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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 4 shows reference numeral “34” pointing to an area outside of the device. Examiner notes that reference numeral “34” should reference the first wall portion. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0030 – “show” should be corrected to --shoe--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, and 15 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, these claims have not been further treated on the merits.
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 3, and 6-9, and 14 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 3: This claim recites “said first wall portions” in line 1. Examiner suggests rewording to --said at least one first wall portion--, since only at least one first wall portion has previously been set forth and the instant limitation is unclear as to how many first wall portions are actually being required.
Re Clm 6: This claim recites “said first wall portions” in line 4. Examiner suggests rewording to --said at least one first wall portion--, since only at least one first wall portion has previously been set forth and the instant limitation is unclear as to how many first wall portions are actually being required.
Re Clm 6: This claim recites “said second bracket .” in the last line. Firstly, “said second bracket” lacks antecedent basis and, secondly, this appears to only be a partial limitation that is indefinite.
Re Clm 7: This claim recites “said second bracket” in line 1. Examiner notes “said second bracket” lacks antecedent basis, since a second bracket has not been previously set forth. Also see instance of “said second bracket” in lines 3-4.
Re Clm 9(8(6)): this multiple dependent claim recites “a further corner” in line 4. Examiner notes that the dependency of claim 9 from claim 8 from claim 6, does not previously set for a corner, so it is unclear as to what “a further corner” is referring to.
Re Clm 14: This claim recites “wherein said brackets of said pair of brackets are identical”. It is unclear as to how the brackets are identical since claim 13 recites that the brackets have different structural features that are mutually exclusive to each. It is unclear as to how each of the brackets could have first and second wall portions as claimed with “one of said brackets” and also third wall portions as set forth in the “an other of said brackets”.
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 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davies (GB 2580097).
Re Clm 1: Davies discloses a fence post bracket (24) having at least one first wall portion (top portion of the wide back wall), a pair of second wall portions (extending towards the other bracket) extending perpendicular to a respective one of first wall portion, and a base (14) orthogonal to the wall portions and secured thereto, said base extending between said second wall portions and beyond each of said wall portions to provide a flange and apertures in the flange to receive fastenings (see figs), whereby said wall portions receive said post and said post is elevated by said base (post received by base surface would be elevated from the surface on which the base is on).
Re Clm 2: Davies discloses wherein apertures (fig 17, apertures 64) are provided in each of said second wall portions to receive fasteners.
Re Clm 3(1) and 3(2): Davies discloses wherein each of said first wall portions is imperforate. Examiner notes that the top portion of the first wall portion is imperforate, as is alternative embodiments (as shown in figs 10-17).
Re Clm 6 (as best understood): Davies discloses a fence post socket assembly (as shown in figs 10-17) to secure a square post (52) in a vertical orientation, said socket assembly comprising a pair of fence post brackets (left and right 58), one of said brackets having at least one first wall portion (top portion of the wide back wall 66), each of which overlies a respective outer face of said post (fig 16), a pair of second wall portions (60) extending perpendicular to a respective one of said first wall portions to extend partially across faces adjacent to an outer face of said post, and a base (54) orthogonal to the wall portions and secured thereto, said base extending between said second wall portions and beyond each of said wall portions to provide a flange and apertures (see figs) in the flange to receive fastenings, whereby said wall portions receive said post and said post is elevated by said base, said second bracket.
Re Clm 7 (as best understood): Davies discloses wherein said second bracket has a pair of wall portions disposed perpendicular to one another and a base extending between and beyond said wall portions provide a flange and apertures in said flange to receive fasteners, said second bracket overlying a corner of said post. Examiner notes that figs 10-17 show a pair of brackets, each with the structural features required by the claims.
Re Clm 8(6) and 8(7): Davies discloses wherein said one of said brackets (either bracket) has only one first wall portion (back wall portion) and said second wall portions extend perpendicular thereto along opposite edges of said first wall portion (as shown).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-13 are allowed. Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter / allowance:
Re Clm 9: Examiner notes that the prior art fails to disclose a third bracket having a pair of wall portions disposed perpendicular to one another and a base extending between and beyond said wall portions provide a flange and apertures in said flange to receive fasteners, said third bracket overlying a further corner of said post.
Re Clm 10: Examiner notes that the prior art discloses a fence comprising a post, a panel secured to said post and a socket assembly to support said post in a vertical orientation, said socket assembly having a pair of brackets each with wall portions extending partially across a face of said post and said wall portions of said brackets being spaced from one another on said face to provide a gap between said brackets. Examiner notes that the prior art fails to disclose wherein said panel passing through said gap between said brackets.
Conclusion
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