DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to the Claim Objection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the amendments “ha made the appropriate corrections”. However, looking at the formatting of the claims, they remain the same.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of Claims 1 and 6 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been considered but are moot because the amendment(s) have necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection [see rejection below].
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b). Proper indention of limitations could be used in Claim 1. For example, the limitations about the top section should be indented under where it recites “top section”.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dimensions" on Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the length" on Line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 [and therefore its dependents] 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. Line 19 recites “wherein elastic material is provided” but Line 18 already recited “elastic material”. It is unclear if these are the same or different.
Claim 1 [and therefore its dependents] 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. Line 19 appears to both add and delete the word “a”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the post surface" on Page 2, Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 8,887,452 to Carhart [hereinafter “Carhart I”] in view of US Patent Application Publication # 2013/0042547 to Carhart [hereinafter “Carhart II”].
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Carhart I teaches in Figure 1, a post protector (10) (Column 2, Line 66) which is comprised of: a top section (22) [uppermost edge (Column 3, Line 61)], wherein the top section (22) has a first end and a second end, an opening [for the post 16], wherein the opening is proximate to the first end of the top section (22), wherein the opening is slightly larger than the dimensions of the post (16), a sleeve (14) [collar (Column 3, Lines 2-3)], wherein the sleeve (14) is one piece of material (Column 3, Lines 24-25); wherein the sleeve (14) extends a predetermined length, wherein the sleeve (14) is integral with the top section (22), wherein a portion of the sleeve (14) is below the surface of the ground (18) when installed, wherein a portion of the sleeve (14) remains above the surface of the ground (18), wherein the sleeve (14) does not extend the length of the post (16) [part of it goes upwards above the sleeve], elastic material (Column 4, Lines 56-57), wherein [the] elastic material (Column 4, Lines 56-57) is provided on the first end of the top section (22) proximate to the opening, wherein the elastic material (Column 4, Lines 56-57) is integrated with the sleeve (14), wherein the elastic material will provide a seal around the post (Abstract) above the ground (18), wherein the elastic material will flare upward [see 48 Figure 1] when the post (16) is inserted through the opening, wherein the post protector (10) fits a plurality of post shapes (Column 3, Lines 17-23), wherein the post protector (10) fits a plurality of post sizes (Column 3, Lines 17-23). Carhart I does not teach a plurality of ventilation holes. However, Carhart II teaches in Figures 1 and 2, a plurality of ventilation holes (52) (Paragraph 0021) that are positioned on the sleeve (14) [collar (Paragraph 0021)], wherein the plurality of ventilation holes (52) are positioned with a downward orientation from the post (16) surface towards the ground (18), wherein the ventilation holes (52) provide drainage of moisture (Paragraph 0029) away from the post (16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the two teachings of Carhart with a reasonable expectation of success because Carhart II teaches residual moisture of the post is free to evaporate (Paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 2, Carhart teaches a prost protector. Furthermore, Carhart teaches the plurality of shapes includes a rectangular shape (Column 3, Lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 3, Carhart teaches a prost protector. Furthermore, Carhart teaches the plurality of shapes includes a circular shape (Column 3, Lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 4, Carhart teaches a prost protector. Furthermore, Carhart teaches the plurality of shapes includes a square shape (Column 3, Lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 5, Carhart teaches a prost protector. Furthermore, Carhart teaches the elastic material is an acrylic material [thermoplastic elastomer (Column 4, Lines 56-59)].
Regarding claim 6, Carhart teaches a prost protector. Furthermore, Carhart teaches the elastic material a rubber material [thermoplastic elastomer (Column 4, Lines 56-59) is known to have rubber-like properties].
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 ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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 Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635