DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Martin (US 10,794,063 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses a railing system (see Fig. 12) comprising:
at least one post (122-123 in Fig. 12);
at least one rod (121b-d in Fig. 12) defining a first distal end and a second distal end (see Fig. 12); and
at least one connector assembly (10 in Figs. 1-3) operably coupling one of the first distal end or the second distal end of the at least one rod to the at least one post (see Figs. 7-9 for example), wherein the at least one connector assembly comprises a plate (11 in Figs. 1-3) coupled with a wall of a corresponding post of the at least one post (see Fig. 13 for example), the plate defining an opening (see Fig. 1 for example) forming at least a portion of a seat (12 in Figs. 1-3), and a ball (14 in Figs. 1-3) coupled to the corresponding distal end of the at least one rod (see Figs. 7-9 for example) and received at least partially behind the plate within the opening (see Figs. 1-3), the opening pivotably receiving the ball such that the at least one connector assembly is configured for movably coupling the at least one rod to the at least one post such that the at least one rod is pivotable relative to the at least one post in at least one plane of movement (see Abstract and Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 2, Martin discloses wherein the at least one post (122-123 in Fig. 12) comprises at least a first post (122) and a second post (123), the second post spaced apart from the first post (see Fig. 12), the at least one rod (121b-d) extending between the first post and the second post (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 3, Martin discloses wherein the at least one connector assembly (10 in Figs. 1-3) comprises at least a first connector assembly (A in annotated Figure 12 below) movably coupling the one of the first distal end or the second distal end to the first post (122 in Fig. 12) and a second connector assembly (B in annotated Figure 12 below) movably coupling the other of the first distal end or the second distal end to the second post (123 in Fig. 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
1124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 12.
Regarding claim 4, Martin discloses wherein the at least one connector assembly (10 in Figs. 1-3) is configured for movably coupling the at least one rod (121b-d in Fig. 12) to the at least one post (122-123 in Fig. 12) such that the at least one rod is pivotable relative to the at least one post in multiple planes of movement (see Abstract and see Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 5, Martin discloses wherein the at least one connector assembly (10 in Figs. 1-3) is configured for movably coupling the at least one rod (121b-d in Fig. 12) to the at least one post (122-123 in Fig. 12) such that the at least one rod is pivotable relative to the at least one post in at least a vertical plane of movement and a horizontal plane of movement (see Abstract and see Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 6, Martin discloses further comprising a rail (121a in Fig. 12) extending perpendicularly from the at least one post (122-123 in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 7, Martin discloses further comprising at least one support (15 in Figs. 1-3) coupled to the at least one rod (121b-d in Fig. 12), the at least one support spaced from and extending generally parallel to the at least one post (122-123 in Fig. 13, see NOTE below).
NOTE: See in the Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and Fig. 13 that the support (15) can be moved relative to the post and therefore can be placed in a generally parallel position with respect to the post. Generally parallel is not defined in the specification and is therefore interpreted to mean any angle other than perpendicular to the post.
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses wherein the at least one support (15 in Figs. 1-3) is further coupled to at least one of the rail (121a in Fig. 12, see Fig. 12) and a support surface upon which the railing system is assembled (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 9, Martin discloses wherein the at least one connector assembly (10 in Figs. 1-3) comprises:
a ball (14 in Figs. 1-3) coupled to the one of the first distal end or the second distal end of the at least one rod (121b-d in Fig. 12); and
a seat (12 in Figs. 1-3) coupled to the at least one post (122-123 in Fig. 12) and adapted to at least partially retain and pivotably receive the ball within the seat (see Figs. 1-3), wherein pivotal movement of the ball within the seat operably couples the at least one rod for pivotable movement relative to the at least one post in the at least one plane of movement (see Abstract and Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Martin discloses wherein the plate (11 in Figs. 1-3) protrudes outwardly from the wall of the at least one post (122-123 in Fig. 12, see Figs. 12-13 for example).
Regarding claim 14, Martin discloses a connector assembly (10 in Figs. 1-3) for operably coupling a rod (121b-d in Fig. 12) to a post (122-123 in Fig. 12) within a railing system (see Fig. 12), the connector assembly comprising:
a ball (14 in Figs. 1-3) coupled to an end of the rod (see Fig. 12 for example); and
a plate (11 in Figs. 1-3) coupled with a wall of the post (see Figs. 12-13), the plate defining an opening (see Figs. 1-3) forming at least a portion of a seat (12 in Figs. 1-3), the seat adapted to at least partially retain and pivotably receive the ball within the seat at least partially behind the plate (see Figs. 1-3), wherein pivotal movement of the ball within the seat operably couples the rod for pivotable movement relative to the post in at least one plane of movement (see Abstract and Figs. 12-13).
Regarding claim 20, Martin discloses the plate (11 in Figs. 1-3) protruding outwardly from the wall of the post (122-123 in Fig. 12, see Figs. 12-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026, page 2, recite: “…Martin does not teach that the connector assembly comprises a plate coupled with a wall of a corresponding post of the at least one post, the plate defining an opening forming at least a portion of a seat, and a ball coupled to the corresponding distal end of the at least one rod and received at least partially behind the plate within the opening, the opening pivotably receiving the ball. Instead, Martin merely teaches a ball head mechanically captured within a ball race of a collar, with the ball race guiding movement of the ball head along the defined race…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Martin does in fact disclose the claim language argued above by Applicant. Martin discloses that the connector assembly (10 in Figs. 1-3) comprises a plate (11 in Figs. 1-3) coupled with a wall of a corresponding post (122-123 in Fig. 12) of the at least one post. Martin further discloses the plate (11 in Figs. 1-3) defining an opening (see Fig. 4 for example) forming at least a portion of a seat (12 in Figs. 1-3), and a ball (14 in Figs. 1-3) coupled to the corresponding distal end of the at least one rod (see Figs. 12-13) and received at least partially behind the plate within the opening (see Fig. 8 for example, the ball is received partially behind the front surface of the plate within the opening of the plate), the opening pivotably receiving the ball (see Abstract). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as Martin does in fact disclose the claimed subject matter.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026, page 2, recite: “…To the extent the Office Action relies on Martin's collar 11 or ball race 12 as allegedly corresponding to the claimed plate and opening, Applicant respectfully submits that such a mapping is improper because the cited structure is a race that confines and guides the ball head, not a plate opening that pivotably receives a ball positioned at least partially behind the plate. A ball race that mechanically captures and guides a ball along a predefined path is not the same as a plate coupled with a wall of a post and defining an opening that forms at least a portion of a seat…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies on 12 as being the seat, not the opening. Claim 1 requires that the plate define an opening forming a portion of the seat, and a ball received within the opening. It is understood that Martin discloses a plate 11 defining an opening forming a portion of the seat 12, and further that the ball 14 is received within the opening (see Fig. 8 for example). There are no limitations within the claim that prevent the seat from being a race. Martin meets all of the claimed limitations and therefore the rejection stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026, page 2, recite: “…Martin fails to disclose that the ball is received at least partially behind the plate and within the opening…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is addressed above in the response to arguments section.
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 ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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.
/ZAH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights