DETAILED ACTION
Status of claims
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Specification
The Abstract is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of the abstract, the word “hold” should be replaced with --hole--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h) and 37 1.84(u) because Fig. 1-14 include multiple views under a single label, and therefore the views are not “clearly separated from one another”. Further, “[t]he different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals”. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claims 1-10, 12-22, 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 12, 16-17, 19-22, 25 are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.75(i) which states “where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”.
The limitation in line 3 of claim 1 should be corrected to read --wherein the one full inner wall extends-- to correctly refer to the full inner wall.
The preambles of claims 2-8 should be corrected to read --The method-- as claim 1, of which claims 2-8 depend from, defines a method of constructing a fence gate.
The limitation in lines 3-4 of claim 2 should be corrected to read --rotated such that a rail side adheres itself to the outer surface-- for grammatical correctness.
The limitation in line 4 of claim 5 should be corrected to read --wherein the front section intersects a front-- for grammatical correctness.
In claim 5, a comma should be placed between the words “wall” and “wherein” in line 7 for grammatical correctness.
In line 4 of claim 7, the limitation “a fence gate” should be corrected to read --[[a]] the fence gate-- as the “fence gate” is already defined within the preambles of the claims.
The limitation in line 3 of claim 9 should be corrected to read --wherein the one full inner wall extends-- to correctly refer to the full inner wall.
The limitation in line 3 of claim 10 should be corrected to read --rotated such that a rail side adheres itself to the outer surface-- for grammatical correctness.
The limitation in line 4 of claim 12 should be corrected to read --wherein the front section intersects a front-- for grammatical correctness.
In claim 12, a comma should be placed between the words “wall” and “wherein” in line 7 for grammatical correctness.
In claim 12, the limitation in lines 5-8 should be corrected to read --wherein when the rail is inserted into the opening at [[an]] the angle, the rail side adheres itself to the outer surface of the one full inner wall, wherein the rail is then pushed until a rail end touches the back of the
In claim 13, the limitation “wherein the screeding of glue is minimized” should be deleted as such is already recited within claim 11.
In line 3 of claim 14, the limitation “the create a gate frame” should read --to create a gate frame-- for grammatical correctness.
In line 1 of claim 15, the limitation “the fence gate” should be corrected to read --the fence gate kit-- as the fence gate kit is already defined within the preambles of the claims.
In line 4 of claim 15, the limitation “a fence gate” should be corrected to read --[[a]] the fence gate kit-- as the “fence gate kit” is already defined within the preambles of the claims.
The limitation in lines 2-3 of claim 17 should be corrected to read --wherein the one full inner wall extends-- to correctly refer to the full inner wall.
The limitation in lines 3-4 of claim 18 should be corrected to read --rotated such that a rail side adheres itself to the outer surface-- for grammatical correctness.
The preambles of claims 19-21 should be corrected to read --The gate upright--as such is how the invention is defined in claim 17.
The limitation in line 4 of claim 19 should be corrected to read --wherein the front section intersects a front-- for grammatical correctness.
In line 7 of claim 19, a comma should be placed between the words “wall” and “wherein” for grammatical correctness.
In line 1 of claim 20, the limitation “of glue” should be corrected to read --of the glue-- as glue has already been defined within the claim.
In line 7 of claim 20, the limitation “the create a gate frame” should read --to create a gate frame-- for grammatical correctness.
In claim 22, the word “extends” appears twice in lines 3-4, but should be corrected to read --extend[[s]]-- in both instances for grammatical correctness.
In claim 22, the limitation “and wherein the rails are inserted into the two openings” in lines 6-7 should be deleted as such is already stated in line 2 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 11-16, 20-25 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 1 first defines of a method of constructing a fence gate and uses the transitional phrase “consisting of” prior to the body of the claim. It has been understood that the phrase consisting of “excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim”. In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 11 USPQ 255 (CCPA 1931). MPEP §2111.03(II) states that ‘A claim which depends from a claim which “consists” of the recited elements or steps cannot add an element or step’. Being that claims 2-6, which are dependent from claim 1, go on to add elements and steps to the claimed method, it is unclear if the method of claim 1 is intended to “consist of” the elements and steps of claim 1, or “comprise” the elements and steps of claim 1, due to the subsequent dependent claims. Due to the presence of dependent claims 2-6, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that consisting of within claim 1 reads as “comprising”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the screeding of glue is minimized”. The term “minimized” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification defines that “screeding” is what occurs when the rail forces the glue off the inner wall and back into the back of the gate upright [see 0007] and that due to the rail being inserted into an opening of the upright, then rotated such that a side of the rail presses against the glue, this avoids the problem of screeding [see 0007]. However, Applicant has presented no standard, nor level of measurability as to what one would consider an amount of screeding to be “minimized” vs. not. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that if the prior art discloses and/teaches of a rail being inserted into an opening of an upright and rotated such that it comes into contact with a glue coated inner wall of the upright, then such would read on the above limitation.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the gate upright” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. It is Examiner’s understanding that the limitation “gate upright” within claim 5 refers to the “upright” defined within claim 1. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret the limitation “gate upright” as reading “upright”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the screeding of glue is minimized”. The term “minimized” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification defines that “screeding” is what occurs when the rail forces the glue off the inner wall and back into the back of the gate upright [see 0007] and that due to the rail being inserted into an opening of the upright, then rotated such that a side of the rail presses against the glue, this avoids the problem of screeding [see 0007]. However, Applicant has presented no standard, nor level of measurability as to what one would consider an amount of screeding to be “minimized” vs. not. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that if the prior art discloses and/teaches of a rail being inserted into an opening of an upright and rotated such that it comes into contact with a glue coated inner wall of the upright, then such would read on the above limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “where the one more rail enters the gate upright” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the gate upright”. It would appear that Applicant is intending to refer to the “second upright”, which is defined in claim 7, which comprises at least two second upright openings, as the one more rail is stated as being inserted into one of the at least two second upright openings. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that “the gate upright” reads as “the second upright”.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “wherein there is an upper rail and a lower rail” in lines 3-4. Claim 1 already defines of “a rail” and claim 5 defines of “one more rail”. It is unclear from the language of claim 7 whether Applicant is introducing two new rails in the form of upper and lower rails, for a total of four rails, or if Applicant is intending to further define that the rail and the one more rail form upper and lower rails. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that Applicant is intending to further define the rail and the one more rail form upper and lower rails.
As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 7 as reading the following:
“The method of Claim 6, wherein the fence gate additionally comprises a second upright, with at least two second upright openings, and one more rail, where the one more rail enters the second upright at one of the at least two second upright openings, wherein the rail and the one more rail form an upper rail and a lower rail, where the interlocking bracket of glue stabilizes [[a]] the fence gate”.
Claim 8 recites of where four upper lines of glue beads are laid down at “the intersection of two full inner walls, a gate upright back and a gate upright front, with a top surface of a top rail” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis “the intersection of two full inner walls”. Further, it is unclear if the “gate upright back” and “gate upright front” are a part of the upright defined in claim 1, or if they are a part of the second upright defined in claim 7. Being that the “upright” of claim 1 is defined as having “one full inner wall”, and then further defined as having “a partial inner wall” in claim 5, it would appear that Applicant is referring to the second upright defined in claim 7. Further, Applicant already defines of “an upper rail” in claim 7, yet defines of “a top rail” in claim 8. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to define of a third rail, or if Applicant is referring to the already defined upper rail. As such regarding these matters, Examiner will interpret that the top rail is referring to the upper rail of claim 7, and that the step of laying down four upper lines of glue beads is between the upper rail and the second upright.
Claim 8 additionally recites of where four lower lines of glue beads are laid down at “the two full inner walls, the gate upright back and the gate upright front, a bottom surface of the bottom rail” in lines 3-5. For the same reasons stated above, it is unclear whether the “gate upright back” and “gate upright front” are a part of the upright defined in claim 1, or if they are a part of the second upright defined in claim 7. Being that the “upright” of claim 1 is defined as having “one full inner wall”, and then further defined as having “a partial inner wall” in claim 5, it would appear that Applicant is referring to the second upright defined in claim 7. Further, Applicant already defines of “a lower rail” in claim 7, yet defines of “a bottom rail” in claim 8. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to define of a third rail, or if Applicant is referring to the already defined lower rail. As such regarding these matters, Examiner will interpret that the bottom rail is referring to the lower rail of claim 7, and that the step of laying down four lower lines of glue beads is between the lower rail and the second upright.
