the first wedge between the first fence board and the second fence board includes driving the first wedge between the first fence board and the second fence board adjacent to a first mark on the fence panel and driving the second wedge between the third fence board and the fourth fence board includes driving the second wedge between the third fence board and the fourth fence board adjacent to a second mark on the fence panel, where a line extending from the first mark to the second mark is level when the fence panel is installed in a designed orientation. (mental process - drawing a mark for level on the drawing)
14. The method of claim 13 wherein updating the visual representation includes:
determining that a ground surface at one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled is above a best fit line determined by the ground surface over which the fence run extends; (mental process- evaluating a ground surface and c making a judgement on fence posts placement) and
updating the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to decrease a clearance distance between the lower profiles of the first and second fence panels at the one of the set of fence posts. (mental process- changing the mental visualization or changing the drawn-out portions of the fence based on the of fence posts placement)
15. The method of claim 13 wherein updating the visual representation includes:
determining that a ground surface at one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled is below a best fit line determined by the ground surface over which the fence run extends; (mental process - evaluating a ground surface and c making a judgement on fence posts location) and
updating the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to increase a clearance distance between the lower profiles of the first and second fence panels at the one of the set of fence posts. (mental process- changing the mental visualization or changing the drawn-out portions of the fence)
16. The method of claim 13, further comprising:
providing, to the user, a third user interface for receiving user input specifying a degree to which upper profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another; (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)
receiving, from the user via the third user interface, at least one input that specifies the degree to which upper profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another; (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)
dynamically updating the visual representation of the first and second fence panels based at least in part on user input specifying the degree to which the upper profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another; (mental process- changing the mental visualization or changing the drawn-out portions of the fence based on the of fence posts placement) and
presenting the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence panel to the user via the first user interface. (mental process - drawing or visualizing a portion of a fence)
17. The method of claim 16 wherein updating the visual representation includes:
determining that a top end of one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled will extend above a best fit line determined by the top ends of each of the set of fence posts; (mental process - evaluating and making a judgement on an end of fence posts) and
updating the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to decrease a height of the one of the set of fence posts. (mental process- changing the mental visualization or changing the drawn-out portions of the fence)
18. The method of claim 16 wherein updating the visual representation includes:
determining that a top end of one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled will extend below a best fit line determined by the top ends of each of the set of fence posts; mental process- evaluating and making a judgement on an end of fence posts) and
updating the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to increase a height of the one of the set of fence posts. (mental process- changing the mental visualization or changing the drawn-out portions of the fence)
19. The method of claim 16 wherein updating the visual representation includes:
determining that an upper profile of one of the fence panels will extend above a best fit line determined by the upper profiles of fence panels in the fence run; (mental process -evaluating and making a judgement on placement of fence posts) and
updating the visual representation of the one of the fence panels to decrease a height of the upper profile of the one of the fence panels. (mental process -evaluating and making a judgement on placement of fence posts)
20. The method of claim 16 wherein updating the visual representation includes:
determining that an upper profile of one of the fence panels will extend below a best fit line determined by the upper profiles of fence panels in the fence run; (mental process -evaluating and making a judgement on placement of fence posts) and
updating the visual representation of the one of the fence panels to increase a height of the upper profile of the one of the fence panels. (mental process- changing the mental visualization or changing the drawn-out portions of the fence)
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (US 20150363950 A1), and further in view of DIY (“DIY Fence On a Budget!: https://youtu.be/Nst-QWq5Cuc”).
As per Claim 1, Gilbert teaches a method (Fig. 1-3), comprising:
presenting a visual representation of a fence run including a plurality of fence panels (Fig. 1-3, [0021]-[0023], [0025], “The fence drawing module 116 receives fence project design inputs 114, and in response to the inputs 114, generates a graphical rendering of the design of a fence project. In doing so, the fence drawing module 116 enables an end user to interactively draw and/or insert graphical elements representing components of a fence on a scalable grid interface.”);
providing a first user interface for receiving user input of fence run characteristics and/or modifying the fence run characteristics (Fig. 1-3, [0021]-[0025] “The fence drawing module 116 receives fence project design inputs 114, and in response to the inputs 114, generates a graphical rendering of the design of a fence project. In doing so, the fence drawing module 116 enables an end user to interactively draw and/or insert graphical elements representing components of a fence on a scalable grid interface.”, “a number of different graphical icons representing different graphical elements that can be inserted into the drawing 522”, “user interface screen 500 displays portions of the fence materials data 108 corresponding to the fence selection inputs 102, at dialog area 510. For example, an image of the selected fence style, as well as fence components, dimensions and other details, are shown in dialog area 510… include data values that indicate the length, width, and/or spacing requirements of the various fence components that are needed to construct a fence of the type selected by the fence selection inputs 102….. various types of fence posts (e.g., vertical structural members designed to support one or more fence segments”);
dynamically updating the visual representation of the fence run based at least in part on changes made to the fence run characteristics by the user (Fig. 2, [0022], [0029], [0036] “the system 100 system 100 adjusts the fence drawing in real time, automatically, as graphical elements are added to the drawing, re-sized, or re-positioned. For example, the system 100 may separate a line segment into two line segments (e.g. in response to insertion of a gate) at 230, or create a corner post (e.g., in response to the connecting of two line segments at a ninety degree angle, or another angle that forms a corner, e.g., is less than 180 degrees), at 232. At block 234, the system 100 adjusts the drawing scale in response to user input and/or geographic data.”, “the system 100 allows the user to simply drag the gate 630 along the fence line, e.g., tracing on top of the fence line, to change its position on the fence line, and the system 100 automatically updates the fence line to incorporate the new gate position…. with the gate 630 now positioned at a corner of the fence, the system 100 automatically updates the corner post 540 shown in FIG. 5 to a gate post 628 in FIG. 6 and updates the fence project specifications 118 to reflect the change in post type.”, “the system 100 adjusts the fence drawing in real time, automatically, as graphical elements are added to the drawing, re-sized, or re-positioned.”); and
generating instructions for building a fence panel shown in the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run (Fig. 8 [0031], [0033] “the fence drawing module 116 determines and outputs the fence project specifications 118, which include the physical measurements (e.g., lengths) of all fence segments in the drawing of the fence project, as calculated by the fence drawing module 116, and quantities and measurements of the other fence components shown in the fence drawing (e.g., gates, posts, etc.).”, “The quote 800 includes an image of the selected fence material 810, a copy of the fence drawing 812, and a detailed listing 814 of materials, quantities, unit prices, total prices for each material, and total project cost.”).
Gilbert fails to teach explicitly wherein building the fence panel includes applying a first mark to the fence panel and applying a second mark to the fence panel, wherein a line extending from the first mark to the second mark is level when the fence panel is installed in an orientation presented in the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run.
DIY teaches wherein building the fence panel includes applying a first mark to the fence panel and applying a second mark to the fence panel (Image 1 lines on the pickets), wherein a line extending from the first mark to the second mark is level when the fence panel is installed in an orientation presented in the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run (Image 1 lines on the pickets).
Gilbert and DIY are analogous art because they are both related to a method for a fence designing and installation project.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate DIY into Gilbert’s invention for purpose of fence project to provide level reference guidance for the designed orientation (DIY: Image 1 & 10).
As per Claim 2, Gilbert teaches wherein the fence panel is a first fence panel, the line is a first line ([0022] “the fence drawing module 116 allows the end user to move graphical elements (such as gates) “incrementally” along a fence segment (e.g., along a line segment representing a fence or fence segment)”, [0036] “fence segments (line segments)”), and the method further comprises:
generating instructions for building a second fence panel shown in the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run (Fig. 8 [0033] “The quote 800 includes an image of the selected fence material 810, a copy of the fence drawing 812, and a detailed listing 814 of materials, quantities, unit prices, total prices for each material, and total project cost.”, [0036] “At blocks 216, 226, 228, 234, the system 100 conducts the interactive, iterative fence drawing process.”).
Gilbert fails to teach explicitly wherein building the second fence panel includes applying a third mark to the second fence panel and applying a fourth mark to the second fence panel, wherein a second line extending from the third mark to the fourth mark is level when the second fence panel is installed in an orientation presented in the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run.
