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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Guffey (2006/0059822).
Guffey figures 1-5 shows a deck fixation system, comprising: a deck board(12), comprising: a top surface, a bottom surface, a first horizontal side spanning between the top surface and the bottom surface, a second horizontal side, opposite the first horizontal side, spanning between the top surface and the bottom surface, and a groove(18) defined in at least one of the first horizontal side and the second horizontal side, the groove extending an entire length of the deck board; and a first deck fixation clip (figure 8), comprising: a top portion(22) adapted to extend into the groove, wherein the top portion has a planar top surface extending continuously from a leading end(30) to a trailing end (the end on the other side of 30 into the page in figure 8) thereof, wherein the leading end is adapted to extend into the groove and the trailing end is opposite the leading end (the claim does not require the leading end not being in the same groove as the trailing end), a body portion(20) extending vertically below the planar top surface of the top portion, and one or more bottom projections(26) extending below the body sufficient to contact a decking frame member when the top portion extends into the groove of the deck board(able to function as claimed; par 31 line 5 “…may rest against….” ).
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) 3-4, 8-10, 12-18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guffey (2006/0059822) in view of Shadwell.
Guffey shows all the claimed limitations except for the first clip is joined to a second clip to form a strip of deck fixation clips, wherein the first and second clip have identical configurations, the first clip is joined to the second clip via a frangible section spanning between the top of the first and second clips.
Shadwell shows the first clip is joined to a second clip to form a strip of deck fixation clips, wherein the first and second clip have identical configurations, the first clip is joined to the second clip via a frangible section(124, 125) spanning between the top of the first and second clips.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Guffey’s structure to show the first clip is joined to a second clip to form a strip of deck fixation clips, wherein the first and second clip have identical configurations, the first clip is joined to the second clip via a frangible section spanning between the top of the first and second clips as taught by Shadwell with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form multiple clips in a single strip for quick usage and installation onto the floor panels.
Per claim 8, Guffey as modified further shows a decking clip assembly, comprising: a plurality of connected decking clips defining a clip strip(per Shadwell’s teaching), each of the plurality of decking clips including one or more connecting tabs (at 125/124) configured to frangibly connect to an adjacent one of the plurality of decking clips, and an aperture (34) configured to receive a fastener, wherein each of the decking clips comprises: a planar top portion, the planar top portion spanning between a leading edge and a trailing edge opposite the leading edge, at least one connecting tab spanning between a respective leading edge and trailing edge of adjacent decking clips in the clip strip(per Shadwell’s teaching); and a vertically extending body portion(20) that extends vertically from a bottom surface of the planar top portion, and that is elongated in a direction parallel to the leading edge and to the trailing edge (see the edges as set forth above in claim 1) wherein the aperture (34) configured to receive the fastener(36) extends vertically from the planar top portion through the vertically extending body portion.
Per claim 9, Guffey as modified further shows each of the decking clips comprises a plurality of downward-extending projections(26) from the vertically extending body portion(20).
Per claims 10, 17, Guffey as modified shows the plurality of decking clips comprises a bottom surface with a plurality of anti-slip ribs(38) defined on the top surface.
Guffey does not show the ribs being on the planar bottom surface portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Guffey’s modified structures to show the ribs on the bottom surface portion with a reasonable expectation of success since having ribs on both the top and bottom surfaces would enable the clip to bite into the surfaces of the groove and thus enhances the secured attachment of the clips to the panels.
Per claim 12, Guffey as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for a dummy clip located at one end of the clip strip, the dummy clip attached to one of the decking clips via a connecting tab, wherein the dummy clip lacks the aperture configured to receive a fastener.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Guffey’s modified structure to show a dummy clip located at one end of the clip strip, the dummy clip attached to one of the decking clips via a connecting tab, wherein the dummy clip lacks the aperture configured to receive a fastener in order to form a leading clip that initially load into the fastening apparatus.
