DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 December 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 17-19 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “rectilinear” in claim 17 is used by the claim to mean “comprising straight and curved members,” while the accepted meaning is “comprising only straight members connected at 90 degree angles.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Accordingly, Examiner interprets the rectilinear latch of claim 17 to be a latch comprising both straight and curved members.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over McShane (US 4,370,088 A).
Regarding claim 1, McShane discloses a fence gate latch (22 on B in annotated Figure 2 below, and B in annotated Figure 2 below), comprising:
a rectilinear body (38);
one or more connectors (30) extending from a first side of the body;
a first latch pin (upper member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 below) extending from a second side of the body and affixed thereto (see Fig. 6), the first latch pin defining an axis (see Figs. 5-6);
a handle (15, 16, 17 on B in annotated Figure 2 below) extending from the body forming no part of the one or more connectors, the entirety of the handle being outboard of the body and one or more connectors, and the body and the one or more connectors forming no portion of the handle (see Figs. 1 and 5), the handle having a first element (15) attached to the latch, a second element (17) attached to the latch, and an intermediate element (16) connected to both the first and second elements; and
the body movable relative to the fence gate (A in annotated Figure 2 below) from a first position (see Fig. 5) to a second position (see Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2.
Regarding claim 2, McShane discloses in which the second side (side having 32) is opposite the first side (side having 30) of the body (38 on B in annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 3, McShane discloses further including a second latch pin (lower member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 above), the second latch pin residing on the axis (32, see Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 4, McShane discloses further including a second latch pin (lower member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 above), the second latch pin residing on the axis (32), and the handle (15, 16, 17 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) residing between the first latch pin (upper member 32) and the second latch pin (lower member 32, see NOTE below).
NOTE: The handle is between the first and second latch pins when panel B in annotated Figure 2 above is viewed along the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 5, McShane discloses in which the one or more connectors (30) are plural identical apertures (see Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, McShane discloses in which the handle (15, 16, 17 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) and the body (38 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) define a polygon (Fig. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 7, McShane discloses in which the one or more connectors (30) are attached to the fence gate (A in annotated Figure 2 above) by a post (34) extending through the one or more connectors (see Fig. 5).
NOTE: The post 34 assists in attaching the connectors 30 to the panel (B in annotated Figure 2 above), and therefore assists in attaching the connectors to the fence gate (A in annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 8, McShane discloses in which the body (38 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) is biased by gravity to the first position (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, McShane discloses a fencing system, comprising:
a fence gate (C in annotated Figure 2 above);
a fence panel (A in annotated Figure 2 above) residing proximate to the fence gate, the fence panel having a vertical dimension defining a length (see NOTE below);
a post (38 on B in annotated Figure 2 above);
a latch, the latch (22 on B in annotated Figure 2 above, and mesh 10 on B in annotated Figure 2 above):
having a body (26 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) defining a vertical axis (38) and a vertical length at least equal to the vertical panel length (see NOTE below);
having a handle (K in annotated Figure 5 below) attached to the body, an aperture (opening in 26 accepting 38), and a first latch pin (upper member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 above);
the aperture being connected to the fence gate by the post (see Fig. 6), the post being movable relative to both the fence gate (see Fig. 2) and the latch (see specification Column 2 lines 66-67);
the handle including a first element (L in annotated Figure 5 below) attached to the latch, a second element (M in annotated Figure 5 below) attached to the latch, and an intermediate element (N in annotated Figure 5 below) connected to both the first and second elements; and
the latch movable along the axis between a first position (see Fig. 5) at which the first latch pin is connected with the fence panel and a second position (disconnected, see Fig. 6) at which the first latch pin is disconnected with the fence panel.
NOTE: The claim requires the fence panel to have a vertical dimension defining a length and does not require any length or dimension in particular. Accordingly, any dimension equal to or less than the largest height value of the fence panel meets the claim limitation. Accordingly, the fence panel defines a vertical dimension having a length equal to the body vertical length. Therefore, the claim limitations are met.
PNG
media_image2.png
780
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 5.
PNG
media_image3.png
835
669
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 5.
Regarding claim 10, McShane discloses in which the fence gate (C in annotated Figure 2 above) has a first hinge (12 on C in annotated Figure 2 above) and the aperture (opening in 26 accepting 38 on member B) is connected to the fence gate at the first hinge (see NOTE below).
NOTE: Latch 22 and section B in annotated Figure 2 above are connected to the fence gate C in annotated Figure 2 above by way of the hinge 12 on member C.
Regarding claim 11, McShane discloses in which the fence gate (C in annotated Figure 2 above) has a first hinge (12 on C in annotated Figure 2 above) and the aperture (opening in 26 accepting 38 on member B) is rotatably connected to the first hinge by the post (see NOTE below).
NOTE: The aperture (opening in 26 accepting 38 on member B) is connected to the hinge (12 on C in annotated Figure 2 above) by the post (38 on B in annotated Figure 2 above), see Figs. 2 and 5-6.
