DETAILED ACTION
Examiner notes that Applicant failed to properly use strike-through lines within currently amended claim 9 to indicate all deleted limitations relative to the previous version of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5 (line 7) “inside wall toward the outside” should recite –outside wall toward the inside--.
In claim 9 (line 12) “a flat panel” should recite –a flat panel; --.
In claim 9 (line 18) “inside wall toward the outside” should recite –outside wall toward the inside--.
In claim 9 (line 24) “fence column” should recite –fence column; --.
For the purpose of examining the application, it is assumed that appropriate correction has been made.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 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.
Claim 9 (lines 34-35) recites “a latch strike plate having a length and a height extending from the inside wall through the length of the slot, distal shoulders to engage the groves”.
It is unclear as to which upright fence column and which “inside wall”, “slot” and “grooves” the latch strike plate is engaged with. Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and is likewise rejected as being indefinite.
Examiner notes that Figure 10 clearly shows that latch strike plate 270 is engaged with the grooves of third stationary upright fence column 260; and not either of the first or second upright fence columns of the gate panel. Accordingly, claim 9 must include the deleted limitations of lines 27-33, which define the third stationary upright fence column and its inside wall, slot and grooves, in order to overcome such 35 USC 112 rejection.
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, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intermas Nets (EP 1 156 178) in view of Castorama France (FR 3 005 079).
As to claim 1, Intermas Nets discloses a fence system comprising:
a first upright fence column 1, formed of a single piece, the first upright fence column having an inside wall sized to receive a base post 11 and an outside wall around the inside wall;
the first upright fence column including at least one slot 9 extending the length of the first upright fence column from the outside wall toward the inside wall, the at least one slot having grooves along both sides, each groove adapted to receive distal shoulders of an extension;
an extension 4 having a length and a height extending from the inside wall through the length of the slot, distal shoulders 19 to engage the grooves, and a U-shaped opening 20 adapted to receive a flat panel 6;
a horizontal clip 5 extending away from the first upright fence column, the horizontal clip having a width sized to be capable of being received in the at least one slot, the horizontal clip having a U-shaped opening adapted to receive a flat panel (Figures 1-3).
Intermas Nets fails to disclose a fence system wherein the extension does not abut the back of the slot.
Castorama France teaches a fence system wherein an extension 21 has distal shoulders 8 engaging grooves 7 of a slot 4 in an upright fence column 2, the extension having a length and a height that does not abut the back of the slot through the length of the slot; the gap between the extension and the back of the slot providing for thermal expansion of the elements and providing for easier assembly (Figures 1-4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Intermas Nets to comprise a gap between the extension and the back of the slot, as taught by Castorama France, in order to provide for thermal expansion of the elements and provide for easier assembly.
As to claim 4, Intermas Nets discloses a fence system wherein the panel 6 is composed of plastic, plastic composite, metal, metal composite, glass, glass composite, wood, wood composite, or a composite of any of them (Figures 1-3).
As to claim 5, Intermas Nets discloses a fence system comprising a second upright fence column 1 and a second extension 4;
the second upright fence column formed of a single piece, the second upright fence column having an inside wall sized to receive a base post 11 and an outside wall around the inside wall;
the second upright fence column including a second at least one slot 9 extending the length of the second upright fence column from the outside wall toward the inside wall, the second at least one slot having grooves along both sides, each groove adapted to receive distal shoulders of an extension;
the second extension having a length and a height extending from the inside wall through the length of the slot of the second upright column, distal shoulders 19 to engage the grooves, and a U-shaped opening 20 adapted to receive a flat panel; and
wherein the horizontal clip extends to the second upright fence column (Figures 1-3).
As to claim 6, Intermas Nets discloses a fence system comprising a second horizontal clip 5;
the first extension 4 being slotted into the at least one slot 9 of the first column 1, the second extension 4 being slotted into the second at least one slot 9 of the second column 1, the horizontal clip 5 extending from the at least one slot of the first column to the second at least one slot of the second column and having a U-shaped portion opening upward;
the panel 6 being slotted into the extension, second extension, and horizontal clip; and
the second horizontal clip extending from the at least one slot of the first column to the second at least one slot of the second column and having its U-shaped portion opening downward and slotted over the panel (Figures 1-3).
As to claim 8, Intermas Nets discloses a fence system wherein the second upright fence column 1 incorporates at least two elongated sidewalls of sufficient width capable of accommodating a conventional lockset (Figures 1-3).
As to claim 11, Intermas Nets discloses a fence system comprising:
a first upright fence column 1, formed of a single piece, the first upright fence column having an inside wall sized to receive a base post 11 and an outside wall around the inside wall;
the first upright fence column including a first slot 9 extending the length of the first upright fence column from the outside wall toward the inside wall, the first slot having grooves along both sides, each groove adapted to receive distal shoulders of a first extension;
a first extension 4 extending from the inside wall through the length of the first slot;
a second upright fence column 1, formed of a single piece, the second upright fence column having a hollow cross-section, and incorporating a second slot 9 extending the length of the second upright fence column;
a second extension 4 extending the length of the second upright fence column within the second slot 9; and
a panel 6 extending between the first upright fence column and the second upright fence column, fixed at either side within the first and second extensions within the first and second slot (Figures 1-3).
Intermas Nets fails to disclose a fence system wherein the first extension does not abut the back of the slot.