DIY teaches wherein building the second fence panel includes applying a third mark to the second fence panel and applying a fourth mark to the second fence panel (Image 1: lines on the pickets), wherein a second line extending from the third mark to the fourth mark is level when the second fence panel is installed in an orientation presented in the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence run (Image 1 lines on the pickets).
As per Claim 3, Gilbert fails to teach explicitly wherein the first line is coincident with the second line.
DIY teaches wherein the first line is coincident with the second line (the pickets of Image 1).
As per Claim 4, Gilbert fails to teach explicitly wherein the first line is offset from the second line.
DIY teaches wherein the first line is offset from the second line (the pickets of Image 1).
As per Claim 5, Gilbert teaches wherein the fence panel has a first rail and a second rail, and the first and second marks are located between the first rail and the second rail ([0016] “railing, decking, highway guardrails and barriers,”).
As per Claim 6, Gilbert fails to teach explicitly wherein the first and second rails and the first and second marks are each located on a first major side surface of the fence panel.
DIY teaches wherein the first and second rails and the first and second marks are each located on a first major side surface of the fence panel (Image 1).
As per Claim 7, Gilbert fails to teach explicitly wherein the first mark is located on a first fence board and the second mark is located on a second fence board.
DIY teaches wherein the first mark is located on a first fence board and the second mark is located on a second fence board (Image 1).
As per Claim 8, Gilbert fails to teach explicitly wherein the first mark is located at an innermost edge of the first fence board and the first fence board is located at an edge of the fence panel.
DIY teaches wherein the first mark is located at an innermost edge of the first fence board and the first fence board is located at an edge of the fence panel (Image 1).
As per Claim 9, Gilbert fails to teach explicitly wherein the second fence board is located at a center of the fence panel.
DIY teaches wherein the second fence board is located at a center of the fence panel (Image 1).
As per Claim 10, Gilbert fails to teach explicitly wherein a distance between the first and second marks is at least 24 inches and no more than 46 inches. However, Gilbert teaches fence selection inputs including data values such as indicate the length, width, and/or spacing requirements of the various fence components that are needed to construct ([0002], [0021]).
Further DIY teaches the first and second marks (Image 1).
However, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate DIY into Gilbert’s invention for purpose of fence project to select a spacing range i. e. 24-46 inches for reference marks which indicating spacing of the fence boards for variation of it for use based on design incentives. In other words, selecting a spacing range for reference marks is a result-effective, routine dimensioning choice tied to typical panel width/board spacing would be a predictable matter of design once the marking concept is adopted for installation guidance. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) as shown in Gilbert and DIY.
6. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silverline Tools (“How to build a fence by Silverline Tools: https://youtu.be/iWAZux69vco”), and further in view of DIY (“DIY Fence On a Budget!: https://youtu.be/Nst-QWq5Cuc”).
As per 11, Silverline Tools teaches a method (All images), comprising:
driving a first wedge between a first fence board and a second fence board of a fence panel (Image1-4: using the harass rail to drive a gap between fence boards);
driving a second wedge between a third fence board and a fourth fence board of the fence panel (Image1-4: applying the harass rail to drive a gap between fence boards); and
supporting a … level on the first and second wedges (Image 3: repeatedly applying the harass rail to drive a gap and to check the levels both top and bottom).
DIY teaches supporting a spirit level (Image 10-11).
Silverline Tools and DIY are analogous art because they are both related to a method for a fence designing and installation project.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate DIY into Silverline Tools’ invention for purpose of fence project to provide level reference guidance for the designed orientation (DIY: Image 1 & 10).
As per 12, Silverline Tools fails to teach explicitly wherein driving the first wedge between the first fence board and the second fence board includes driving the first wedge between the first fence board and the second fence board adjacent to a first mark on the fence panel and driving the second wedge between the third fence board and the fourth fence board includes driving the second wedge between the third fence board and the fourth fence board adjacent to a second mark on the fence panel, where a line extending from the first mark to the second mark is level when the fence panel is installed in a designed orientation.
DIY teaches wherein driving the first wedge between the first fence board and the second fence board includes driving the first wedge between the first fence board and the second fence board adjacent to a first mark on the fence panel and driving the second wedge between the third fence board and the fourth fence board includes driving the second wedge between the third fence board and the fourth fence board adjacent to a second mark on the fence panel (Image 1), where a line extending from the first mark to the second mark is level when the fence panel is installed in a designed orientation (Image 1).
7. Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (US 20150363950 A1), and further in view of Weatherables (“Vinyl Fencing Installation Guide”).
As per Claim 13, Gilbert teaches a method (Fig. 1-3), comprising:
presenting, to a user via a first user interface, a visual representation of a first fence panel and a second fence panel adjacent to the first fence panel within a fence run (Fig. 1-3, [0021]-[0023], [0025], “The fence drawing module 116 receives fence project design inputs 114, and in response to the inputs 114, generates a graphical rendering of the design of a fence project. In doing so, the fence drawing module 116 enables an end user to interactively draw and/or insert graphical elements representing components of a fence on a scalable grid interface.”);
providing, to the user, a second user interface for receiving user input (Fig. 4-5, [0020]-[0023] “FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary user interface screen 400, by which the fence selection inputs 102 may be obtained…. fence materials (e.g., plastic, aluminum, chain link, vinyl, wood, etc.), privacy type (e.g., private, semi-private, picket), and fence height may be selected”, “The fence drawing module 116 also allows the end user to d add graphical elements indicating aspects of the surrounding geographic environment to the fence drawing. The fence drawing can be performed using a computer mouse, stylus, or by the user with a finger “drawing” on a touchscreen display, or by another suitable user interface mechanism.”, “user interface screen 500 displays portions of the fence materials data 108 corresponding to the fence selection inputs 102, at dialog area 510. For example, an image of the selected fence style, as well as fence components, dimensions and other details”) …;
receiving, from the user via the second user interface, at least one input (Fig. 3, “user interface subsystem 370”, Fig. 4-8, [0020]-[0023] “FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary user interface screen 400, by which the fence selection inputs 102 may be obtained…. fence materials (e.g., plastic, aluminum, chain link, vinyl, wood, etc.), privacy type (e.g., private, semi-private, picket), and fence height may be selected”, [0030], [0047], [0050] “the server computing device 350 may include one or more server computers including storage media 360, which may be used to store portions of the fence estimator modules 358, the fence database 106, the graphical elements 322, and/or other data.”, “receive imagery of a geographic location and overlay the fence drawing on the imagery of the geographic location.”) …;
dynamically updating the visual representation of the first and second fence panels based at least in part on user input ([0022], [0029], [0036] “the system 100 allows the user to simply drag the gate 630 along the fence line, e.g., tracing on top of the fence line, to change its position on the fence line, and the system 100 automatically updates the fence line to incorporate the new gate position…. with the gate 630 now positioned at a corner of the fence, the system 100 automatically updates the corner post 540 shown in FIG. 5 to a gate post 628 in FIG. 6 and updates the fence project specifications 118 to reflect the change in post type.”, “the system 100 adjusts the fence drawing in real time, automatically, as graphical elements are added to the drawing, re-sized, or re-positioned.”) …; and
presenting the dynamically updated visual representation of the first and second fence panels to the user via the first user interface (Fig. 2, 4-8 [0031], [0033] “the fence drawing module 116 determines and outputs the fence project specifications 118, which include the physical measurements (e.g., lengths) of all fence segments in the drawing of the fence project, as calculated by the fence drawing module 116, and quantities and measurements of the other fence components shown in the fence drawing (e.g., gates, posts, etc.).”, “The quote 800 includes an image of the selected fence material 810, a copy of the fence drawing 812, and a detailed listing 814 of materials, quantities, unit prices, total prices for each material, and total project cost.”: the drawing is dynamically adjusted and then adjusted against geographic data including against the images of the installation site).
Gilbert fails to teach explicitly specifying a degree to which lower profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another.
