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 (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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second handrail that is to be positioned within the same channel as the first handrail when the second handrail is rested on top of the first handrail as claimed in claim 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 requires the second handrail to be positioned within the same channel as the first handrail when the second handrail is rested on top of the first handrail. There appears to be no support in either of Applicant’s specification or drawings for a second handrail positioned within the same channel as the first handrail when the second handrail is rested on top of the first handrail. There is a retainer to prevent vertical movement of the first handrail, but if there is a second handrail on top of the first handrail in the same channel, there is clearly no retainer for that second handrail. This claim does not appear to be in accordance with Applicant’s invention. It is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 25 requires the second handrail to be positioned within the same channel as the first handrail when the second handrail is rested on top of the first handrail. There appears to be no support for this limitation. There is a retainer to prevent vertical movement of the first handrail, but if there is a second handrail on top of the first handrail in the same channel, there is clearly no retainer for that second handrail. This claim does not appear to be in accordance with Applicant’s invention. It is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim. As such, claim 25 will not be further treated on the merits until correction is provided.
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)(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.
Claims 2-4, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hart, US 2,608,386.
Regarding claim 2, Hart teaches a barrier system comprising:
a rail capable of being a handrail (24 in Figure 1), the handrail having an end with a width measured in a direction transverse to an elongate length of the handrail;
a connector (30; Figure 4) to couple the handrail to a post (18; Figure 1), the connector including a socket (between plates 36 as shown in Figure 4) to hold the end of the handrail, the socket defined by an elongate channel that extends, between first and second ends of the channel, in a direction substantially parallel to the post when the connector is attached to the post, the end of the handrail to be inserted into the channel through the first end of the channel; and
a retainer (“nail or other securing means”; column 2 lines 16-19) to selectively extend (it can be inserted whenever a user wants) into a side of the channel to restrict movement of the end of the handrail along the channel.
Regarding claim 3, as shown in Figure 4, there is further a plate (38) closing off the second end of the channel, the retainer spaced apart from the plate sufficiently to enable the end of the handrail to be disposed within the channel between the plate and the retainer.
Regarding claim 4, since Hart discloses that the handrail is to be secured by using a nail or other securing means through an aperture 26 in side walls 36 (aperture 26 shown in perspective view in Figure 2), and the aperture is located proximate the middle of the side wall, the retainer (nail or other securing means) is spaced apart from the end (end surface) of the handrail when the end of the handrail is resting on plate.
Regarding claim 9, since Hart discloses a nail as the retainer and shows a nail (unnumbered) in Figures 3, 5, and 6, the retainer has a first width (width at the middle of the nail) at a first point along a length of the retainer and a second width (sharp tip) at a second point along a length of the retainer, the first width greater than the second width.
Regarding claim 11, since Hart discloses a nail as the retainer, the retainer has a circular cross section.
Regarding claim 14, the channel has a length that is greater than the width of the end of the handrail since the channel is rectangular shaped and the handrail fits within the channel.
Claims 2, 6-7, 9-13, 17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20150106254 A (hereinafter will be referred to as “KR ‘254”).
Regarding claim 2, KR ‘254 teaches a barrier system comprising:
a rail capable of being a handrail (300 in Figures 2-3b), the handrail having an end with a width measured in a direction transverse to an elongate length of the handrail;
a connector (210; Figures 2-3b) to couple the handrail to a post (200; Figures 2-3b), the connector including a socket (the void within 210) to hold the end of the handrail, the socket defined by an elongate channel that extends, between first and second ends of the channel, in a direction substantially parallel to the post when the connector is attached to the post, the end of the handrail to be inserted into the channel through the first end of the channel; and
a retainer (440) to selectively extend (it can be inserted whenever a user wants) into a side of the channel to restrict movement of the end of the handrail along the channel (Figures 3a-3b).
Regarding claim 6, as shown in Figures 3a-3b, the retainer is spring loaded to bias the retainer from a first position (when 440 is depressed and is up) towards a second position (when un-depressed and 440 is down).
Regarding claim 7, as shown in Figures 3a-3b, the retainer is to restrict the movement of the end of the handrail along the channel in the second position (Figure 3b, after depressing 440 and then letting 440 drop into aperture 220) and to permit movement of the end of the handrail along the channel in the first position.
Regarding claim 9, as shown in Figures 3a-3b, the retainer has a first width at a first point (closer to the spring) along a length of the retainer and a second width (at the outer tip) at a second point along a length of the retainer, the first width greater than the second width.