Castorama France teaches a fence system wherein an extension 21 has distal shoulders 8 engaging grooves 7 of a slot 4 in an upright fence column 2, the extension having a length and a height that does not abut the back of the slot through the length of the slot; the gap between the extension and the back of the slot providing for thermal expansion of the elements and providing for easier assembly (Figures 1-4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Intermas Nets to comprise a gap between the extension and the back of the slot, as taught by Castorama France, in order to provide for thermal expansion of the elements and provide for easier assembly.
As to claim 12, Intermas Nets discloses a fence system comprising a pair of horizontal clips 5, the pair of horizontal clips extending between the first upright fence column 1 and second upright fence column 1, the pair of horizontal clips having a width sized to be capable of being received in the first and second slots 9 of the first and second upright fence columns, the pair of horizontal clips having a U-shaped opening adapted to receive a panel 6; and
the panel fixed within the U-shaped openings of the pair of horizontal clips (Figures 1-3).
As to claim 13, Intermas Nets discloses a fence system wherein the first and second extensions 4 and the pair of horizontal clips 5 are joined together to form a rectangular shape surrounding the panel 6 (Figures 1-3).
As to claim 15, Intermas Nets discloses a fence system wherein the panel 6 is composed of plastic, plastic composite, metal, metal composite, glass, glass composite, wood, wood composite, or a composite of any of them (Figures 1-3).
As to claim 17, Intermas Nets discloses a fence system wherein the first upright fence column 1 and the second upright fence column 1 form a gate and the second upright fence column incorporates at least two elongated sidewalls of sufficient width capable of accommodating a conventional lockset (Figures 1-3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intermas Nets in view of Castorama France, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Socredis (FR 2 983 895).
As to claim 2, Intermas Nets discloses a fence system wherein the extension 4 and horizontal clip 5 are cut at 90° angles and fastened to the first upright fence column 1; instead of being cut at 45° angles.
Socredis teaches a fence system wherein an extension 63 and horizontal clip 63 are cut at 45° angles and fastened to a first upright fence column 1; (Figure 2).
Inasmuch as the references disclose 45° joints and 90° joints between orthogonally abutting extensions and horizontal clips as art recognized structural and functional equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the exercise art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intermas Nets in view of Castorama France and Socredis, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hudson Hardware & Plastics (FR 3 041 013).
As to claim 3, Intermas Nets fails to disclose a fence system wherein each horizontal clip is held in place adjacent to each extension using L-shaped fasteners.
Hudson Hardware & Plastics teaches a fence system wherein a horizontal clip 20 is held in place adjacent to a fence column 11 using L-shaped fasteners 30; the L-shaped fasteners providing for a rigid secure connection between the clip and the column (Figure 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Intermas Nets to comprise L-shaped fasteners holding the horizontal clips in place adjacent the extensions, as taught by Hudson Hardware & Plastics, in order to provide for a rigid secure connection between the clips and the extensions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intermas Nets in view of Castorama France, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hudson Hardware & Plastics.
As to claim 14, Intermas Nets fails to disclose a fence system wherein each horizontal clip is held in place adjacent to each extension using L-shaped fasteners.
Hudson Hardware & Plastics teaches a fence system wherein a horizontal clip 20 is held in place adjacent to a fence column 11 using L-shaped fasteners 30; the L-shaped fasteners providing for a rigid secure connection between the clip and the column (Figure 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Intermas Nets to comprise L-shaped fasteners holding the horizontal clips in place adjacent the extensions, as taught by Hudson Hardware & Plastics, in order to provide for a rigid secure connection between the clips and the extensions.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intermas Nets in view of Castorama France, as applied to claims 6 and 12 above, and further in view of Solumod (FR 3 065 979).
As to claim 7, Intermas Nets fails to disclose a fence system comprising a second panel, third horizontal clip, and fourth horizontal clip; the third horizontal clip above the second horizontal clip and extending from the at least one slot of the first column to the second at least one slot of the second column and having a U-shaped portion opening upward; the second panel being slotted into the extension, second extension, and third horizontal clip; and the fourth horizontal clip extending from the at least one slot of the first column to the at least one slot of the second column and having a U-shaped portion opening downward and slotted over the second panel.
Solumod teaches a fence system comprising a first and second panel 9, and first, second, third and fourth horizontal clips 8; the third horizontal clip above the second horizontal clip and extending from a slot of a first column 1 to a second slot of a second column 1 and having a U-shaped portion opening upward; the second panel being slotted into the first and second column, and third horizontal clip; and the fourth horizontal clip extending from the slot of the first column to the slot of the second column and having a U-shaped portion opening downward and slotted over the second panel; the second panel and corresponding second pair of horizontal clips providing for a more aesthetically pleasing fence (Figure 6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Intermas Nets to comprise a second panel and corresponding second pair of horizontal clips, as taught by Solumod, in order to provide for a more aesthetically pleasing fence.
As to claim 16, Intermas Nets fails to disclose a fence system comprising a second panel and second pair of horizontal clips; the second panel fixed between the first and second extensions; and the second panel additionally fixed in U-shaped openings of the second pair of horizontal clips.
Solumod teaches a fence system comprising a first and second panel 9 and a first and second pair of horizontal clips 8; the first and second panels fixed between the first and second fence columns 2; and the second panel additionally fixed in U-shaped openings of the second pair of horizontal clips; the second panel and corresponding second pair of horizontal clips providing for a more aesthetically pleasing fence (Figure 6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Intermas Nets to comprise a second panel and corresponding second pair of horizontal clips, as taught by Solumod, in order to provide for a more aesthetically pleasing fence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
03/30/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619