Weatherables teaches specifying a degree to which lower profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another (Pg 4). In particular, Weatherables teaches slope planning/stepped vs racked installation method depend on grade/slope (Pg 4).
Gilbert and Weatherables are analogous art because they are both related to a method for a fence designing and installation project.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Weatherables into Gilbert’s invention to output installation/build instructions consistent with known fence-installation practices for proper placement (Weatherables: Pg 10).
As per Claim 14, Gilbert teaches updating the visual representation (Fig. 2, 4-8 [0031], [0033]).
Gilbert fails to teach explicitly determining that a ground surface at one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled is above a best fit line determined by the ground surface over which the fence run extends; and
… the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to decrease a clearance distance between the lower profiles of the first and second fence panels at the one of the set of fence posts.
Weatherables teaches determining that a ground surface at one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled is above a best fit line determined by the ground surface over which the fence run extends (Pg 3-4 “run a string line”);
the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to decrease a clearance distance between the lower profiles of the first and second fence panels at the one of the set of fence posts (Pg 3-4 “run a string line to determine the slope of your yard. After determining the slope of your yard, check the spec diagram for your specific style of fence to ensure that it can accommodate the required slope”).
As per Claim 14, Gilbert teaches updating the visual representation (Fig. 2, 4-8 [0031], [0033]).
Gilbert fails to teach explicitly determining that a ground surface at one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled is below a best fit line determined by the ground surface over which the fence run extends; and
… the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to increase a clearance distance between the lower profiles of the first and second fence panels at the one of the set of fence posts.
Weatherables teaches determining that a ground surface at one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled is below a best fit line determined by the ground surface over which the fence run extends (Pg 3-4); and
the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to increase a clearance distance between the lower profiles of the first and second fence panels at the one of the set of fence posts (Pg 3-4).
As per Claim 15, Gilbert teaches further comprising:
providing, to the user, a third user interface for receiving user input ([0013] “The illustrative fence estimator computing system 100 enables fence contractors and others to plan, estimate, organize, and sell fence projects using, for example, a web-based service or a mobile device, such as a smart phone or tablet computer, including any web browser accessible by, e.g., personal computers (PCs, including APPLE Macintosh-based products), iOS-based devices, and ANDROID devices.”, [0040] “client-side” or “front end”, Fig. 1-5, [0020] “FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary user interface screen 400, by which the fence selection inputs 102 may be obtained…. fence materials (e.g., plastic, aluminum, chain link, vinyl, wood, etc.), privacy type (e.g., private, semi-private, picket), and fence height may be selected”, [0022]-[0023], [0025], “The fence drawing module 116 receives fence project design inputs 114, and in response to the inputs 114, generates a graphical rendering of the design of a fence project. In doing so, the fence drawing module 116 enables an end user to interactively draw and/or insert graphical elements representing components of a fence on a scalable grid interface.”) …;
receiving, from the user via the third user interface, at least one input ([0013] “The illustrative fence estimator computing system 100 enables fence contractors and others to plan, estimate, organize, and sell fence projects using, for example, a web-based service or a mobile device, such as a smart phone or tablet computer, including any web browser accessible by, e.g., personal computers (PCs, including APPLE Macintosh-based products), iOS-based devices, and ANDROID devices.”, [0040] “client-side” or “front end”, Fig. 1-5, [0020] “FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary user interface screen 400, by which the fence selection inputs 102 may be obtained…. fence materials (e.g., plastic, aluminum, chain link, vinyl, wood, etc.), privacy type (e.g., private, semi-private, picket), and fence height may be selected”, [0022]-[0023], [0025], Fig. 4-5, [0020]-[0023], “The fence drawing module 116 receives fence project design inputs 114, and in response to the inputs 114, generates a graphical rendering of the design of a fence project. In doing so, the fence drawing module 116 enables an end user to interactively draw and/or insert graphical elements representing components of a fence on a scalable grid interface.”) …;
dynamically updating the visual representation of the first and second fence panels based at least in part on user input ([0022], [0029], [0036] “the system 100 allows the user to simply drag the gate 630 along the fence line, e.g., tracing on top of the fence line, to change its position on the fence line, and the system 100 automatically updates the fence line to incorporate the new gate position…. with the gate 630 now positioned at a corner of the fence, the system 100 automatically updates the corner post 540 shown in FIG. 5 to a gate post 628 in FIG. 6 and updates the fence project specifications 118 to reflect the change in post type.”, “the system 100 adjusts the fence drawing in real time, automatically, as graphical elements are added to the drawing, re-sized, or re-positioned.”) …; and
presenting the dynamically updated visual representation of the fence panel to the user via the first user interface (Fig. 2, 4-8 [0031], [0033] “the fence drawing module 116 determines and outputs the fence project specifications 118, which include the physical measurements (e.g., lengths) of all fence segments in the drawing of the fence project, as calculated by the fence drawing module 116, and quantities and measurements of the other fence components shown in the fence drawing (e.g., gates, posts, etc.).”, “The quote 800 includes an image of the selected fence material 810, a copy of the fence drawing 812, and a detailed listing 814 of materials, quantities, unit prices, total prices for each material, and total project cost.”: the drawing is dynamically adjusted and then adjusted against geographic data including against the images of the installation site).
