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 .
The amendment of September 23, 2025 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claim 4 is canceled and claims 1-3 and 5-6 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment to claims 1, 5 and 6 to provide that the standing member “has a hub and a pair of planar sections coupled to and extending from said hub” raises the issue of new matter, because the disclosure as filed describes the standing member as comprise a winged collar nut, and figures show planar portions of a specific shape extending from hub/central tube, and thus the disclosure as filed would not cover every possible pair of planar sections (included in the claim language above), and the scope of the claim is broader than that disclosed, and the claim contains new matter.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 also now provide that the “standing member is threadably fastened to said fence post at an adjustable distance from the bottom end of the fence and also “spaced from a bottom end of the fence post”. Applicant appears to be arguing that the distance must be adjustable. However, the disclosure as filed does not indicate the distance is adjustable. In the figures a distance from the end of the post is shown, and the specification refers of the standing member being positioned adjacent to the bottom end of the fence post, but not that this distance is adjustable. Therefore, the claims contain new matter.
Claims 1, 5 and 6, also now provide that “said hub having cylindrical internal threading complementary to the helical threading. . .”. In the figures, the hub is shown with threading, but it is not clear that the threading is specifically cylindrical, and not cylindrical in the form of helical, for example. The specification describes using female treads that threadedly engage with the male threads of the exterior surface (the helical threads). Therefore, the scope of the claim is broader than that disclosed, and the claim contains new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
The rejection of claims 1-6 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 is withdrawn due to the amendments of September 23, 2025 clarifying the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/237299 (hereinafter ‘299, used as provided with the IDS of May 3, 2023) in view of Cooper (US 7322773), Brumfield (US 3457358) and Fresnel (US 4066866).
Claim 1: ‘299 teaches a method of preventing deterioration of fencing due to corrosion, which would include oxidation (note 004, 006, 011, 082). The process includes coating a fence post with an anti-corrosion solution configured to prevent corrosion to the fence post due to oxidation (note 006, 011, 026, where the zinc bath understood to provide a solution to the extent claimed, noting the solution as having molten zinc in claim 2, where 026 has the temperature of the bath at 460 degrees C, above the melting temperature of zinc). Thereafter, the fence post is provided with a further second coating layer that can be a non-sacrificial, non-conductive (insulative) polymer/plastic coating (note 011, 048, 050, 051), where it is indicted that the second coating can be applied to the entire length of the post to extend the corrosion protection of the entire length of the post (note 082), where it would have been at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide this second coating to completely enclose the fence post so that the entire surface of the post is protected, since the desire is to protect the post and be covering the entire surface, all of the post would have the desired protection.
As to further fastening a standing member to the fence post and the standing member spaced from a bottom end of the fence post, where the standing member has a hub and a pair of planar sections coupled to and extending from the hub, where the hub has cylindrical internal threading complementary to the helical threading section (where the fence post has helical threading extending from a bottom edge of the fence post) when the helical threading is covered by said insulating sleeve (so that the insulation sleeve conforms to the helical threading on the fence post) when the helical threading is covered by the insulation sleeve such that the standing member is threadably fastened to the fence post at an adjustable distance from the bottom end of the fence post, and further inserting the bottom end and the standing member into a ground surface to frictionally anchor the fence post in the ground surface, and further as to specifically extending the post into an insulation sleeve to provide the second coating layer, ‘299 indicates that the second coating layer of the polymer/non-sacrificial layer can be provided by applying powder or dipping in liquid or spraying (note 051, 030-033). The fence post can be a metal fence post such as steel or alloy (note 011, 017). ‘299 also indicates that the post can have a ground anchoring region 10, and a non-ground anchoring region 11 where there are anchoring points for wires, etc., and where it is shown that the ground anchoring region can be provided with, spaced from the bottom end of the post, a pair of planar sections extending from the side of the post (note figure 1(viii), 117).
Cooper teaches a fence post 44 can be provided with a post mounting assembly with a rod 12 that would combine with the fence post, and so can be considered part of the resulting fence post, where the rod 12 includes the bottom part of the resulting fence post that is to be mounted in the ground (note figures 3-6, column 2, lines 1-45), where the rod 12 has helical threading extending from a bottom end of the fence post (note area 22 with wider spaced threads of threading 28) and threading further extends up from the bottom end in area 20 with threading 26, where this threading is also shown as helical (note figure 5), where this threading 26 has narrower spaced threads (note figures 3-6 and column 2, lines 1-45). However, the threading 26 and 28 can be considered overall threading for the post, as the present claims do not require a uniform threading. Cooper would further fasten a standing member (support arm 30) to the resulting fence post by way of rod 12, where the standing member would be spaced from a bottom end of the fence post (note figures 3-6, column 2, lines 1-45). The standing member has a hub and a pair of planar sections coupled to and extending from the hub (note part 32 extending to opening 34) (note figure 2). The hub would have cylindrical internal threading to the extent claimed complementary to the helical threading (since is threadably coupled to the rod 12), and the standing member would be threadably fastened to the fence post at a distance from the bottom end of the fence post, and it is understood that this distance is adjustable, as it can threadably couple to any of portion 20 (note figures 2-6, column 2, lines 10-45). In use, the bottom portion of the rod and the standing member are inserted into a ground surface, which would frictionally anchor the fence post in the ground (note figure 6, column 2, lines 30-45).
Brumfield indicates how metal fence posts can be provided with an insulated sheath (sleeve) (note column 1, lines 10-20), where the post can be steel (note column 1, lines 69-70), including how a plastic sheath can be provided that fits over the ends and sides of the post, and made to slip on the post, or heat shrunk to the post or applied by means such as plastic dip (note column 1, lines 60-72, column 3, lines 5-20).
Fresnel further describes providing heat shrinking of a sleeve/sheath of plastic over an entire container/objects of different sizes and shapes (note column 1, lines 1-15), where to provide this coverage, the article/objects is covered with the sleeve to be shrunk and then treated with hot air to cause the sleeve to shrink around the container/object to fit all parts of the container/object (note column 2, lines 25-45, column 6, lines 45-68, column 7, lines 5-20). Since the sleeve has to cover the object and shrink around the entire object, it is understood that the object must be extended into the sleeve to completely enclose the object to provide this coverage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘299 to provide the fence post with helical threading extending from a bottom end of the fence post, fastening a standing member to the fence post and the standing member being positioned spaced from a bottom end of the fence post, where the standing member has a hub and a pair of planar sections coupled to and extending from the hub, where the hub would have cylindrical internal threading complementary t0 the helical threading of the fence post such that the standing member is threadably fastened to the fence post at an adjustable distance away from the bottom end of the fence post, and in use inserting the bottom end of the fence post and the standing member into a ground surface to frictionally anchor the fence post in the ground surface, as suggested by Cooper to provide a desirable fence post mounting, since ‘299 indicates the fence post can be provided with in ground area and out of ground area, and there can be spaced planar structures for in ground area extending from the fence post at a distance from the bottom end of the post, and Cooper shows how fence post structures can be provided with an exterior fence post section with helical threading extending from a bottom end of the above ground fence post, fastening a standing member to the fence post and the standing member being positioned spaced from a bottom end of the fence post, where the standing member has a hub and a pair of planar sections coupled to and extending from the hub, where the hub would have cylindrical internal threading complementary t0 the helical threading of the fence post such that the standing member is threadably fastened to the fence post at an adjustable distance away from the bottom end of the fence post, and in use inserting the bottom end of the fence post and the standing member into a ground surface to frictionally anchor the fence post in the ground surface, where attaching the standing member in area 20 (as in Cooper) of the fence post still meets the claim requirements. Furthermore, even if it is desired to attach the standing member at area 22 (as in Cooper) of the fence post, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply provide a complementary threading for the standing member to this area, since the same action for stabilizing the fence post would be provided, where rearrangement of parts is obvious when the same results expected. Note MPEP 2144.04(VI))(C).
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘299 in view of Cooper to further provide the fence post second coating layer by extending the post into an insulation sleeve of the second plastic/polymer material to completely enclose the exterior surface of the fence post including exterior threaded sections in this material with heat shrinking to provide the layer as suggested by Brumfield and Fresnel with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘299 notes that the second layer can be provided of polymer/plastic and by different methods including dipping, and Brumfield indicates how a polymer/plastic layer can be provided on a metal fence post including with end and side coverage by dipping or heat shrinking, etc. and Fresnel further indicates that when applying a completely covering layer by heat shrinking plastic an object can be covered/inserted into a sleeve of the heat shrink material to completely enclose the object and then heat shrink to completely cover/enclose the object, giving a suggested way to provide the heat shrinking. Since the post and the threads suggested by Cooper would be covered for protection and the sleeve heat shrunk, the sleeve would conform to the helical threading on the fence post, and it would be suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the hub of the standing member would have cylindrical internal threading complementary to the helical threading when covered by the insulation sleeve so that the standing member can be threadably fastened to the fence post, since the purpose of the standing member threads is to allow fastening to the fence post provided, and the measurements for the connection would be based on the covered post including the threads, so that the standing member/hub fits for attachment. Also note the discussion for claim 3 below.
Claim 2: ‘299 indicates that the fence post can be an iron alloy material (steel) (note 017) and the anti-corrosion solution applied by applying an anti-corrosion solution comprising molten zinc (note 026 with a temperature above the melting point of zinc), where this is configured to react with the exterior surface of the fence post to provide a galvanized coat (note 026, 006, 011). The providing of the threaded fence post exterior surface would be suggested by Cooper, which has that the exterior portion of the fence post exposed to the ground, for example, is threaded (note figures2-6).
Claim 3: that the insulation sleeve would be a heat shrink material is suggested as discussed for claim 1 above, where the sleeve would be heated to shrink and abut continuously against the exterior of the surface of the fence post to seal the fence post within this insulation sleeve as suggested by ‘299 which wants a layer covering the surface, suggested to cover the entire surface, and Brumfield which indicates that heat shrinking can be equivalent to dip coating (note column 1, lines 65-70) and Fresnel which indicates that the heat shrinking will provide that the sleeve shrinks to provide a perfect fit around the entire object (note column 6, lines 55-65), which would suggest abutting continuously against the entire exterior to seal the fence post in the sleeve since a layer form is desired and the heat shrinking is understood to provide this by the fit.
Claim 5: the features of claim 5 would be suggested by ‘299 in view of Cooper, Brumfield and Fresnel, for the reasons discussed with regard to claims 1-3 above, where specifically, the features of lines 1-2 are discussed with regard to claim 1 above, lines 3-9 are discussed with regard to claims 1 and 2 above, lines 10-16 are discussed with regard to claims 1 and 3 above, and lines 17-28 are discussed with regard to claim 1 above.
Claim 6: the features of claim 6 would be suggested by ‘299 in view of Cooper, Brumfield and Fresnel, for the reasons discussed with regard to claims 1-3 above, where specifically, the features of lines 1-2 are discussed with regard to claim 1 above, lines 3-10 are discussed with regard to claims 1 and 3 above, and lines 11-22 are discussed with regard to claim 1 above.
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/237299 (hereinafter ‘299, used as provided with the IDS of May 3, 2023) in view of GB 139,231 (hereinafter ‘231), Brumfield (US 3457358) and Fresnel (US 4066866) is withdrawn due to the amendments changing the scope of the claims.
Williams (US 544942) also notes a wing shaped standing member (note figures 1, 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2025 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustment to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, including the removal of the use of GB ‘231 and the addition of the new reference to Cooper. Also note the new 35 USC 112 new matter rejections due to the amendments.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections to the claims, it is argued that the new features as to the standing member are not provided by the previous rejection. The Examiner notes these arguments, however, the new reference to Cooper has been provided as to the new features, and as discussed in the rejections above, the new combination of references suggests all features as now claimed.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718