Claim 8 also recites the limitation “an interlocking bracket of glue” in line 5. This limitation has already been used to define of the application of glue within claim 6. Seeing as to how “four upper lines” and “four lower lines” of glue have been defined in claim 8, it would appear that there are two second interlocking brackets of glue being referred to within the claim. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the interlocking bracket of glue in claim 8 refers to “two second interlocking brackets of glue”.
Claim 8 further recites that each of the lines of glue beads is “thicker than the gap between the intersection of the rail and the gate upright” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the gap” and “the gate upright”. Further, it is unclear if the limitation “the rail” is referring to the upper rail or the lower rail, or both rails. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that this limitation is directed to gaps defined between the upper and lower rails and the second upright.
As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 8 as reading the following:
“The method of Claim 7, where four upper lines of glue beads are laid down at s of two full inner walls of the second upright, a second upright back and a second upright front, with a top surface of the upper rail, and four lower lines of glue beads are laid down at the intersections of the two full inner walls, the second upright back and a second upright front, a bottom surface of the lower rail, creating two second interlocking brackets of glue, where each of the four upper lines of glue beads and each of the four lower lines of glue beads is thicker than s between the intersections of the upper and lower rails and the second upright”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the screeding of glue is minimized”. The term “minimized” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification defines that “screeding” is what occurs when the rail forces the glue off the inner wall and back into the back of the gate upright [see 0007] and that due to the rail being inserted into an opening of the upright, then rotated such that a side of the rail presses against the glue, this avoids the problem of screeding [see 0007]. However, Applicant has presented no standard, nor level of measurability as to what one would consider an amount of screeding to be “minimized” vs. not. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that if the prior art discloses and/teaches of a rail capable of being inserted into an opening of an upright and rotated such that it comes into contact with a glue coated inner wall of the upright, then such would read on the above limitation.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the gate upright” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. It is Examiner’s understanding that the limitation “gate upright” within claim 12 refers to the “upright” defined within claim 9. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret the limitation “gate upright” as reading “upright”.
Claim 13 recites “wherein one or more lines of glue are applied to a top intersection between a rail top and the one full inner wall, and a bottom intersection between a rail bottom and the one full inner wall, creating an interlocking bracket of glue”. Claim 11, of which claim 13 depends from, already recites “wherein one or more lines of glue are applied to a top intersection between a rail top and the one full inner wall, and a bottom intersection between a rail bottom and the one full inner wall”. It is therefore unclear from claim 13 as to whether Applicant is requiring that second lines of glue be applied to the top and bottom intersections, or if they are intending to further define that the lines of glue applied at the top and bottom intersections create an interlocking bracket of glue. Being that Applicant’s specification defines the interlocking bracket of glue as being formed by laying glue across the top of a rail in the gate and a bottom of a rail in the grate see [0008], it would appear that Applicant is intending to further define claim 11 within claim 13 as “creating an interlocking bracket of glue”. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that claim 13 is intended to further define claim 11, and will interpret claim 13 as reading the following:
“The fence gate kit of Claim 12, the one or more lines of glue that are applied to [[a]] the top intersection between [[a]] the rail top and the one full inner wall, and [[a]] the bottom intersection between [[a]] the rail bottom and the one full inner wall [[,]] create an interlocking bracket of glue”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the gate upright” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. It is Examiner’s understanding that the limitation “gate upright” refers to the “upright” defined in claim 9. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret the limitation “gate upright” as reading “upright”.
Claim 14 further recites “wherein the gate upright comprises more than one rail” in lines 2-3. It is unclear how the “upright” would comprise more than one rail, as the upright is a separate element from any defined rail within the fence gate. It would appear that Applicant is intending to state that the “fence gate kit” comprises more than one rail. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the “fence gate kit” comprises more than one rail.