Per claims 13-14, Guffey as modified further shows a fastener disposed in each aperture configured to receive the fastener, wherein each fastener extends partially above the planar top portion, wherein the fastener is a screw.
Per claim 15, Guffey as modified further shows a decking clip assembly, comprising: a plurality of operatively connected decking clips defining a clip strip, each of the decking clips defining a leading edge and a trailing edge opposite the leading edge, a first side edge spanning between the leading edge and the trailing edge, and a second side edge opposite the first side edge, spanning the leading edge and the trailing edge, a vertically extending body portion that extends vertically downward from a bottom surface of the planar top portion, and spans from the first side edge to the second side edge(the sides of the body portion can be reasonably interpreted to meet the claimed limitations), wherein at least one connecting tab spans between a respective leading edge and trailing edge of adjacent decking clips in the clip strip(24/25), and wherein each of the decking clips defines an aperture configured to receive a fastener; wherein the aperture(34) configured to receive the fastener extends vertically from the planar top portion through the vertically extending body portion, and a plurality of fasteners(36), wherein one of the fasteners is disposed in each of the apertures configured to receive the fastener for each of the decking clips in the clip strip such that each fastener extends partially above a top surface of the decking clip for each of the plurality of operatively connected decking clips in the clip strip.
Per claim 16, Guffey as modified further shows wherein one or more projections(26) extend vertically downward below a bottom surface of the vertically-extending portion.
Per claim 18, Guffey as modified further shows the trailing edge and the leading edge are both bevel(slope surface) across an entirety thereof.
Claim(s) 11, 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guffey (2006/0059822) in view of Shadwell as applied to claim 8/15 above and further in view of Snell.
Guffey as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the clips being formed entirely of a plastic material.
Snell et al discloses the use plastic material forming a supporting clip (column 5 lines 40-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Guffey’s modified structure to show the material being plastic as taught by Snell et al since 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, 125 USPQ 416; one thus having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to one substitute metal with plastic taught by Snell to form the clip as long as the material provides the needed property of anchoring the panels to the deck; furthermore, Guffey discloses in paragraph 39, the clip being made other materials as needed/desired.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snell in view of Guffey (2006/0059822).
Snell figures 1-4 shows a deck fixation system, comprising: a deck board(210), comprising: a top surface, a bottom surface, a first horizontal side spanning between the top surface and the bottom surface, a second horizontal side, opposite the first horizontal side, spanning between the top surface and the bottom surface, and a groove(where 120 goes into) defined in at least one of the first horizontal side and the second horizontal side, the groove extending an entire length of the deck board; and a first deck fixation clip (figure 1), comprising: a top portion(120, figures 1-3; the portion around and not including part 130, 320) adapted to extend into the groove, wherein the top portion has a planar top surface extending continuously from a leading edge (to the left of 120) to a trailing end (to the right) thereof, the leading end is adapted to extend into the groove and the trailing end is opposite the leading end (the railing end may be inserted into the same groove or not into the same groove as claimed), a body portion(110) extending vertically below the planar top surface of the top portion, and one or more bottom projections(330) extending below the body to contact a decking frame member when the top portion extends into the groove of the deck board(able to function as claimed), the top portion of the first deck fixation clip comprises a planar bottom surface portion, wherein a plurality of anti-slip ribs (125) are defined on the planar bottom surface portion, the leading end of the top portion of the first deck fixation clip is tapered ( at 125).
Snell does not show one or more bottom projections(330) extending below the body sufficient to contact a decking frame member when the top portion extends into the groove of the deck board.
