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 Objections
Claim 1-2, 6, 11 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-2, 6, 11 and 15; the phrase “the first and second side walls” should be changed to “the first side wall and the second side wall”
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 1-19 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 recites the limitation "the center" in line 45. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “attachment points of the sidewalls and the front wall and back wall are at substantially 90 degree angles with respect to one another” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the sidewalls” is the same as or different from “a first side wall; a second side wall” that recited in lines 3-4 of the same claim 1; and it is unclear to which element “attachment points” attached “the sidewalls and the front wall and back wall”; and
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the center" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the connecting plates" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “a gutter punch, wherein the gutter punch is connected approximately in the center of each of the connecting plates and is substantially perpendicular to the connecting plates” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by this phrase; it is unclear what is meant by “the connecting plates”; and it is unclear why the claim having “the connecting plates”
Further, there is no mechanical cooperation between “a gutter punch” and “a base”, and there is no mechanical cooperation between “the connecting plates” and “a base”;
Therefore, claim 2 is unclear and indefinite, the patentability of the claim cannot be determined; thus, no prior art rejection is provided for claim 2. Proper clarification is required in the replying to this Office Action.
Claims 3-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “attachment points of the sidewalls and the front wall and back wall are at substantially 90 degree angles with respect to one another” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the sidewalls” is the same as or different from “a first side wall; a second side wall” that recited claim 2 which claim 7 depends from; and it is unclear to which element “attachment points” attached “the sidewalls and the front wall and back wall”; and
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the center" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the connecting plates" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “a gutter punch, wherein the gutter punch is connected approximately in the center of each of the connecting plates and is substantially perpendicular to the connecting plates” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by this phrase; it is unclear what is meant by “the connecting plates”; and it is unclear why the claim having “the connecting plates”
Further, there is no mechanical cooperation between “a gutter punch” and “a base”, and there is no mechanical cooperation between “the connecting plates” and “a base”;
Therefore, claim 11 is unclear and indefinite, the patentability of the claim cannot be determined; thus, no prior art rejection is provided for claim 11. Proper clarification is required in the replying to this Office Action.
Claims 12-19 are rejected because they depend from claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “attachment points of the sidewalls and the front wall and back wall are at substantially 90 degree angles with respect to one another” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the sidewalls” is the same as or different from “a first side wall; a second side wall” that recited claim 11 which claim 16 depends from; and it is unclear to which element “attachment points” attached “the sidewalls and the front wall and back wall”; and
Regarding claims 12-19, the recitation of each of the claims renders the claims indefinite because:
the preamble of the claims is drawn to a method and the claims do not recite steps of the method, but the claims recite a structure of the apparatus;
Therefore, the claims are unclear and indefinite; and the Applicant must amend claims 12-19 to clearly define the method in the terms of method steps.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closet prior art is Maloney (US3967452A), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of the claim as recited.
Claim 1 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725