As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 14 as reading the following:
“The fence gate kit of Claim 9, wherein the fence gate kit the more than one opening of the upright to create a gate frame, and wherein each rail has a plurality of openings through which a plurality of pickets are inserted”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “where the one more rail enters the gate upright” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the gate upright”. It would appear that Applicant is intending to refer to the “second upright”, which is defined in claim 15, which comprises at least two second upright openings, as the one more rail is stated as being inserted into one of the at least two second upright openings. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that “the gate upright” reads as “the second upright”.
Claim 15 further recites the limitation “wherein there is an upper rail and a lower rail” in lines 3-4. Claim 9 already defines of “a rail” and claim 15 defines of “a second rail”. It is unclear from the language of claim 15 whether Applicant is introducing two new rails in the form of upper and lower rails, for a total of four rails, or if Applicant is intending to further define that the rail and second rail form upper and lower rails. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that Applicant is intending to further define the rail and second rail form upper and lower rails.
Claim 15 further recites of “the interlocking bracket of glue” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner does recognize, however, that claim 13, recites of an interlocking bracket of glue. It is therefore unclear whether claim 15 is intended to depend from claim 13 or claim 14. Being that claim 13 defines of an interlocking bracket of glue, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that claim 15 depends from claim 13. Subsequently Examiner will interpret that claim 16 still depends from claim 16.
As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 15 as reading the following:
“The fence gate kit of Claim [[14]] 13, wherein the fence gate kit additionally comprises a second upright, with at least two second upright openings, and one more rail, where the one more rail enters the second upright at one of the at least two second upright openings, wherein the rail and the second rail form an upper rail and a lower rail, where the interlocking bracket of glue stabilizes [[a]] the fence gate”.
Claim 16 recites of four upper lines of glue beads laid down at “the intersection of two full inner walls, a gate upright back and a gate upright front, with a top surface of a top rail” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis “the intersection of two full inner walls”. Further, it is unclear if the “gate upright back” and “gate upright front” are a part of the upright defined in claim 9, or if they are a part of the second upright defined in claim 51. Being that the “upright” of claim 9 is defined as having “one full inner wall”, it would appear that Applicant is referring to the second upright defined in claim 15. Further, Applicant already defines of “an upper rail” in claim 15, yet defines of “a top rail” in claim 16. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to define of a third rail, or if Applicant is referring to the already defined upper rail. As such regarding these matters, Examiner will interpret that the top rail is referring to the upper rail of claim 15, and that the step of laying down four upper lines of glue beads is between the upper rail and the second upright.
Claim 16 additionally recites of where four lower lines of glue beads are laid down at “the two full inner walls, the gate upright back and the gate upright front, a bottom surface of the bottom rail” in lines 3-5. For the same reasons stated above, it is unclear whether the “gate upright back” and “gate upright front” are a part of the upright defined in claim 9, or if they are a part of the second upright defined in claim 15. Being that the “upright” of claim 9 is defined as having “one full inner wall”, it would appear that Applicant is referring to the second upright defined in claim 15. Further, Applicant already defines of “a lower rail” in claim 15, yet defines of “a bottom rail” in claim 16. It is unclear if Applicant is intending to define of a third rail, or if Applicant is referring to the already defined lower rail. As such regarding these matters, Examiner will interpret that the bottom rail is referring to the lower rail of claim 15, and that the step of laying down four lower lines of glue beads is between the lower rail and the second upright.
Claim 16 also recites the limitation “an interlocking bracket of glue” in line 5. This limitation has already been used to define of the application of glue within claim 13, of which Examiner has interpreted claim 16 from depending from. See above. Seeing as to how “four upper lines” and “four lower lines” of glue have been defined in claim 16, it would appear that there are two second interlocking brackets of glue being referred to within the claim. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the interlocking bracket of glue in claim 16 refers to “two second interlocking brackets of glue”.
Claim 16 further recites that each of the lines of glue beads is “thicker than the gap between the intersection of the rail and the gate upright” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the gap” and “the gate upright”. Further, it is unclear if the limitation “the rail” is referring to the upper rail or the lower rail, or both rails. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that this limitation is directed to gaps defined between the upper and lower rails and the second upright.
As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 16 as reading the following:
“The fence gate kit of Claim 15, where four upper lines of glue beads are laid down at s of two full inner walls of the second upright, a second upright back and a second upright front, with a top surface of the upper rail, and four lower lines of glue beads are laid down at the intersections of the two full inner walls, the second upright back and a second upright front, a bottom surface of the lower rail, creating two second interlocking brackets of glue, where each of the four upper lines of glue beads and each of the four lower lines of glue beads is thicker than s between the intersections of the upper and lower rails and the second upright”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein the screeding of glue is minimized”. The term “minimized” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification defines that “screeding” is what occurs when the rail forces the glue off the inner wall and back into the back of the gate upright [see 0007] and that due to the rail being inserted into an opening of the upright, then rotated such that a side of the rail presses against the glue, this avoids the problem of screeding [see 0007]. However, Applicant has presented no standard, nor level of measurability as to what one would consider an amount of screeding to be “minimized” vs. not. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that if the prior art discloses and/teaches of a rail capable of being inserted into an opening of an upright and rotated such that it comes into contact with a glue coated inner wall of the upright, then such would read on the above limitation.
Claim 20 further recites “wherein each rail is inserted into an opening” in line 6. It is unclear from the language of claim 20 whether the openings are intended to refer to the “more than one openings” of the gate upright defined in lines 4-5, or additional openings within the gate upright. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the rails are inserted into the more than one openings of the gate upright.
Claim 21 recites of “a top rail” in line 3 and “a bottom rail” in line 5. It is unclear from the claim if the top and bottom rails are intended to further define the “more than one rail” of claim 20, or are in addition to the more than one rail. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that that the top and bottom rails further define the more than one rail and that the more than one rail comprises a top rail and a bottom rail.
Claim 21 also recites of “where four upper lines of glue beads are laid down at the intersection of two full inner walls, a gate upright back and a gate upright front, with a top surface of a top rail” in lines 1-3 and “four lower lines of glue beads are laid down at the intersection of the two full inner walls, the gate upright back and the gate upright front, a bottom surface of the bottom rail” in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the intersection of two full inner walls”. Further, the gate upright being referred to is only defined as having “one full inner wall” in claim 17 and “a partial inner wall” in claim 19. The gate upright in reference is never defined as having “two full inner walls”. It is therefore unclear if the gate upright has two full inner walls and a partial inner wall, or just a single full inner wall and a partial inner wall. Being that no embodiment of an upright within Applicant’s disclosure is presented as having two full inner walls and a partial inner wall, Examiner will interpret that the gate upright of claim 21 has one full inner wall and that there are lines of upper/lower glue beads that are laid down at the intersection of the one full inner wall, gate upright back and gate upright front, with the top surface of the top rail and the bottom surface of the bottom rail.
Claim 21 also recites the limitation “an interlocking bracket of glue” in line 5. This limitation has already been used to define of the application of glue within claim 21. Seeing as to how “upper lines” and “lower lines” of glue have been defined in claim 21, it would appear that there are two second interlocking brackets of glue being referred to within the claim. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the interlocking bracket of glue in claim 21 refers to “two second interlocking brackets of glue”.
Claim 21 further recites that each of the lines of glue beads is “thicker than the gap between the intersection of the rail and the gate upright” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the gap”. Further, it is unclear if the limitation “the rail” is referring to the top rail or the bottom rail, or both rails. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that this limitation is directed to gaps defined between the top and bottom rails and the gate upright.
As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 21 as reading the following:
“The gate upright of Claim 20, where the more than one rail comprises a top rail and a bottom rail, where one full inner wall[[s]], a gate upright back and a gate upright front, with a top surface of [[a]] the top rail, and one full inner wall[[s]], the gate upright back and the gate upright front, a bottom surface of the bottom rail, creating two second interlocking brackets of glue, where each of the s between the intersection of the top and bottom rails and the gate upright”.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the upright has two fuller inner walls, wherein the two full inner walls extends from a first upright side to a second upright side, and extends from an upright top to an upright bottom, wherein the two full inner walls create two inner box beams, wherein a quantity of glue is applied to an outer surface of each of the two full inner walls” in lines 2-6. However, it is first defined in line 1 of the claim that the gate kit comprises “two uprights”. It is therefore unclear from the language of claim 22 as to whether “the upright” being referenced in lines 2-6 is referring to one of the two uprights, or each of the uprights. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the limitations in lines 2-6 are directed to both of the uprights defined in the claim.
