DETAILED ACTION
In light of additional prior art, the previous indication of allowable subject matter in Claim 9 has been withdrawn. As this means a new grounds for rejection, this office Action will be Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Stucker (8,132,791)
In re Claims 1 and 8, Stucker teaches A post assembly for a decking system, comprising: a post member (10), the post member comprising: a first end, a second end opposite the first end, and at least one sidewall (14), and one or more fastener-receiving members/channel (20) positioned in an interior portion of the post member; and one or more post caps (82), wherein each of the one or more post caps comprises a post cover and one or more tabs extending out from the post cover, wherein each of the one or more fastener-receiving members(20) comprises two slot members (channel sidewalls) extending out therefrom, wherein, when, in an assembled configuration, the one or more tabs of each of the one or more post caps are positioned within one or more slots in the interior portion of the post member. At least one of the fastener receiver members extend from a position at or adjacent/close to the first/top end of the post member to a position at or adjacent/close to the second/bottom end of the post member. (Figures 1-12, Annotated Figures)
The limitation “for a decking system” is an intended use/functional limitation that is afforded only limited weight in a product claims. The invention is capable of meeting that functional limitation. The term fastener receiving member is a label. An actual fastener has not been positively claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
364
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
317
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re Claims 2, 5, and 6, Stucker teaches that the wherein the one or more tabs comprise a first tab and a second tab, wherein the first tab and second tab are adjacent/close to opposing ends of the post cap. The first tab is inserted into a first slot and into a second slot of the one or more slots. The one or more slots extend from a position at or adjacent/close to the first end of the post member to a position at or adjacent/close to the second end of the post member. The sluts extend for a length of the post. (Figures 1-12, Annotated Figures)
In re Claims 3, Stucker teaches the at least one sidewall (14) at least partly forms a first side and a second side opposite the first side, a third side and a fourth side opposite the third side, wherein the first side is orthogonal to the third side and the fourth side, and wherein the second side is orthogonal to the third side and the fourth side. (Figures 1-12, Annotated Figures)
In re Claims 4, Stucker teaches that each of the one or more slots are formed at least partly by the at least one sidewall and a slot member/channel wall that extends/is spaced away from the at least one sidewall. (Figures 1-12, Annotated Figures)
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:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stucker (8,132,791) in view of Diack (U.S. 3,253,373).
In re Claim 10-13, Stucker has been previously discussed but does not teach that each post cap comprises one or more through holes that comprise a center slot and one or more countersunk holes.
Diack teaches a post(20) with a cap (32) coupled to the first/top end of the post member and a cap (24) coupled to the second/bottom end. That caps have fastener receiving member (22) that allow the plates to be attached to the post with screws (26). The post and cap are is anchored to an underlying surface by fasteners/screws/bolts (28) extending through slots or their functional equivalents including a central slot (30). (Figure 2) These receiving members (22) are structurally similar to the more Stucker fastener-receiving members/channel (20)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary sill use screws in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the Stucker combination with the screws going into the cap to further secure it in place. In the combination these screws will create through holes in the cap.
The examiner takes official notice that it is well known for lights to be mounted on top of posts with central slots to accommodate either the light fixture or the electrical wiring for it. The examiner also notes that Figure 3 of Diack shows the use of counter sunk screws (36). Therefore, having countersunk fastener holes in the cap/cover of the Stucker/Diack combination would be obvious one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention in order to maintains a tight and flush cap surface. These countersunk holes in the cap/cover would align with the Stucker fastener-receiving members that are positioned in the interior portion of the post member, and wherein, when in an assembled configuration.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (U.S. 1,258,408) in view of Choi (KR 20110009003) or Dodge et al (U.S. 5,421,556).
In re Claim 14, Hill teaches a post and beam assembly. The limitation “for a decking system” is an intended use/functional limitation that is afforded only limited weight in a product claims. The invention is capable of meeting that functional limitation. The assembly comprises a post member (10), the post member comprising: a first end, a second end opposite the first end, and at least one sidewall; and one or more post caps (12,17), a beam(25), the beam comprising first and second opposing sides and opposing top and bottom sides, wherein, when in the assembled configuration, the beam is positioned on top of a first post cap(12) of the one or more post caps; and a first beam clip (24) that is attached to a first post cover (18) of the first post cap of the one or more post caps and attached to the first side of the beam (5). (Figures 1-17
Hill does not teach that the caps wherein each of the one or more post caps comprises a post cover and one or more tabs extending out from the post cover, wherein, when in an assembled configuration, the one or more tabs of each of the one or more post caps are positioned within one or more slots in an interior portion of the post member;
Choi teaches a post assembly that has a post member (10) comprising: a first end, a second end opposite the first end, and at least one sidewall; and one or more post caps (40), wherein each of the one or more post caps comprises a post cover and one or more tabs (42) extending out from the post cover, wherein, when, in an assembled configuration, the one or more tabs of each of the one or more post caps are positioned within one or more slots (12) in an interior portion of the post member. (Figures 1-5)
Dodge et al. teaches post member (5) where a cap (1) has tabs (21) that are positioned in slots/recesses (23) within the interior portion of the post. (Figure 5)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention, to modify Hill with the teachings of Choi or Dodge et al. This would allow in connection to a different column configuration such as the hollow rectangular post and also establish as durable connection between the post cap and the post.
In re Claim 16, Hill modified by Choi has been previously discussed. Hill teaches a first post cap of the one or more post caps(17) coupled to the first end of the post, and a second post cap(18) of the one or more post caps coupled to the second end of the post. (Figures 1-7)
Choi teaches a first post cap of the one or more post caps(40) coupled to the first end of the post, and a second post cap(50) of the one or more post caps coupled to the second end of the post. (Figures 1-5)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (U.S. 1,258,408) in view of Choi (KR 20110009003) or Dodge et al (U.S. 5,421,556), and in further view of Diack (U.S. 3,253,373)
In re Claim 20, the modified Hill has been previously discussed but does not teach a fastener passing through a center slot of the post cap.
Diack teaches a post (20) with a cap (24). That caps have fastener receiving member (22) that allow the plates to be attached to the post with screws (26). The post and cap are is anchored to an underlying surface by fasteners/screws/bolts (28) extending through slots or their functional equivalents including a central slot (30). (Figure 2)
It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Hill with the teachings of Diack. Having a post be anchored at a central location would increase its stability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/26/26 and 03/13/26 with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view the amended claim language requiring a new ground(s) of rejection based on the Hill reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a post assembly with the combination of characteristics specified in the claims. Of particular note are the requirements a beam bracket coupled to the at least one sidewall of the post member and to the second side of the beam or a framing member coupled to a top side of a beam. Finally, there is no teaching of a second beam clip coupled to the topside of the beam and a portion of the framing member. There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant's invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights