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 .
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 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what comprises the medial portion with a different post thickness. As depicted in the disclosure (Fig. 9A), the differing thicknesses are of the post (T2) and the claimed locking arm (T1). The examiner will examine as best understood with the lower post portion having a greater thickness than the locking arm of the locking member. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCord, U.S. Patent 9,551,121 in view of Tinnerman, U.S. Patent 2,627,385.
Regarding claim 1, McCord discloses a base for a post comprising: a pedestal including a base (portion of 20 beneath 18, see Fig. 6) and a boss (see Fig. 3; component intermittent 20 and 12) extending therefrom; a post (12) extending from the base through the boss and terminating at a free end (upper end, see figures); and a locking member (14) extending from the post, the locking member configured to engage a wall upright so that the wall upright is fixed to the wall anchor (see Fig. 1, generally), but does not disclose wherein the locking member includes a locking arm formed from the post and a retention flange extending from the locking arm, the post defining an aperture, and the retention flange extending into the aperture. Tinnerman teaches a post base comprising a locking arm (30) having a retention flange (36) which extends into a post aperture (22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such locking arms/flanges rather than protrusions 14 of McCord depending on the method of production of the base (such as stamping) as the same locking results will be produced. The phrase “configured to engage a wall upright so that the wall upright is fixed to the wall anchor” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, McCord discloses a base for a post wherein at least one of the pedestal and the post is hollow (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, McCord in view of Tinnerman, as modified, discloses a base for a post wherein the post includes a bottom portion adjacent the base (at 12) and a medial portion (the locking arm as modified) axially spaced from the base and disposed between the bottom portion and the free end, the medial portion defining a first wall thickness (inherently) and the bottom portion defining a second wall thickness (inherently), but does not disclose the second wall thickness greater than the first wall thickness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the locking arms with a thickness less than that of the post for a greater flexibility for ease in the assembly process.
Regarding claim 4, McCord discloses a base for a post wherein the locking member includes a retention flange (14, see figures) configured to engage an inner periphery of a first locking aperture defined by the wall upright (should an aperture be present on the wall upright). The phrase “configured to engage an inner periphery of a first locking aperture defined by the wall upright” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, McCord in view of Tinnerman, as modified, discloses a base for a post wherein the locking arm extends along a first direction (longitudinal direction of the post) and the retention flange is tapered with respect to the first direction (see Tinnerman Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, McCord in view of Tinnerman, as modified, discloses a base for a post wherein the locking arm is connected to a main body of the post (as modified, locking arm 30 is connected to the post main body) and configured to inwardly deflect with respect to the main body as the wall upright is slid onto the post and engages the retention flange (as the post is slid over the base, the locking arm and retention flange will deflect inwardly). The phrase “configured to inwardly deflect with respect to the main body as the wall upright is slid onto the post and engages the retention flange” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 8, McCord discloses a base for a post wherein the base defines a first width and the boss defines a second width, the second width less than that of the first width (see Fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to modify the base assembly of McCord with an additional clip component, the examiner contends that this is not a modification made in the rejection. The shape of locking components (protrusions 14 of McCord) of the post which hold the wall upright in place are modified in the rejection to be the alternate locking component means as taught by Tinnerman. As modified, the post will comprise these locking elements: an aperture within the post will include the locking arm and retention flange. Both examples of prior art present an apparatus for temporarily holding upright a vertical structure. The examiner contends that this is an obvious modification in a hold down device. The rejections stand.
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 GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633