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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-16, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0167644 to Deupree (hereinafter “Deupree”) in view of US 204,275 to Allen (hereinafter “Allen”).
-From Claim 1: Deupree discloses a fence post 10, comprising:
a stem portion 20;
a rear flange portion 24; and
a plurality of receiving apertures 30, wherein each receiving aperture of the plurality of receiving apertures is formed in the stem portion and includes:
a slot portion 30, wherein the slot portion is open at a front edge of the stem portion and extends away from the front edge of the stem portion and toward the rear flange portion;
wherein the fence post is formed from a single piece of material, and wherein the stem portion 20 is interconnected to the rear flange portion 24 by at least one bend in the single piece of material.
However, Deupree does not disclose: a retaining portion, wherein the retaining portion is in communication with the slot portion.
Allen teaches a fence post having a plurality of apertures m, wherein the aperture includes a slot portion m, and a retaining portion m1, m2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree by adding a retaining portion to the aperture as taught by Allen in order to further prevent unintended removal of the wire from the aperture(s).
-From Claim 6: Allen teaches wherein the retaining portion m1, m2 is curved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree by making the retaining portion curved as taught by Allen (so that the wire would be held within the aperture in two dimensions (i.e., up-down as well as left-right).
-From Claim 7: Allen teaches wherein the curved retaining portion is configured as an arc that is centered on the slot portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree by forming the retaining portion as an arc centered on the slot portion as taught by Allen so that the wire can either sit with gravity in the lower portion or be blown upward into the upper portion without exiting the slot portion.
-From Claim 8: Allen teaches wherein the retaining portion includes an upper portion m2 and a lower portion m1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree by forming the retaining portion with upper and lower portions as taught by Allen so that the wire can either sit with gravity in the lower portion or be blown upward into the upper portion without exiting the slot portion.
-From Claim 9: Allen teaches wherein the upper and lower portions m1, m2 are of equal length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree by forming two equal upper and lower portions as taught by Allen so that the wire can either sit with gravity in the lower portion or be blown upward into the upper portion without exiting the slot portion.
-From Claim 10: Allen teaches wherein the retaining portion m1, m2 is curved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree by forming the retaining portion curved as taught by Allen so that the wire would be held within the aperture in two dimensions (up-down as well as left-right.
-From Claim 11: Allen teaches wherein the curved retaining portion is configured as an arc that is centered on the slot portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree by forming the retaining portion as an arc centered on the slot portion as taught by Allen so that the wire can either sit with gravity in the lower portion or be blown upward into the upper portion without exiting the slot portion.
-From Claim 12: Deupree discloses wherein the single piece of material of the fence post is metal. (¶21)
-From Claim 13: Deupree discloses wherein the metal is steel. (¶21)
-From Claim 14: Deupree does not disclose wherein the single piece of material of the fence post is a composite material. However, Deupree does disclose that the post need not be steel, nor even metal, specifically (“the fence post 10 comprises a unitary construction formed from steel or any other high strength, weather resistance material,”)(¶21). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a composite material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
-From Claim 15: Deupree discloses a wire fence, comprising:
a plurality of fence posts 10, each fence post being formed from a single piece of material and including:
a stem portion 20;
a rear flange portion 24, wherein the stem portion is interconnected to the rear flange portion by at least one bend in the single piece of material; and
a plurality of receiving apertures 30, wherein each receiving aperture in the plurality of receiving apertures includes:
a slot portion 30, wherein the slot portion is open at and extends from a front edge of the stem portion and extends away from the front edge of the stem portion and toward the rear flange portion; and
a plurality of fence wires 32, wherein a first fence wire is received in one receiving aperture of each of the fence posts, and wherein a second fence wire is received in another receiving aperture of each of the fence posts.
However, Deupree does not disclose: a retaining portion, wherein the retaining portion is in communication with the slot portion.
Allen teaches a fence post having a plurality of apertures m, wherein the aperture includes a slot portion m, and a retaining portion m1, m2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree by adding a retaining portion to the aperture as taught by Allen in order to further prevent unintended removal of the wire from the aperture(s).
