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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed10/22/25 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 15-20 remain pending in the application, Claims 13-14 have been canceled, and Claim 21 is new. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 7/22/25.
The remarks found in the Response to Office Action have been entered and have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the new art found during a further search necessitated by amendment of the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/4/25 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 7/22/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay (US D659031), previously cited, in view of Marshall (US 7,174,650), previously cited.
Regarding Claim 1: MacKay teaches a trim square (figs 3 and 4) comprising a triangular main body defined by a first leg and a second leg that form a right angle at an intersection therebetween and a third leg extending between distal ends of the first and second legs (see annotated fig 3 below); and a retention element at the second leg (see annotated fig 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
455
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MacKay does not specifically teach a base operably coupled to the main body via the retention element wherein the main body extends in a first plane and the base extends in a second plane substantially perpendicular to the first plane and wherein the base is movable relative to the main body in the second plane, wherein the longitudinal ends of the base are retained in a reception groove by a tongue-in-groove retaining structure formed at portions of the second leg that engage the longitudinal ends of the base.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Marshall teaches a square (figs 1-10) with a main body (12/14) and a base (16) operably coupled to the main body via a retention element (see fig 3 where base 16 sits in a groove of main body 14) wherein the main body extends in a first plane and the base extends in a second plane substantially perpendicular to the first plane (fig 1) and wherein the base is movable relative to the main body in the second plane (fig 8), wherein the longitudinal ends of the base are retained in a reception groove by a tongue-in-groove retaining structure formed at portions of the second leg that engage the longitudinal ends of the base (fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of MacKay with the base and tongue-in-groove of Marshall for the purpose of providing an adjustable straightedge element without repositioning the tool (abstract), further tongue in groove is a well-known method of securing parts in the art.
Regarding Claim 9: MacKay in view of Marshall discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and MacKay further teaches wherein the base is configured to be fixed relative to the main body such that a first portion of the base extends perpendicularly away from a first side of the main body and a second portion of the base extends perpendicularly away from a second side of the main body (fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10: MacKay in view of Marshall discloses the invention as described in Claim 9 and Marshall further teaches the first and second portions having adjustable lengths that are either both the same or different from each other (see figs 1 and 8, by moving 16 its essentially changing the lengths of the first and second portions).
Regarding Claim 21: MacKay in view of Marshall discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and MacKay further teaches wherein the base is configured to be fixed relative to the main body such that a first portion of the base extends perpendicularly away from a first side of the main body and a second portion of the base extends perpendicularly away from a second side of the main body (fig. 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by MacKay in view of Marshall, in further view of Bennett (US 8,276,285), previously cited.
Regarding Claim 2: MacKay in view of Marshall discloses the trim square of Claim 1. MacKay further discloses wherein the base has a length, width and thickness (fig 10), wherein the second leg comprises a reception groove (see annotated fig 4 above) MacKay in view of Marshall does not specifically teach wherein the second leg is longer than the length of the base and the reception groove is substantially equal in length to the length of the base wherein the reception groove has a depth substantially equal to a thickness of the base and wherein the width of the base is greater than a thickness of the main body. Bennett, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the length of the second leg is slightly longer than the length of the base (fig 2) and a width of the base (fig 2: 16, flange; col 2 lines 3-4) is greater than a thickness of the main body (fig 2: 12, 16; col 2 lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of MacKay in view of Marshall with the teachings of Bennett in order to provide additional stability to the device by having a wider base, a principle well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. MacKay in view of Marshall and Bennett does not specifically teach the reception groove is substantially equal in length to the length of the base wherein the reception groove has a depth substantially equal to a thickness of the base. However, both changes in size and shape are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPRQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966). It does not appear that the different lengths and thicknesses as claimed are critical to the instant invention but are more likely routine optimization.
Claims 3-4 are rejected over MacKay in view of Marshall, Bennett and further in view of Logan (US2020/0307300), previously cited.
Regarding Claim 3: MacKay in view of Bennett teaches the trim square of Claim 2. MacKay in view of Marshall and Bennett however does not teach the retention element comprises one or more magnets. Logan, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the retention element comprises one or more magnets (fig 3: 26, 28, 34; [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of MacKay in view of Marshall and Bennett with the teachings of Logan in order to provide an inexpensive and readily available alternative way to retain a base with respect to the trim square (Logan [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4: MacKay in view of Marshall, Bennett, and Logan teaches the trim square of Claim 3. Logan further teaches the base is made of ferromagnetic material ([0048]), and wherein the one or more magnets (fig 3: 34); [0034]) are disposed in the second leg at the reception groove (figs 1, 3: 28, 34; [0034]; the location of the magnets in Logan corresponds to the groove in MacKay). Rationale to combine is the same as in Claim 3.
Claims 5-7 are rejected by MacKay in view of Marshall in further view of Foster (US2016/0271789), previously cited.
Regarding Claim 5: MacKay in view of Marshall teaches the trim square of Claim 1 but does not specifically teach wherein the base is removable relative to the main body. In a similar field of endeavor, Foster teaches wherein the base (fig 2: 31, arm element; [0029]) is removable ([0029]) relative to the main body (fig 2: 11, base member; Abstract, [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of MacKay and Marshall with the teachings of Foster in order to enable the invention to be configured with different interchangeable tools ([0029)).
Regarding Claim 6: MacKay in view of Marshall and Foster teaches the trim square of Claim 5. Foster further teaches wherein the base (fig 2: 31, arm element) is replaceable ([0029]) with a replacement base that is different than the base ([0029]: interchangeable arm elements). Rationale to combine is the same as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 7: MacKay in view of Marshall and Foster teaches the trim square of Claim 6. Foster further teaches wherein the base has a different set of measurement markings than the replacement base, or wherein the replacement base (fig 2: 31, 41) has a different width than the width of the base (fig 1: 31, 33). Rationale to combine is the same as Claim 5.
Claim 8 is rejected over MacKay in view of Johnson (US 5,038,487).
Regarding Claim 8: MacKay teaches a trim square (figs 3 and 4) comprising a triangular main body defined by a first leg and a second leg that form a right angle at an intersection therebetween and a third leg extending between distal ends of the first and second legs (see annotated fig 3 above). MacKay does not specifically teach a base operably coupled to the main body via a retention element at one of the first or second leg wherein the main body extends in a first plane and the base extends in a second plane substantially perpendicular to the first plane and wherein the base is moveable relative to the main body in the second plane, wherein the retention element comprises a spring loaded shaped protrusion at at least one longitudinal end of the base and a shaped receiver formed at a reception groove in the base, the shaped receiver being shaped to conform to the spring-loaded shaped protrusion. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Johnson(figs 1-3) teaches a main body (15) with a base (10) operably coupled to the main body via a retention element at one of the first or second leg (13) wherein the main body extends in a first plane and the base extends in a second plane substantially perpendicular to the first plane (fig 1) and wherein the base is moveable relative to the main body in the second plane (fig 1), wherein the retention element comprises a spring loaded shaped protrusion at at least one longitudinal end of the base and a shaped receiver formed at a reception groove in the base (col 2 lines 45-50 where the openings at the bottom shown best in fig 2 are the groove), the shaped receiver being shaped to conform to the spring-loaded shaped protrusion (fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of MacKay with the spring loaded moveable base of Johnson for the purpose of providing secure attachment (col 2 lines 43-45) while permitting the square to be free standing (col 1 lines 24-26).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacKay in view of Marshall in further view of Logan.
Regarding Claim 11: MacKay teaches a trim square (figs 3 and 4) comprising a triangular main body defined by a first leg and a second leg that form a right angle at an intersection therebetween and a third leg extending between distal ends of the first and second legs (see annotated fig 3 below); and a retention element at the second leg (see annotated fig 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
455
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MacKay does not specifically teach a base operably coupled to the main body via the retention element wherein the main body extends in a first plane and the base extends in a second plane substantially perpendicular to the first plane.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Marshall teaches a square (figs 1-10) with a main body (12/14) and a base (16) operably coupled to the main body via a retention element (see fig 3 where base 16 sits in a groove of main body 14) wherein the main body extends in a first plane and the base extends in a second plane substantially perpendicular to the first plane (fig 1) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of MacKay with the base and of Marshall for the purpose of providing an adjustable straightedge element without repositioning the tool (abstract). MacKay in view of Marshall does not specifically teach wherein the retention element is magnetic and comprises a plurality of magnets disposed spaced apart from each other in the second leg where the base is made of ferromagnetic material. However, in a similar field of endeavor Logan teaches a retention element comprises one or more magnets (fig 3: 26, 28, 34; [0034]) where the base is made of ferromagnetic material ([0048]), and wherein the one or more magnets (fig 3: 34); [0034]) are disposed in the second leg at the reception groove (figs 1, 3: 28, 34; [0034]; the location of the magnets in Logan corresponds to the groove in MacKay). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of MacKay in view of Marshall with the teachings of Logan in order to provide an inexpensive and readily available alternative way to retain a base with respect to the trim square (Logan [0034]). MacKay in view of Marshall and Logan does not specifically teach the magnets being spaced apart from each other, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try and provide multiple magnets spaced apart with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of creating a strong alignment without locking (see Logan [0034]). Further it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the magnets are still used to secure the base to the main body.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by MacKay in view of Marshall and Logan, in further view of Bennett.