Regarding claim 12, McShane discloses in which the fence panel (A in annotated Figure 2 above) has a second hinge (upper member 40 on A in annotated Figure 2 above) and, in the first position (see Fig. 5), the first latch pin (upper member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) is connected with the fence panel at the second hinge (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, McShane discloses in which the fence panel (A in annotated Figure 2 above) has a second hinge (upper member 40 on A in annotated Figure 2 above) and, in the first position (see Fig. 5), the first latch pin (upper member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) is disposed through the second hinge (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, McShane discloses in which the latch (22 on B in annotated Figure 2 above, and mesh 10 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) also has a second latch pin (lower member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 above), the second latch pin residing colinearly with the first latch pin (upper member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 above, see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, McShane discloses in which the latch (22 on B in annotated Figure 2 above, and mesh 10 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) also has a second latch pin (lower member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) identical to the first latch pin (upper member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 above), the second latch pin residing colinearly with the first latch pin (see Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 16, McShane discloses in which the fence panel (A in annotated Figure 2 above) has a second hinge (upper member 40 on A in annotated Figure 2 above) and a third hinge (lower member 40 on A in annotated Figure 2 above), and the latch (22 on B in annotated Figure 2 above, and mesh 10 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) also has a second latch pin (lower member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 above), wherein, in the first position (see Fig. 5), the first latch pin is disposed through the second hinge (see Fig. 5) and the second latch pin is disposed through the third hinge (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, McShane discloses a fencing system, comprising:
a first panel (E in annotated Figure 2 below) and a second panel (F in annotated Figure 2 below), the first and second panels being identical (see Fig. 2); each of the first and second panels having an outboard hinge (40) along one side, the hinges residing proximate to each other;
a post (38 of G in annotated Figure 2 below);
a rectilinear (see NOTE below) latch (22 of G in annotated Figure 2 below), the latch:
residing between the first and second panels;
attached to the hinge of the first panel by the post (see Figs. 2 and 5-6), the post being vertically movable relative to either and both of the latch (see specification Column 2 lines 66-67) and the first panel (see Fig. 2);
having an outboard latch pin (upper member 32 on G in annotated Figure 2 below) residing opposite the attachment to the hinge of the first panel (see Fig. 2), the outboard latch pin defining a first position (see Fig. 5) and a second position (see Fig. 6), in which in the first position the latch pin is connected to the hinge of the second panel and in the second position the latch pin is disconnected from the hinge of the second panel (see Figs. 5-6); and
a handle (30 and 34 on G in annotated Figure 2 below), the handle extending from the post outboard of the attachment to the hinge of the first panel and including a first element (upper member 30 on G in annotated Figure 2 below) attached to the latch, a second element (lower member 30 on G in annotated Figure 2 below) attached to the latch, and an intermediate element (34 on G in annotated Figure 2 below) connected to both the first and second elements.
NOTE: In accordance with the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above, the latch of McShane does disclose a latch comprising straight and curved members.
PNG
media_image4.png
507
501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 2.
Regarding claim 18, McShane discloses in which the latch (22 of G in annotated Figure 2 above) has an aperture (opening in 26 that accepts 38), it being the aperture that is attached to the hinge of the first panel (40 on F in annotated Figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 19, McShane discloses in which the latch pin (upper member 32 on G in annotated Figure 2 above) is biased by gravity to the first position (see Fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025, pages 1-2, recite: “…As an initial mater, components 15, 16, 17, and 38 of McShane cannot anticipate the handle of Claim 1 as argued by the Office. Claim 1 is directed to a "fence gate latch." See Claim 1, preamble (emphasis added). Components 15, 16, 17, 38 of McShane make up fence section frame 9. See McShane, column 2, lines 22 -25 ("The frame 9 comprises an inner portion 16, a remote upright portion 38 and upper and lower horizontal portions 15 and 17."); see also McShane, Figures 1 & 5. McShane's rectangular frame 9 of fence section 6, which "formed of tubular pipes holding a panel of wire mesh 10," bears no resemblance to Applicant's latch. See McShane, column 2, lines 17 - 21; compare McShane, Figures 1 & 2 with Applicant's Figure 9. A fence frame is distinct from a fence latch and a fence latch is distinct from a fence frame…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s statement, the prior art is not required to resemble Applicant’s drawings, rather the prior art is required to read on the claim limitations in the pending claims. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are moot and the prior art does meet the claim limitations as shown above in the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025, page 2, recites: “…McShane does not disclose a latch pin affixed to a second side of a latch body. " Indeed, McShane discloses the opposite as the Office has previously argued that McShane's component 26, from which component 32 protrudes, is movable…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The first latch pin (upper member 32 on B in annotated Figure 2 above) is affixed to the second side of the body (38) and does not appear to be able to completely separate from the body without deformation. Even with some rotation or vertical movement of the first latch pin, the first latch pin does not appear to be able to completely separate from the body without deformation. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025, page 3, recites: “…Nevertheless, Claim 9 has been amended to recite "a fence panel having a vertical dimension defining a length" and a "latch[] having a vertical length at least The "thickness," or vertical length, of McShane's equal to the vertical panel length component 26 is not at least equal to the vertical length of frame 8, which the Office argues is Applicant's claimed fence panel. See, e.g. McShane, Figure 5 (reproduced below)…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim requires the fence panel to have a vertical dimension defining a length and does not require any length or dimension in particular. Accordingly, any dimension equal to or less than the largest height value of the fence panel meets the claim limitation. Accordingly, the fence panel defines a vertical dimension having a length equal to the body vertical length. Therefore, the claim limitations are met.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025, page 4, recites: “…As Figure 2 of McShane discloses, the edge of frame 8 carrying component 40 resides proximate component 22 carried by frame 9, rather than residing proximate an identical frame 8 carrying a component identical to component 40…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no clear reason as to why Examiner’s interpretation is incorrect. It appears that Applicant is arguing the interpretation of proximate. It is noted that proximate is not defined in the specification and therefore Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025, page 5, recites: “…Accordingly, McShane cannot anticipate Applicant's Claim 17…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant uses the newly added term rectilinear to describe the latch member 90 of Applicant’s invention comprising straight and curved members. Accordingly, this interpretation is addressed by a 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above. Further, it is not clear as to why Applicant is addressing claim 17 as a product by process claim.
Conclusion
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