Gilbert fails to teach explicitly specifying a degree to which lower profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another.
Weatherables teaches specifying a degree to which lower profiles of the first and second fence panels are to be aligned with one another (Pg 4). In particular, Weatherables teaches slope planning/stepped vs racked installation method depend on grade/slope (Pg 4).
As per Claim 17, Gilbert teaches updating the visual representation (Fig. 2, 4-8 [0031], [0033]).
Gilbert fails to teach explicitly determining that a top end of one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled will extend above a best fit line determined by the top ends of each of the set of fence posts; and
… the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to decrease a height of the one of the set of fence posts.
Weatherables teaches determining that a top end of one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled will extend above a best fit line determined by the top ends of each of the set of fence posts (Pg 3-4 “run a string line”); and
the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to decrease a height of the one of the set of fence posts (Pg 3-4: stepped vs racked context motivate both top and bottom alignment control).
As per Claim 18, Gilbert teaches updating the visual representation (Fig. 2, 4-8 [0031], [0033]).
Gilbert fails to teach explicitly determining that a top end of one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled will extend below a best fit line determined by the top ends of each of the set of fence posts; and the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to increase a height of the one of the set of fence posts.
Weatherables teaches determining that a top end of one of a set of fence posts to which the first and second fence panels are to be coupled will extend below a best fit line determined by the top ends of each of the set of fence posts (Pg 3-4 “run a string line”); and
the visual representation of the first and second fence panels to increase a height of the one of the set of fence posts (Pg 3-4: stepped vs racked context motivate both top and bottom alignment control).
As per Claim 19, Gilbert teaches updating the visual representation (Fig. 2, 4-8 [0031], [0033]).
Gilbert fails to teach explicitly determining that an upper profile of one of the fence panels will extend above a best fit line determined by the upper profiles of fence panels in the fence run; and … the visual representation of the one of the fence panels to decrease a height of the upper profile of the one of the fence panels.
Weatherables teaches determining that an upper profile of one of the fence panels will extend above a best fit line determined by the upper profiles of fence panels in the fence run (Pg 3-4 “run a string line”); and
the visual representation of the one of the fence panels to decrease a height of the upper profile of the one of the fence panels (Pg 3-4: stepped vs racked context motivate both top and bottom alignment control).
As per Claim 20, Gilbert teaches updating the visual representation (Fig. 2, 4-8 [0031], [0033]).
Gilbert fails to teach explicitly determining that an upper profile of one of the fence panels will extend below a best fit line determined by the upper profiles of fence panels in the fence run; and… the visual representation of the one of the fence panels to increase a height of the upper profile of the one of the fence panels.
Weatherables teaches determining that an upper profile of one of the fence panels will extend below a best fit line determined by the upper profiles of fence panels in the fence run (Pg 3-4 “run a string line”); and the visual representation of the one of the fence panels to increase a height of the upper profile of the one of the fence panels (Pg 3-4: stepped vs racked context motivate both top and bottom alignment control).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Livesey et al. (US 6492993 B1)
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188