-From Claim 16: Allen teaches wherein the fence wires 32 are disposed within the retaining portions of the respective receiving apertures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree by disposing the wires within the retaining portions as taught by Allen so that the wire can either sit with gravity in the lower portion or be blown upward into the upper portion without exiting the slot portion.
-From Claim 18: Deupree discloses a plurality of fence stays, each fence stay including:
a stem portion 20; and
a plurality of receiving apertures 30, wherein each receiving aperture in the plurality of receiving apertures includes:
a slot portion 30, wherein the slot portion is open at a front edge of the stem portion and extends toward a rear edge of the stem;
wherein the first fence wire is received in one receiving aperture of each of the fence stays, and wherein the second fence wire is received in another receiving aperture of each of the fence stays.
However, Deupree does not disclose: a retaining portion, wherein the retaining portion is in communication with the slot portion.
Allen teaches a fence post having a plurality of apertures m, wherein the aperture includes a slot portion m, and a retaining portion m1, m2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree by adding a retaining portion to the aperture as taught by Allen in order to further prevent unintended removal of the wire from the aperture(s).
-From Claim 19: Deupree discloses wherein each fence post in the plurality of fence posts is formed from a metal. (¶21)
-From Claim 20: Deupree discloses a method of constructing a wire fence, comprising:
setting first and second braces 10 at opposite ends of an intended fence line;
setting a plurality of fence posts 10 in underlaying ground along the intended fence line, wherein each fence post in the plurality of fence posts includes:
a stem portion 20;
a rear flange portion24; and
a plurality of receiving apertures 30, wherein each receiving aperture of the plurality of receiving apertures is disposed in the stem portion and includes:
a slot portion 30, wherein the slot portion is open at a front edge of the stem portion and extends away from the front edge of the stem portion and toward the rear flange portion; and
wherein the fence post is formed from a single piece of material, and wherein the stem portion is interconnected to the rear flange portion by at least one bend in the single piece of material;
fixing a first fence wire 32 to the first brace;
placing the first fence wire in one receiving aperture of each fence post in the plurality of fence posts, wherein for each fence post, the fence wire is placed in the slot portion of the one receiving aperture and then pushed into the retaining portion of the one receiving aperture; and
fixing the first fence wire to the second brace.
However, Deupree does not disclose: a retaining portion, wherein the retaining portion is in communication with the slot portion.
Allen teaches a fence post having a plurality of apertures m, wherein the aperture includes a slot portion m, and a retaining portion m1, m2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree by adding a retaining portion to the aperture as taught by Allen in order to further prevent unintended removal of the wire from the aperture(s).
-From Claim 21: Deupree discloses wherein the rear flange portion 24 includes a lateral portion joined to a terminal portion by and at least one contour.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reproduced from Deupree (Examiner Annotated)
-From Claim 22: Deupree discloses wherein the rear flange portion 24 includes a lateral portion joined to a terminal portion by and at least one contour.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deupree in view of Allen as applied to claims 1, 6-16, and 18-22 above, and further in view of US 1050589 to Young (hereinafter “Young”).
-From Claim 2: Young teaches a fence post with a plurality of receiving apertures for receiving wire(s), wherein the slot portion is tapered and is disposed along a centerline of the stem portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree (as modified according to Allen) by tapering the slot portions as taught by Young in order to facilitate ease of insertion of the wires into the apertures.
-From Claim 3: Young teaches wherein the slot portion tapers from an opening section along the front edge of the stem portion to an end section at an interface between the slot portion and the retaining portion, and wherein the opening section is wider than the end section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree (as modified according to Allen) by tapering the slot portions as taught by Young in order to facilitate ease of insertion of the wires into the apertures.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deupree in view of Allen as applied to claims 1, 6-16, and 18-22 above, and further in view of US 2291430 to Ingersoll (hereinafter “Ingersoll”).
-From Claim 17: Ingersoll teaches the use of a grommet (see e.g., element 12 in Fig. 2), wherein the grommet is disposed around one of the fence wires and in one receiving aperture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deupree (as modified according to Allen) by adding the grommet taught by Ingersoll in order to allow the fence post to be used in an electrified wire fence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, and 6-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 DANIEL J WILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7324. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm PST.
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 5712705281. 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.
/DANIEL J WILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 3/11/2026