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 . 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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3 and 5 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5961242 A (Leone)
Regarding Claim 1, Leone discloses
a fence bracket (10, Figure 5) for directly connecting to an external surface a post to define a fence member slot facing a direction that said external surface faces, the fence bracket comprising;
a C-channel (38, Figure 5) defining the fence member slot defined by two opposing legs of the bracket (25 and 27);
and a connection flange (20, Figure 5) for directly connecting to said surface (14, Fig. 1), wherein the connection flange extends from a distal edge of an inner leg of the two opposing legs in a direction away from the fence member slot (26, Figure 5), whereby no part of the fence bracket engages an internal portion of the post (Figure 1 and 2)
Regarding Claim 3, Leone also discloses the fence bracket of claim 1, wherein the two opposing legs each have a plurality of pilot holes that align with each other (55 and 57, Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Leone also discloses a method of bracketing a fence configuration (12) to an outer surface of a post (14), by way of a fence bracket (10, Figure 5), wherein no part of the fence bracket engages an internal portion of the post (Figure 1 and 5) the method comprising: directly attaching a first fence bracket (16) of claim 3 (see rejection above) to a first outer surface of a post by way of its connection flange (Figure 1 and 5); and directly attaching a second fence bracket (18) of claim 3 (see rejection above) to a second outer surface of the post by way of its connection flange so that the respective fence member slots of the first and second fence brackets are coplanar and directly face away from each other ( Figure 5).
Claims 1,2 and 3 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11396747 B1 (Getz)
Regarding Claim 1 Getz discloses a fence bracket (510, wherein the bracket is capable of being used on a fence and attaching to fence posts and fence members) for directly connecting to an external surface a post to define a fence member slot facing a direction that said external surface faces, the fence bracket comprising;
a C-channel (524, 525, and 526, Fig. 8B) defining the fence member slot (527) defined by two opposing legs of the bracket (524 and 526);
and a connection flange (523, Fig. 8B) for directly connecting to said surface (Fig. 9B), wherein the connection flange extends from a distal edge of an inner leg of the two opposing legs in a direction away from the fence member slot (), whereby no part of the fence bracket engages an internal portion of the post (Col. 21, Lines 36-56)
Regarding Claim 2 Getz discloses the fence bracket of claim 1, wherein the connection flange has a plurality of spaced apart fastener holes (528, Fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 3 Getz also discloses the fence bracket of claim 1, wherein the two opposing legs each have a plurality of pilot holes that align with each other (526 and 527, Fig. 8B).
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 2 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5961242 A (Leone) as applied to claim 2 above, in view of US 10422140 B2 (Mitchell).
Regarding Claim 2, Leone discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Leone does not explicitly disclose the connection flange (20) has a plurality of spaced apart fastener holes.
However, Mitchell discloses a bracket (20) that attaches to a post (16) via a connection flange (28, Figure 2) and has a plurality of spaced apart fastener holes (32, Figure 2) in order to prevent the bracket from moving down the post unintentionally.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leone as suggested by Mitchell to provide the connection flange with plurality of spaced apart fastener holes. Fastening holes as taught by Mitchell are well known in the art and it would have been routine design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide fastening holes to the invention of Leone to secure the bracket to the post and prevent the bracket from moving on the post unintentionally.
Claim 4 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over US 9371666 B2 (Allen et al) in view of US 11396747 B1 (Getz).
Regarding Claim 4, Allen et al discloses A method of bracketing a fence member, by way of a fence bracket (upper bracket in Figure 10, elements 31, 34,and 38), to outer surfaces of two adjacent posts (6, as evidenced in Figure 6), wherein no part of the fence bracket engages an internal portion of the post (Figure 10), the method comprising: directly attaching a first fence bracket (upper bracket in Figure 10) to a first outer surface of a first post (6) of the two adjacent posts; directly attaching a second fence bracket to a second outer surface of a second post of the two adjacent posts (as shown in Figure 6 illustrating how multiple posts and brackets shown in Figure 10 would be used)so that the respective fence member slots of the first and second fence brackets directly face each other (as seen in Figure 6 showing the opening of the brackets face each other to allow rails 44 to be supported by 2 adjacent brackets)), and fastening each end of the fence member (44) in the respective fence member slot of the first and second fence brackets (as evidenced in Figure 6 showing two posts with respective brackets holding rails) so that for each end of the fence member a plurality of fasteners pass through a leg of the bracket, the fence member, and into the respective post (via 55 and 29, Figure 11, Col. 7, lines 7-17) but fails to disclose the bracket structure of claim 3 and the fastener passing through two opposing legs of the bracket.
However, Getz discloses the bracket of claim 3 (see the Getz rejection of Claim 3 above) and utilizing a fastener through the legs to attach a rail portion (Col. 21, lines 52-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the bracket of Allen et al for the bracket of Getz as a simple substitution of one well known bracket for another to yield the predictable result of providing a means to attach a cross piece to a post and support the cross piece. Further, it would be obvious to provide the device of Allen with the bracket of Getz in order to provide a means to replace the bracket if it gets damaged.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALMUTASIM HEZAM AIYASH whose telephone number is (571)272-6104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5PM.
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.
/A.H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678