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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group IV in the reply filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because searching each of the Groups would require alternative search strategies, search queries, and different classification searching. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 19-23 are prosecuted below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “310” referencing the groove of the stake. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 19-23 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.
Re Clm 19: This claim recites “a groove, wherein said groove extends vertically down three of the four sides” It is unclear as to how a single groove can extend down three of the four sides? Is there a groove on each of three of the four sides?
Re Clm 21: This claim recites in the alternative “aluminum, an aluminum alloy, metal, vinyl, plastic, or any combination thereof”. Examiner notes that aluminum and aluminum alloy are both metals, and it is unclear as to what a combination of aluminum, aluminum allow, and metal would require. Similarly, vinyl is a plastic, so it would be unclear as to what would be required on a vinyl and plastic combination.
Re Clm 22: This claim recites in the alternative “roll-black screws, thread rolling screws, screws, bolts, or any combination thereof”. Examiner notes that roll-black screws and thread rolling screws are both screws, and it is unclear as to what a combination of roll-black screws, thread rolling screws, screws, would require.
Re Clm 23: This claim recites in the alternative “fixing post screws, binding post screws, bolts, screws, or any combination thereof”. Examiner notes that fixing post screws and binding post screws are both screws, and it is unclear as to what a combination of fixing post screws, binding post screws, and screws, would require.
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.
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagaki et al. (US 2003/0213947) in view of Yoder (US 5651534), KR 101439789, hereafter ‘789, and Daaboul (CA 3092760).
Re Clm 19 (as best understood): Tagaki et al. disclose a horizontal fence system (fig 3) comprising:
a. at least two posts (10), comprising a first post and a second post (see fig 3), located on the lateral outer ends of the horizontal fence system, wherein said first post and said second post comprise:
i. a stake (10) comprising four sides in a rectangular shape (see figs); a stake top end; a stake bottom end; a plurality of indentions (cavities) on said stake top end; and a groove (20), wherein said groove extends vertically down three of the four sides (see fig 5);
ii. a post cover (70b) comprising three sides in the shape of a U and secured over a longer side of the stake (see figs);
b. a plurality of slats (30); wherein the slats comprise:
a slat first end (left end),
a slat second end (right end), and
a long side (side)
wherein the plurality of said slats are perpendicular to the first post and the second post, evenly spaced horizontally, and fixedly attached between the first post and the second post (see figs); and
wherein the slat first end is removably attached to the first post by inserting the slat first end into the groove of the stake (see figs);
wherein the said slat second end is removably attached to the second post by inserting the slat second end into the groove of the stake (see figs); and
c. a plurality of spacers (spacers 70b between the slats 30); wherein the plurality of spacers are removably attached in the first post between each of the first ends of the slats and the plurality of spacers are removably attached in the second post between each of the second ends of the slats.
Tagaki et al. fail to disclose:
a post cap comprising of a plurality of protrusions, wherein the post cap and is fixedly attached to the stake by inserting the plurality of protrusions into the plurality of indentions on the stake top end;
a base plate, wherein said base plate is rectangular in shape; a plurality of cover fasteners; a base cover, wherein said base cover is rectangular in shape with a hollow middle section and secures to the stake bottom end using the plurality of cover fasteners; and a plurality of plate fasteners, wherein the plurality of plate fasteners secure the base plate to the base cover;
wherein the slats are foam-injected
Yoder teaches the use of a post cap (20) as part of a horizontal fence system, wherein the post cap comprises a plurality of protrusions (24a-d), wherein the post cap and is fixedly attached to a stake (post 12) by inserting the plurality of protrusions into a plurality of indentions (28a-d) on the stake top end (see fig 2). This is taught for the well-known purpose of providing a secure fence cap for preventing liquid from entering the post. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the fence system of Takagi et al. with a post cap (as taught by Yoder with a reasonable expectation of success) for the purpose of providing a secure fence cap for preventing liquid from entering the post.
‘789 teaches the use of a post base plate (22), wherein said base plate is rectangular in shape (fig 1); a plurality of cover fasteners (38); a base cover (30), wherein said base cover is rectangular in shape with a hollow middle section (32) and secures to the stake bottom end (bottom of 50) using the plurality of cover fasteners; and a plurality of plate fasteners (26 with 28), wherein the plurality of plate fasteners secure the base plate to the base cover (see fig 1). This is taught for the purpose of providing a secure and stable base for a post. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the fence system of Takagi et al. with a base system (as taught by ‘789 with a reasonable expectation of success) for the purpose of providing a secure and stable base for a post.
Daaboul teaches the use of fencing slats being foam-injected aluminum extruded profiles to provide stiffness and stability (Background of the Invention, page 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the slat in the fence system of Takagi et al. to be foam-injected slats, as taught by Daaboul with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing stiffness and stability.
Re Clm 20: Tagaki et al. as modified above disclose wherein the stake and the post cover are constructed using an the extrusion process (as described in paragraphs 0019 and 0021).
Re Clm 21: Tagaki et al. as modified above disclose wherein the material of construction for the stake, the post cover, the post cap, the base plate, and the base cover comprises of aluminum, an aluminum alloy, metal, vinyl, plastic, or any combination thereof. Examiner notes that the Abstract of Tagaki et al. discloses the components of the fencing system can be made of extruded plastic material.
Re Clm 22: Tagaki et al. as modified above disclose wherein the cover fasteners comprise of roll-black screws, thread rolling screws, screws, bolts, or any combination thereof (as taught by KR ‘789).
Re Clm 23: Tagaki et al. as modified above disclose wherein the plate fasteners comprise of fixing post screws, binding post screws, bolts, screws, or any combination thereof (as taught by KR ‘789).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN PETER MASINICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a-5p 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/JONATHAN P MASINICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678