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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract is objected to for using phrases which can be implied (“This application discloses…”; first sentence)
The abstract is objected to for referring to purported merits of the invention (“thus avoiding the waste of time and effort”; final sentence)
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-7 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 Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pins (2)" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for more than one “pin” in the claim since only “a pin” was previously introduced in line 2 of the claim.
For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret this limitation will be interpreted as --the pin (2)--.
Clarification and correction are required.
Re Claims 2-7: These claims are considered indefinite because of their dependency from indefinite claim 1
Examiner notes that any prior art rejections made in this Office Action are made in view of the claims, as best understood by the Examiner, in view of the above indefiniteness rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Re Claim 2: Since multiple “mounting holes” have been previously introduced, claim 2 should be amended as follows:
--2. The assembly-type fence of claim 1, wherein a cross-section of the mounting holes (11) is rectangular.--
Re Claim 3: Since multiple “insertion parts” have been previously introduced, claim 3 should be amended as follows:
--3. The assembly-type fence of claim 1, wherein the insertion parts (12) are in a form of a handle with a U-shaped cross-section.--
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 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailey (US Patent 4,553,740).
Re Claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner: Bailey discloses an assembly-type fence (see Figs. 1-6), comprising a plurality of fence units (10) with identical structures and a pin (24) for securing two adjacent fence units together(see Fig. 5), wherein one end of the fence unit having a plurality of mounting holes (defined by the opening into each zone 16 at the spaces 22, shown by the dashed lines in 1st Annotated Fig. 4 below) oriented horizontally, and the other end having a plurality of horizontally oriented protruding insertion parts (defined by the protrusion formed at each zone 16 by sloping portions 18 and wire 14.1, shown in 2nd Annotated Fig. 4 below), with slots (the openings of each space 22, as shown from the view of Fig. 5) located in the insertion parts in a vertical orientation; the plurality of mounting holes and insertion parts are arranged vertically (being vertically spaced apart at the three vertical locations of zones 16; see Fig. 2), and dimensions, quantity, and heights of the mounting holes correspond to those of the insertion parts; the insertion parts on the fence unit go through the mounting holes (when arranged as in Fig. 5) of the adjacent fence unit, and are secured by the pin (24) that passes vertically through the slots (at 22; see Figs. 4 and 5) to fix two adjacent fence units (10).
PNG
media_image1.png
797
1161
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
488
1349
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2: Bailey discloses an assembly-type fence (see Figs. 1-6), wherein a cross-section of the mounting hole (see 1st Annotated Fig. 4 above) is rectangular.
Re Claim 5: Bailey discloses an assembly-type fence (see Figs. 1-6), wherein a top of the pin (24) is provided with a hook part (the curved end) that can be suspended on the topmost insertion part.
Re Claim 6: Bailey discloses an assembly-type fence (see Figs. 1-6), wherein the fence unit (10) comprises a plurality of protruding parts (zones 16) and a plurality of recessed parts (the flat portions of panel 10), with the protruding and recessed parts arranged in a wavy pattern alternating along the vertical direction (see Figs. 2 and 4).
Re Claim 7: Bailey discloses an assembly-type fence (see Figs. 1-6), wherein both the mounting holes (see 1st annotated Fig.4 above) and insertion parts (see 2nd annotated Fig.4 above) are arranged on the protruding parts (16).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (US Patent 4,553,740), as applied to claims 1-2 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Sotillos (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0272908).
Re Claim 3: Bailey, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses an assembly-type fence of claim 1, and wherein the insertion part (see 2nd annotated Fig. 4 above) is in a form of a handle (i.e., it is capable of being grasped like a handle).
Bailey fails to explicitly disclose wherein the insertion part has a U-shaped cross-section. Rather, the insertion part is disclosed as significantly V-shaped (see Fig. 4).
Examiner notes that it has been held that a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) [discussed in MPEP 2144.04].
Further, Sotillos teaches the use of a fence comprising a plurality of fence units (see Fig. 1), wherein each fence unit comprising a plurality of securing portions (formed by the protruding portion of the panel formed by bends 5, 6), and at least one pin (9) used to secure the fence units in place, and further wherein each of the securing portions is in a form with a U-shaped cross-section (see Fig. 1a), for the purpose of forming an anchoring portion for the at least one pin (9).
PNG
media_image3.png
737
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 device of Bailey, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the insertion part has a U-shaped cross-section, as taught by Sotillos, for the purpose of, for example, forming a stronger anchoring portion the pin by increasing the surface area attached to the pin, and since such a change in shape would amount to a design choice within the sill of the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (US Patent 4,553,740), as applied to claims 1-2 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Bryan (US Patent 7,216,854).
Re Claim 4: Bailey, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses an assembly-type fence significantly as claimed except it does not explicitly disclose wherein a bottom of the pin gradually tapers off.
PNG
media_image4.png
462
1180
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bryan teaches the use of a fence (10) comprising a plurality of fence units (12) with identical structures and at least one pin (40) for securing the fence units to each other and to the ground, and further wherein a bottom (46) of the at least one pin (20) gradually tapers off, for the purpose of aiding insertion into the ground.
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 device of Bailey, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that a bottom of the pin gradually tapers off, as taught by Bryan, for the purpose of aiding insertion into the ground.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MCMAHON whose telephone number is (571)270-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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.
/MATTHEW R MCMAHON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678