Regarding Claim 12: MacKay in view of Marshall and Logan discloses the trim square of Claim 1. MacKay further discloses wherein the base has a length, width and thickness (fig 10), wherein the second leg comprises a reception groove (see annotated fig 4 above) MacKay in view of Marshall does not specifically teach wherein the second leg is longer than the length of the base and the reception groove is substantially equal in length to the length of the base wherein the reception groove has a depth substantially equal to a thickness of the base and wherein the width of the base is greater than a thickness of the main body. Bennett, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the length of the second leg is slightly longer than the length of the base (fig 2) and a width of the base (fig 2: 16, flange; col 2 lines 3-4) is greater than a thickness of the main body (fig 2: 12, 16; col 2 lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of MacKay in view of Marshall and Logan with the teachings of Bennett in order to provide additional stability to the device by having a wider base, a principle well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. MacKay in view of Marshall, Logan, and Bennett does not specifically teach the reception groove is substantially equal in length to the length of the base wherein the reception groove has a depth substantially equal to a thickness of the base. However, both changes in size and shape are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPRQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966). It does not appear that the different lengths and thicknesses as claimed are critical to the instant invention but are more likely routine optimization.
Claims 15-20 are rejected by MacKay in view of Marshall and Logan and in further view of Foster.
Regarding Claim 15: MacKay in view of Marshall and Logan teaches the trim square of Claim 11 but does not specifically teach wherein the base is removable relative to the main body. In a similar field of endeavor, Foster teaches wherein the base (fig 2: 31, arm element; [0029]) is removable ([0029]) relative to the main body (fig 2: 11, base member; Abstract, [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of MacKay and Marshall with the teachings of Foster in order to enable the invention to be configured with different interchangeable tools ([0029)).
Regarding Claim 16: MacKay in view of Marshall, Logan and Foster teaches the trim square of Claim 15. Foster further teaches wherein the base (fig 2: 31, arm element) is replaceable ([0029]) with a replacement base that is different than the base ([0029]: interchangeable arm elements). Rationale to combine is the same as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17: MacKay in view of Marshall, Logan and Foster teaches the trim square of Claim 16 but do not specifically disclose wherein the base has a different set of measurement markings than the replacement base. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try and provide the base with a different set of measurement markings than the replacement base with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of being able to use the same main body in a variety of situations like using imperial v metric units.
Regarding Claim 18: MacKay in view of Marshal, Logan and Foster teaches the trim square of Claim 16. Foster further teaches wherein the replacement base (fig 2: 31, 41) has a different width than the width of the base (fig 1: 31, 33). Rationale to combine is the same as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 19: MacKay in view of Marshall Logan and Foster discloses the invention as described in Claim 18 and MacKay further teaches wherein the base is configured to be fixed relative to the main body such that a first portion of the base extends perpendicularly away from a first side of the main body and a second portion of the base extends perpendicularly away from a second side of the main body (fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 20: MacKay in view of Marshall Logan and Foster discloses the invention as described in Claim 19 and Marshall further teaches the first and second portions having adjustable lengths that are either both the same or different from each other (see figs 1 and 8, by moving 16 its essentially changing the lengths of the first and second portions).
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 KRISTINA M DEHERRERA whose telephone number is (303)297-4237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5 MT.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4483. 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.
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 12/1/25