Claim 22 further states in lines 7-9 state “once the rail is fully inserted, wherein a quantity of backfilled glue is inserted into two spaced between a rail side and an outer side of a full inner wall”. Claim 22 defines of “two rails” in line 1 of the claim, and defines that each upright has “two full inner walls”. It is therefore unclear from the language of the claim as to whether only one of the rails and one of the full inner walls is being referred to, or if each of the rails and each of the full inner walls is being referred to. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that each of the rails and each of the full inner walls are being referred to.
As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 22 as reading the following:
“A fence gate kit, comprising: two uprights and two rails, wherein each of the uprights has two openings into which the rails are inserted, wherein each upright has two full inner walls, wherein the two full inner walls extend[[s]] form a first upright side to a second upright side, and extend[[s]] from an upright top to an upright bottom for each upright, wherein the two full inner walls create two inner box beams for each upright, wherein a quantity of glue is applied to an outer surface of each of the two full inner walls, and wherein the rails are inserted into the two openings, and then, once the rails are fully inserted, wherein a quantity of backfilled glue is inserted into two spaces between a rail side of each rail and an outer side of [[a]] each full inner wall”.
Claim 23 recites “wherein one or more lines of glue are applied to a top intersection between a rail top and the one full inner wall, and a bottom intersection between a rail bottom and the one full inner wall, creating an interlocking bracket of glue”. Claim 22 first defines of two rails and two uprights, with each upright having two full inner walls. It is therefore unclear from the language of claim 23 if Applicant is intending to refer to a single rail or both rails. It is also unclear if Applicant is intending to refer to a single inner wall within only one of the uprights or both of the inner walls of both of the uprights. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that claim 23 is directed to each of the rails and both inner walls within both of the uprights, and in doing such, interlocking brackets of glue are created.
As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 23 as reading the following:
“The fence gate kit of Claim 22, wherein one or more lines of glue are applied to a top intersection between a rail top of each rail and the two full inner walls in each upright, and a bottom intersection between a rail bottom of each rail and the two full inner walls in each upright, creating s of glue”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the gate uprights” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the “gate uprights” refer to the “uprights” defined in claim 22.
Claim 25 defines of “a top rail” in line 3 and “a bottom rail” in line 5. It is unclear from claim 25 if the top and bottom rails are intending to further define the two rails which are defined in claim 22, or if two additional rails are being introduced within the claim. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the top and bottom rails are further defining of the two rails of claim 22.
Claim 25 further recites four upper lines of glue beads laid down at “the intersection of two full inner walls, a gate upright back and a gate upright front, with a top surface of a top rail” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the intersection of two full inner walls”. Further, it is unclear if the “two full inner walls”, “gate upright back”, and “gate upright front” are referring to a single one of the two uprights defined in claim 22, or both of the uprights. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the step of laying down four upper lines of glue beads is between the top rail and the two full inner walls, upright back, and upright front of each upright.
Claim 25 additionally recites of four lower lines of glue beads laid down at “the intersection of the two full inner walls, the gate upright back and the gate upright front, a bottom surface of the bottom rail” in lines 3-5. For the same reasons as stated above, it is unclear whether the “two full inner walls”, “gate upright back”, and “gate upright front” are referring to a single one of the two uprights defined in claim 22, or both of the uprights. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the step of laying down four lower lines of glue beads is between the bottom rail and the two full inner walls, upright back, and upright front of each upright.
Claim 25 also recites the limitation “an interlocking bracket of glue” in line 5. This limitation has already been used to define of the application of glue within claim 23. Seeing as to how “four upper lines” and “four lower lines” of glue have been defined in claim 25, it would appear that there are two second interlocking brackets of glue being referred to within the claim. As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that the interlocking bracket of glue in claim 25 refers to “two second interlocking brackets of glue”.