Guffey (par 31 line 5) disclose having projections extending below the body sufficient to contact a decking frame member(…may rest against or…..).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Snell’s structure to show bottom projections extending below the body sufficient to contact a decking frame member when the top portion extends into the groove of the deck board as taught by Guffey with a reasonable expectation of success since having the projections sufficient to contact a decking frame member would enable the clips be strongly and stably mounted to the frame member while the fasteners provide tensioning connections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Guffey, the reference as set forth above, still shows claimed limitations. Guffey shows the planar top surface extending continuously from a leading end to a trailing end, and the claimed limitations in claim 1, do not require the trailing edge being outside of the same groove of the deck as the leading edge. Applicant’s statement to the groove 28, is insufficient to overcome the rejection as set forth above. With respect to “ projections extending below the body…”, the projections (26) meet the claimed limitation. The language of “a body portion” does not require the “portion” being made of the entire piece (20). Rather, the limitation of “ body portion” is reasonably broadly interpreted to mean a part of structure 20, in this case the part that is closer to part 22. The structure (20) is made of multiple “ body portion” as reasonably broadly interpreted. The projections are thus below the “ body portion” as claimed.
The rejections of claims 3-4, 8-10, 12-14 are thus also reasonably rejected as set forth above.
With respect to claim 10 and the ribs, the motivation to modify is reasonably set forth above. Furthermore, figures 2-4, shows the top and lower surfaces of the leading edge contact the interior of the groove. Having the ribs in the bottom surface thus also enable the clip to bite into the surfaces of the groove and thus enhances the secured attachment of the clips to the panels. The modification is thus motivated.
With respect to claim 12, as set forth above, the use of a dummy clip would enable the attachment of series of clips into the fastening apparatus. One having ordinary skill in the art thus would have found it obvious to have the dummy clip in order to form a leading clip that initially load into the fastening apparatus.
Claim 15, is still reasonably rejected as set forth above as Guffrey still shows the claimed leading/trailing edges.
Claims 16-18, are thus still reasonably rejected as set forth above.
With respect to “ beveled across an entirety…”, the reference shows the trailing and leading edges, each having a “beveling” across an entirety from the top to the bottom surface at 32, 30 figure 5. Furthermore, there are different shapes to “beveling”, and the reference shows “ beveling” as claimed.
With respect to Snell and claims 1, 6-7, Guffy shows the projections touching/contacting a decking frame member when installed (Par. 31 line 5), Snell as modified shows the clips be strongly and stably mounted to the frame member while the fasteners provide tensioning connections.
Snell also shows the claimed flat surface. Portion 530, is a possible embodiment (…col 6 lines 45-46….may also include…), which means it can also be without the area 530.
The following statements previously stated are still applicable to claims 6-7, are thus restated below.
With respect to “ rib”, Snell shows the claimed anti-slip rib. A rib: a supporting or stiffening part. Snell shows the rib being supporting and stiffening. Furthermore, Snell ribs function to anchor the clip in the grooves. It thus functions as an anti-slip structure.
With respect to claim 7, Snell as set forth above also shows the top portion of the fixation clip being tapered. Taper: to become progressively smaller toward one end; diminish or reduce in thickness toward one end. Snell shows the corner of the top surface being tapered/reduce in thickness.
Claim 12, is also reasonably rejected as set forth above. The use of a dummy clip enables the indication/protection of the beginning of the series of clip at the beginning of the process of utilizing the series of clips.
Per claims 15-17, the claims are also properly rejected as set forth above.
Per claim 18, Guffey as set forth above further shows the claimed edges being beveled across an entirety as set forth above.
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Guffey as modified above shows the claimed limitations with the reasonable reasoning set forth above.
The claims are thus rejected as set forth above.
With respect to claims 11 and 19, Guffey as modified shows all the claimed limitations. Furthermore, plastics and metal are well known material for forming clips. One having ordinary skill in the art thus would have found it obvious make the clips either out of plastic or metal as deemed needed for a particular tasks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior art does not show a second extending element having a length shorter than the first extending member, an angled cross member extending transversely between the first and second members, or a pair of connecting tabs span between and contact each facing pair of adjacent edges of the clip strip in combination with other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, BRIAN GLESSNER can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PHI D A/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights