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 .
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(s) 1, 4-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,209,267 to Dantzer.
Regarding claim 1, Dantzer discloses a modular decking system (abstract) having a plurality of decking panels (fig. 3: 13), a plurality of even spaced trusses (12) under the decking, a frame (5) with posts (2) previously installed before the frame, and a plurality of headboards (opposite sides of the frame, joist hangers (8) on the frame (5), corner brackets (52, 36) on the corners. Screws are disclosed (column 2, lines 28-30) but they are not explicitly disclosed for use as deck screws for securing the panels to the frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dantzer by using such screws throughout the deck, panel to frame connection would be one use and would speed assembly. Regarding the limitation of instructions, this is not disclosed. However, Dantzer discloses the decking system as being sold as a kit (column 2, lines 35-45). The Examiner takes official notice that it is well known that kits come with instructions, as the instructions provide an explanation of where parts fit together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dantzer by adding instructions since instructions are a well-known means to identify which parts in a kit are meant to be joined together. Regarding the limitation of preset apertures disposed on top of the decking panels, this is not disclosed. However, preset (pre drilled holes) apertures are disclosed for use as seen as 42 in figures 6-8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dantzer by adding more preset apertures, since already disclosed, in order to speed assembly in the field.
Regarding claim 4, the use of lumber is disclosed (column 1, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 5, Dantzer discloses a plurality of inner and outer frames (fig. 2: see plurality of frames within outer perimeter).
Regarding claim 6, Dantzer discloses the use of pre drilled apertures (column 3, lines 40-42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dantzer by using pre drilled apertures throughout the decking system in order to speed assembly.
Regarding claim 7, an additional brace (16) is disclosed to better support (after assembly, 15 and 16 provide extra rigidity to the entire decking, including the posts) the posts (2).
Regarding claim 8, Dantzer discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dantzer to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a mere design choice where larger sizes provide greater support when needed as smaller sizes may be used where less strength is needed.
Regarding claim 9, the decking may be easily deconstructed and transported.
Regarding claim 10, the decking system includes additional decking systems (fig. 2: see plurality of decking sections) fastened together to form a platform.
Regarding claim 11, stands are used (fig. 2: 3).
Regarding claim 12, the stands (3) may be temporary or permanent.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, the decking system is a kit (column 2, lines 36-45) having the components as rejected in claim 1, and capable of being assembled by a person.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1. The components obtained are disclosed in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding the limitation of evenly spaced trusses below the decking, this is also disclosed as the trusses are evenly spaced, viewed as uniform, from each other as Dantzer does not disclose the trusses as being unevenly spaced, which would be uniformed. Also, the trusses (12) are evenly spaced and under the decking (13) and corner brackets (fig. 6: 36, 52) are on corners.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claims 1 and 15.
Regarding claim 18, posts (2) and headboards (5, two opposite sides of frame, fig. 3) are disclosed.
Regarding claim 19, the frame is a patio (deck attached to a house, abstract).
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,209,267 to Dantzer in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2003/0026675 to McGovern et al.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 17, Dantzer discloses the use of treated lumber (column 1, lines 10-13), but not pressure treated or composite. McGovern discloses that pressure treated and composite materials are commonly used for decking [0005]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dantzer by using such products in order to increase longevity. Regarding panel sizes, Dantzer discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dantzer to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a mere design choice where larger panels would be needed for supporting larger weights as smaller panels would be used for lighter weights.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues Dantzler does not disclose at least three structural elements of claim 1 and the Examiner’s obviousness rationale lacks the underpinning required. As such, the Applicant argues Dantzler does not disclose a plurality of evenly spaced trusses below the panels. This is addressed in the new action above. It should be noted that the trusses of Dantzler are uniform and orderly which may be construed as being evenly spaced, since they are, in fact even with each other. It is not clear how these components are being construed by the Applicant as though they are not evenly spaced. The components are uniform and even throughout the structure without irregular spacing. The Applicant should point out the irregular spacing patterns and any other alleged irregularities.
The Applicant argues the names given to the components of Dantzler. However, the structure of the components meet the structural limitations of the application, as claimed. The Applicant argues the names, but not the structures as to how the parts of Dantzler differ from those of the application.
The Applicant also argues the “hangers” of Dantzler are not hangers. As recited above, the structure of these components meets the structural limitations of a hanger in the claims of the application. The Applicant discusses the understood meaning of what a joist hanger is but the Applicant should also note that the limitations are construed broadly and a “joist hanger” is something that may hang a joist.
Regarding the use of deck screws, screws are already disclosed by Dantzler (column 2, lines 28-30) but not explicitly “deck screws”. The Applicant argues the means by which nails and screws are used and this is a different process. Again, screws are disclosed. Also, it is well known that decking screws are used and sold in every hardware store. About a century ago, screws began to prevail over nails when used for wood planks, decking, etc. Most every current deck being built includes “deck screws” It is not clear, by the Applicant’s arguments, how “deck screws” differ from the “screws” in column 2 of Dantzler. And as for speeding assembly, it is well known that drills contain bits that rotate a screw, which is a quick process. Again, the screws of column 2 may also be used with a drill.
The Applicant argues the Examiner’s official notice that kits come with instructions. The Applicant disagrees that kits come with instructions, especially decks. As an example, the Examiner may point the Applicant to https://www.mattbusche.org/blog/article/deck/ which includes instructions for a deck and is dated 2010.
The Applicant also argues the combination of two embodiments of Dantzler. The Applicant should note that Dantzler discloses the structural limitations of the application and also includes embodiments of a related invention, a deck. The above rejection is an obviousness rejection for combining structures that are already well know, especially well known by the inventor of the prior art. The Applicant does not explain why a combination, or substitution, of known structures is not obvious. Adding corner brackets are used to strengthen corners.
The Applicant argues headboards are not disclosed but, as above, the headboards of Dantzler meet the structural limitations of the application as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm 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, Brian Glessner can be reached on (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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