Regarding claim 10, as shown in Figures 3a-3b, the first point of the retainer is to be aligned with the end of the handrail in the channel (along the bottom longitudinally) when the retainer is to restrict the movement of the end of the handrail along the channel, and the second point of the retainer is to be aligned with the end of the handrail in the channel (along the bottom longitudinally when 440 is depressed) when the retainer is to permit the movement of the end of the handrail along the channel.
Regarding claim 11, as shown in Figures 3a-3b, the retainer has a circular cross-section (sectioned horizontally).
Regarding claim 12, as shown in Figures 3a-3b, the retainer (440) has an elongate length, the retainer including a recessed region along a first portion (rounded tip) of the elongate length of the retainer, the recessed region of the first portion narrower than a second portion (portion of 440 closer to the spring) of the elongate length of the retainer.
Regarding claim 13, the retainer is selectively moveable between a first position (when 440 is depressed and up) and a second position (when 440 is un-depressed and down), the recessed region aligned with the channel (longitudinally along the bottom) when the retainer is in the first position, the second portion aligned with and extending into the channel when the retainer is in the second position (as shown in Figure 3b).
Regarding claim 17, the retainer is capable of being manually depressed to move to a position in which the end of the handrail is able to be selectively removed from or inserted into the channel.
Regarding claim 26, KR ‘254 teaches a barrier system (Figures 2, 3a, 3b) comprising:
a connector (210) to attach to a post (200), the connector including an elongate socket and a plate (bottom, unitarily-formed plate) at a first end of the elongate socket;
a rail (300) capable of being a handrail having an end to be supported within the elongate socket, the end of the handrail to rest upon the plate, the handrail to extend through a slot (on the right side of connector as shown in Figure 3a) that extends along a length of the elongate socket; and
a retainer (440) selectively moveable between a first position and a second position (up and down), a first end of the retainer to remain on a first side of the connector as the retainer moves between the first and second positions, a second end of the retainer to remain on a second side of the connector as the retainer moves between the first and second positions, the second side opposite the first side, a portion of the retainer to extend into the elongate socket when the retainer is in the first position to restrict movement of the end of the handrail in the elongate socket in a direction away from the plate.
Claims 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dawson, GB 2 264 317 B.
Regarding claim 19, Dawson teaches a barrier system (Figures 1 and 4) comprising:
a connector (16) to attach to a post (10), the connector defining a channel that extends along the post when the connector is attached to the post, the channel having a c-shaped cross-section (the c-shaped cross-section of the channel defined by two opposite side walls and the back wall of the widest part of the T-shaped recess) based on an opening (outermost opening) extending along the channel, the opening to face away from the post (shown in Figure 1);
a rail (21) capable of being a handrail having an end (24) to be supported within the channel, the end larger than a width of the opening (shown in Figure 1); and
a retainer (securement means 71) carried by the connector, the retainer extending in a direction transverse to the channel (through the channel as shown in Figure 4), a side of an elongate length of the retainer to extend into the channel to block the end of the handrail from moving along the channel past the retainer (“for resisting unwanted upward movement”; page 5 lines 22-28).
Regarding claim 20, Dawson’s retainer extends in a direction transverse to an elongate length of the handrail as shown in Figure 4.
Regarding claim 21, as shown in Dawson’s Figure 4, the side of the retainer (shown as cable tie 71) that extends into the channel corresponds to a segment of the retainer between opposite ends of the retainer, the opposite ends of the retainer to remain outside of the channel (after installation, as shown in Figure 4, since once the toothed rack end goes through the locking head, it is locked in place and cannot slip through the channel again).
Regarding claim 22, Dawson discloses that the securement means could be a nut and bolt (page 5 lines 22-28). A nut and bolt retainer is manually movable in a direction aligned with the elongate length of the retainer between a first position and a second position, the retainer to block the end of the handrail from moving along the channel when the retainer is in the first position (nut and bolt installed through channel), the retainer to permit the end of the handrail from moving along the channel when the retainer is in the second position (nut and bolt out of the channel).
Regarding claim 23, since Dawson discloses the retainer to be a cable tie, one end is the locking head which is much wider than the other end which is a toothed rack, and meets the limitation of having different widths at different points along the elongate length of the retainer.
Regarding claim 24, as shown in Dawson’s Figure 4, the channel has a length (measured from top to bottom) that is at least twice a thickness (measured from left to right) of the end of the handrail.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart as applied to claim 14 above in view of Angel, US 4,413,761.