Claim 25 also recites that each of the lines of glue beads is “thicker than the gap between the intersection of the rail and the gate upright” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations “the gap” and “the gate upright”. Further, it is unclear if the limitation “the rail” is referring to the top rail or the bottom rail, or both rails. Further, it is unclear if the “gate upright” is intending to refer to a single one of the two uprights, or both uprights. For the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret that this limitation is directed to gaps defined between the top and bottom rails and both uprights.
As such, for the purpose of this action, Examiner will interpret claim 25 as reading the following:
“The fence gate kit of Claim 24, wherein the two rails form a top rail and a bottom rail, where four upper lines of glue beads are laid down at s of the two full inner walls of each upright, an n of each upright, with a top surface of [[a]] the top rail, and four lower lines of glue beads are laid down at the intersections of the two full inner walls of each upright, the of each upright, with a bottom surface of [[a]] the bottom rail, creating second interlocking brackets of glue, where each of the four upper lines of glue beads and each of the four lower lines of glue beads is thicker than top and bottom rails and each of the s”.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim 1 above.
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, 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ash (US 2018/0216363) in view of Yoder (US 5,651,534).
Regarding claim 1, Ash discloses of a method of constructing a fence gate (Fig. 1-4, see fence gate in Fig. 1, the embodiment of the fence gate seen in Fig. 1 will contain the embodiments of the uprights 50 and rails 60 seen in Fig. 4), comprising the steps of, first, obtaining an upright (50) and a rail (60), wherein the upright has an opening (51) into which the rail is inserted (see Fig. 4, see [0051]), wherein the upright has one full inner wall (52, see [0052] stating that the post may have only a single internal wall within the post, thus the upright comprises one single full inner wall), wherein the one full inner wall extends from a first upright side to a second upright side (see Fig. 4, see Annotated Fig. 1 below), wherein the one full inner wall creates an inner box beam (see Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Ash does not explicitly disclose wherein the one full inner wall extends from upright top to an upright bottom.
Yoder (Fig. 1-18) teaches of a similar assembly comprising uprights (12) and rails (14, 16, 18) that are received within the uprights (see Fig. 1, 3, 9, 16-18), wherein each of the uprights comprises inner walls (26a-d) that extend along a length of the upright from an upright top to an upright bottom (see Col. 2 lines 32-35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ash with the teachings of Yoder, to have the one full inner wall extend along the length of the upright form an upright top to an upright bottom, as in doing so would assist in reinforcing the internal cavity of the upright.
Regarding claim 9, Ash discloses of a fence gate kit (Fig. 1-4, see fence gate in Fig. 1, the embodiment of the fence gate seen in Fig. 1 will contain the embodiments of the uprights 50 and rails 60 seen in Fig. 4), comprising: an upright (50) and a rail (60), wherein the upright has an opening (51) into which the rail is inserted (see Fig. 4, see [0051]), wherein the upright has one full inner wall (52, see [0052] stating that the post may have only a single internal wall within the post, thus the upright comprises one single full inner wall), wherein the one full inner wall extends from a first upright side to a second upright side (see Fig. 4, see Annotated Fig. 1), wherein the one full inner wall creates an inner box beam (see Annotated Fig. 1).
Ash does not explicitly disclose wherein the one full inner wall extends from upright top to an upright bottom.
Yoder (Fig. 1-18) teaches of a similar assembly comprising uprights (12) and rails (14, 16, 18) that are received within the uprights (see Fig. 1, 3, 9, 16-18), wherein each of the uprights comprises inner walls (26a-d) that extend along a length of the upright from an upright top to an upright bottom (see Col. 2 lines 32-35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ash with the teachings of Yoder, to have the one full inner wall extend along the length of the upright form an upright top to an upright bottom, as in doing so would assist in reinforcing the internal cavity of the upright.
Regarding claim 17, Ash discloses of a gate upright (50, see the embodiment in Fig. 4), wherein the gate upright comprises an opening (51) into which a rail can be inserted (see Fig. 4, see [0051]), wherein the gate upright has one full inner wall (52, see [0052] stating that the post may have only a single internal wall within the post, thus the upright comprises one single full inner wall), wherein the one full inner wall extends from a first upright side to a second upright side (see Fig. 4, see Annotated Fig. 1), wherein the one full inner wall creates an inner box beam (see Annotated Fig. 1).
Ash does not explicitly disclose wherein the one full inner wall extends from upright top to an upright bottom.
Yoder (Fig. 1-18) teaches of a similar assembly comprising uprights (12) and rails (14, 16, 18) that are received within the uprights (see Fig. 1, 3, 9, 16-18), wherein each of the uprights comprises inner walls (26a-d) that extend along a length of the upright from an upright top to an upright bottom (see Col. 2 lines 32-35).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ash with the teachings of Yoder, to have the one full inner wall extend along the length of the upright form an upright top to an upright bottom, as in doing so would assist in reinforcing the internal cavity of the upright.
Claim 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ash in view of Yoder as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Carter (US 11,053,708) and Pettit (US 4,722,514).
Regarding claim 2, while the combination of Ash and Yoder further teach wherein a quantity of glue (63 Ash) is applied to an outer surface of the rail and inserting the rail such that it adheres itself to an outer surface of the one full inner wall (see Fig. 4 of Ash, see [0050]-[0051] of Ash), they do not explicitly disclose wherein the quantity of glue is applied to the outer surface of the one full inner wall, wherein the rail is inserted into the opening at an angle, and then, once the rail is fully inserted, rotated such that a rail side adheres itself to the outer surface of the one full inner wall.
Carter (Fig. 1-9) teaches of a similar assembly comprising uprights (1) and rail members (10) that are receivable within openings of the upright (see Fig. 1), wherein the upright comprises an inner wall (4) having an adhesive (14) applied to an outer side of the inner wall (see Fig 2b), wherein the adhesive is adheres to a rail side (12a) of the rail members when they are received within the openings of the upright (see Col.4 lines 31-37).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ash with the teachings of Carter, to have the quantity of glue be applied to an outer surface of the one full inner wall, as opposed to the outer surface of the rail, as in doing so would produce the unexpected result of allowing for a rail side of the rail to adhere to the one full inner wall once it is inserted within the upright, and thereby keep the glue contained within the interior of the upright. Being that the placement of the glue within the fence gate is rearranged form the outer surface of the rail to the outer surface of the one full inner wall, Applicant is reminded that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Pettit (Fig. 1-37) teaches of a similar assembly comprising uprights (11) and rails (12, 12’) that are received within the uprights (see Fig. 1), wherein the rails are installed within the uprights at an angle (see Fig. 20), and once the rail is fully inserted, it is rotated such that the rails extend perpendicular to the uprights (see Fig. 20 vs. Fig. 21; see in Fig. 20 that the end of the rail abuts an end wall of the upright 11, i.e. it is fully inserted, see Col. 4 lines 23-43).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ash with the teachings of Pettit, to have the rail be inserted into the opening of the upright at an angle, and then, once the rail is fully inserted rotated such that the rail extends perpendicular to the upright, as in doing so would allow for easier insertion of a rail between a pair of uprights, wherein the length of the rail is greater than the spacing between the uprights. Being that the rail is rotated once it is fully inserted to a point that is extend perpendicular to the rail, a rail side of the rail will thereby adhere itself to the outer surface of the one full inner wall after it is rotated.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ash, Yoder, Carter, and Pettit further teach wherein the screeding of glue is minimized (due to the insertion and rotation of the rail as taught by Pettit in claim 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ash in view of Yoder, Carter, and Pettit as applied to claim 2 and in further view of Duncanson (US 5,357,728).
Regarding claim 4, neither Ash, Yoder, Carter, nor Pettit explicitly disclose wherein one or more lines of glue are applied to a top intersection between a rail top and the one full inner wall, and a bottom intersection between a rail bottom and the one full inner wall.
Duncanson (Fig. 4a-4c) teaches of an assembly between a first member (33) and a second member (34), wherein the first member comprises insertion portions (36) that are inserted within and intersect openings (35) of the second member, wherein due to the dimensions of the insertion portions being smaller than that of the slots (see Col. 4 lines 37-41), gaps (38) are formed between the insertion portions and the openings, and wherein the gaps are filled with glue (see Col. 4 lines 42-46), thereby securing the insertion portions within the openings.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ash with the teachings of Duncanson, to hav