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 .
Examiner acknowledges the response filed 12/17/2025. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7 and 19 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.
Re Clm 7: This claim recites “wherein a back end of the first connecting apparatus is secured within at least one of a plurality of corner posts”. Firstly, Examiner notes that “a first back end” is set forth in claim 1 and it is unclear as to whether the recitation of “a back end” in claim 7 is referring to this already set froth back end or some other back end structure of the first connecting apparatus. Secondly, claim 1 previously claims that the first connecting apparatus is positioned within an inner channel of a first post of a fence structure, where claim 7 recites that the first connecting apparatus is secured within at least one of a plurality of corner posts. It is unclear as to how the first connecting apparatus can be positioned within two separate posts. Claim 7 is therefore indefinite for the above reasons.
Re Clm 19: This claim recites “the plurality of corner posts”. Examiner notes that there is now a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation, as claim 15 was amended to remove the limitation of a plurality of corner posts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 202012103687, hereafter ‘687.
Re Clm 1: ‘687 discloses (figs 1-14) a system comprising: a board (any middle board 3) configured at an initial position; a first connecting apparatus (5 with 6) positioned at one end of the board, wherein the first connecting apparatus includes a first front end (6) that is configured to be positioned within an opening of the board (6 is located within an opening in the end of the board), and a first back end (5) configured to be positioned within an inner channel of a first post of a fence structure (see figs); a second connecting apparatus (5 and 6 on opposite side of board 3) positioned at a second another end of the board, wherein the second connecting apparatus includes a second front end configured to be positioned within another a second opening of the board, and a second back bottom end configured to be positioned within an inner channel of a second post of the fence structure all similar to first connecting apparatus); and wherein the first post further comprises a first pair of ribs protruding from an inner surface of the inner channel of the first post inwardly directed ribs at recess of post), wherein the first connecting apparatus is positioned behind the pair of ribs within the inner channel of the first post (fig 14).
Re Clm 5: ‘687 discloses wherein the board is positioned horizontally within the fence structure (fig 1).
Re Clm 6: ‘687 discloses wherein the first connecting apparatus is a board cleat apparatus (see figs).
Re Clm 7 (as best understood): ‘687 discloses wherein a back end of the first connecting apparatus is secured within at least one of a plurality of corner posts.
Re Clm 15: ‘687 discloses a method comprising: configuring a board (3) at an initial position (see figs); positioning a first connecting apparatus (5 with 6) at one end of the board (for example, left side of board), wherein the first connecting apparatus includes a first front end (6) configured to be positioned within an opening of the board, and a first back end (5) configured to be positioned within an inner channel of a first post of a fence structure (see figs); configuring a second connecting apparatus (5 with 6 at right side of board) at another a second end of the board, wherein the second connecting apparatus includes a front end configured to be positioned within another a second opening of the board, and a second back end configured to be positioned within an inner channel of a second post of the fence structure; positioning a plurality of corner posts (2) the first post (left post) and the second post (right post) to receive the first connecting apparatus and the second connecting apparatus, respectively; and wherein the first post further comprises a first pair of ribs (inwardly protruding ribs at entrance to post recess) protruding from an inner surface of the inner channel of the first post, wherein the first connecting apparatus is positioned at a depth greater than the depth of the pair of ribs within the inner channel of the first post (see fig 14).
Re Clm 16: ‘687 discloses wherein the second connecting apparatus is configured in a position opposite to the first connecting apparatus to be received in the second end of the board (see figs 1 and 2).
Re Clm 17: ‘687 discloses positioning the second connecting apparatus into the second post (see figs 1, 2, and 14).
Re Clm 18: ‘687 discloses wherein the first connecting apparatus is positioned behind the first pair of ribs within the first post (fig 14).
Re Clm 19 (as best understood): ‘687 discloses positioning one or more additional boards within the plurality of corner posts (fig 1).
Re Clm 20: ‘687 discloses positioning a top rail (top board 3) over the board after the board is configured within the first post and second post (fig 1 and 2).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202012103687, hereafter ‘687, in view of Volin (US 10301842).
Re Clms 4 and 13: ‘717 discloses a plurality of additional boards (bottom two boards 30), but is silent on the material of the board(s).
Volin discloses a similar board and post system, wherein the boards are made of aluminum (bottom col 10). This is taught for the well-known purpose of providing a durable, corrosion-free, rot-proof, and heat resistant, material alternative. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the boards of ‘687, to be made of aluminum, as taught by Volin with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a durable, corrosion-free, rot-proof, and heat resistant, material alternative.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are allowed. Claim 2 is 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance / allowable subject matter:
Examiner notes that the prior art fails to disclose of otherwise be combinable to suggest wherein the board is received by a second pair/set of ribs protruding from the inner surface of the inner channel.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JONATHAN PETER MASINICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a-5p EST.
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 (571)270-5281. 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.
/JONATHAN P MASINICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678