Regarding claim 15, Hart’s end of the handrail is a first end of a first handrail. While Hart fails to disclose that the length of the channel is sufficient to hold a second end of a second handrail, Angel teaches a similar connector bracket (Figure 1) and discloses a length of a channel (from top of 32 through bottom of sloped bottom wall) being sufficient to hold a second end of a second handrail on top of a first end of a first handrail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the channel in view of Angel’s disclosure for an alternate design of connector. It is noted that this claim limitation only pertains to the length of the channel, and does not require a second handrail.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart as applied to claim 2 above in view of KR 20130032813 (hereinafter will be referred to as “KR ‘813”).
Regarding claim 18, while Hart fails to disclose that the end of the handrail is spherical, KR ‘813 teaches a balustrade with an end of a handrail that is spherical (shown at 201 in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the end of Hart’s handrail to be spherical in view of KR ‘813’s disclosure based on obvious design choice.
Claims 2 (alternate rejection of claim 2), 5, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart, US 2,608,386 in view of Angel, US 4,413,761.
Regarding claim 2, Hart teaches a barrier system comprising:
a rail capable of being a handrail (24 in Figure 1), the handrail having an end with a width measured in a direction transverse to an elongate length of the handrail; and
a connector (30; Figure 4) to couple the handrail to a post (18; Figure 1), the connector including a socket (between plates 36 as shown in Figure 4) to hold the end of the handrail, the socket defined by an elongate channel that extends, between first and second ends of the channel, in a direction substantially parallel to the post when the connector is attached to the post, the end of the handrail to be inserted into the channel through the first end of the channel.
While Hart only discloses using a nail, Angel teaches a similar connector bracket and discloses using a pin 50 through apertures through the side walls of the connector bracket to prevent vertical movement (column 2 lines 57-59) of a rail 12 by being placed across the top surface of the rail as shown in Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hart to include a retainer (pin) to selectively extend into a side of the channel to restrict movement of the end of the handrail by placing the retainer across the top surface of the handrail along the channel in view of Angel’s disclosure as discussed above to prevent any possibility of the handrail pivoting vertically.
Regarding claim 5, the resulting combination includes a plate (38) closing off the second end of the channel, the end of the handrail to rest on the plate when the connector couples the handrail to the post. Since Angel discloses the pin 50 (the retainer in the resulting combination) being placed across the top surface (column 2 lines 57-59) of the rail, the resulting combination includes the retainer being higher than an uppermost side of the end of the handrail when the end of the handrail is resting on the plate.
Regarding claim 14, the resulting combination from claim 2 includes the channel having a length that is greater than the width of the end of the handrail since the channel is rectangular shaped and the handrail fits within the channel.
Regarding claim 16, Angel further discloses that the retainer (pin 50) is to be positioned at a midpoint between a first end and a second end of a channel (from top of 32 to bottom of sloped bottom wall). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to change the length of the channel and have the retainer be positioned at a midpoint between the first and second ends of the channel based on design choice. It is noted that this claim limitation only pertains to the length of the channel and the positional relationship of the retainer to the channel; lacking criticality, this is a matter of design choice.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘254 as applied to claim 26 above, alone.
Regarding claim 27, while KR ‘254 fails to explicitly disclose the claim limitation because the dimensions of the socket and handrail are not disclosed, this appears to be a matter of change in size. Limitations pertaining to the change in size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the elongate socket to be greater than a width of the end of the handrail based on obvious design choice.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘254 as applied above to claim 26 in view of in view of Angel, US 4,413,761.
Regarding claim 28, KR ‘254’s end of the handrail is a first end of a first handrail. While KR ‘254 fails to disclose that the length of the channel is sufficient to hold a second end of a second handrail, Angel teaches a similar connector bracket (Figure 1) and discloses a length of a channel (from top of 32 through bottom of sloped bottom wall) being sufficient to hold a second end of a second handrail on top of a first end of a first handrail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the channel in view of Angel’s disclosure for an alternate design of connector. It is noted that this claim limitation only pertains to the length of the channel, and does not require a second handrail.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Erwin, US 2010/0270525 A1 and Erwin, US 2010/0270526 A1 are cited for teaching similar connector brackets to attach a rail to a post, the connector brackets each having a socket and a retainer for securing a rail in place. Several references are cited for teaching rails with spherical ends.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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 Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights