DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 (line 1) “of claim 1” should recite –of claim 2--.
For the purpose of examining the application, it is assumed that appropriate correction has been made.
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 1-6, 10, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunitz (US 2005/0082518).
As to claim 1, Kunitz discloses a modular fence system, comprising:
a first vertical post 12;
a second vertical post 12;
a first horizontal support 14 configured to extend between and secure to the first vertical post and the second vertical post;
a first vertical panel 16 comprising a first vertically elongated slot 20.2 and a second vertically elongated slot 20.2; and
a first plurality of fasteners 20.1 each configured to extend through one of the first or second vertically elongated slots into the first horizontal support to secure the first vertical panel to the first horizontal support (Figures 1-11).
As to claim 2, Kunitz discloses a modular fence system wherein each of the first and second vertically elongated slots 20.2 comprises a height, HSL, and are separated by a distance, DSL, and wherein HSL/DSL ≥ 0.35 (Figures 1-11).
As to claim 3, Kunitz discloses a modular fence system wherein each of the first and second vertically elongated slots 20.2 comprise a slot width, WSL, wherein each of the first plurality of fasteners 2.1 comprise a shaft having a shaft width, WFS, and wherein (WSL-WFS)/DSL ≥ 0.03 (Figures 1-11).
As to claim 4, Kunitz discloses a modular fence system comprising a second horizontal support 14 configured to extend between and secure to the first vertical post 12 and the second vertical post 12, wherein the second horizontal support is above or below the first horizontal support 14 when the first and second horizontal supports are secured to the first and second vertical posts (Figures 1-11).
As to claim 5, Kunitz discloses a modular fence system wherein the first vertical panel 16 comprises a third vertically elongated slot 20.2 and a fourth vertically elongated slot 20.2, and wherein each of the first plurality of fasteners 20.1 are configured to extend through one of the third or fourth vertically elongated slots into the second horizontal support 14 to secure the first vertical panel to the second horizontal support (Figures 1-11).
As to claim 6, Kunitz discloses a modular fence system comprising a plurality of vertical panels 16 including the first vertical panel, wherein the first and second horizontal supports 14 include a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first and second sides of the first and second horizontal supports are configured such that vertical panels from the plurality of vertical panels are capable of being secured to both the first and second sides of the first and second horizontal supports (Figures 1-11).
As to claim 10, Kunitz discloses a modular fence system wherein the first horizontal support 14 comprises a first end, a first tab 18.1 extending out from the first end, and a second tab 18.1 extending out from the first end, wherein the first end, first tab, and second tab are configured to form a U-shaped cavity configured to receive one of the first or second vertical posts 12 (Figures 1-11).
As to claim 14, Kunitz discloses a modular fence system, comprising:
a first stanchion 12;
a second stanchion 12;
a first horizontal support 14 configured to extend between and secure to the first stanchion and the second stanchion; and
a first vertical panel 16 including a first securing recess A (Figure 9A reprinted below with annotations), a second securing recess A, and a first protrusion B extending between the first recess and the second securing recess, wherein the first vertical panel is configured to secure to the first horizontal support (Figures 1-11).
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
235
202
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 18, Kunitz discloses a modular fence system wherein the first vertical fence panel 16 comprises a dog-eared top end (Figures 1-11).
As to claim 19, Kunitz discloses a method of installing a modular fence system, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a first vertical post 12, a second vertical post 12, a first horizontal support 14 configured to extend between and secure to the first and second vertical posts, a first vertical panel 16 comprising a first vertically elongated slot 20.2 and a second vertically elongated slot 20.2, and a first plurality of fasteners 20.1 each configured to extend through one of the first or second vertically elongated slots into the first horizontal support to secure the first vertical panel to the first horizontal support;
securing the first and second vertical posts to the ground;
securing the first horizontal support to the first and second vertical posts; and
securing the first vertical panel to the first horizontal support by inserting fasteners from the first plurality of fasteners through each of the first and second vertically elongated slots and into the first horizontal support (Figures 1-11).
As to claim 20, Kunitz discloses a method wherein the first horizontal support 14 comprises a first end, a first tab 18.1 extending out from the first end, and a second tab 18.1 extending out from the first end, wherein the first end, first tab, and second tab are configured to form a U-shaped cavity configured to receive one of the first vertical post 12 or the second vertical post, and wherein the step of securing the first horizontal support to the first vertical post includes inserting the first vertical post into the U-shaped cavity (Figures 1-11).
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cofield (US 2,919,113).
As to claim 14, Cofield discloses a modular fence system, comprising:
a first stanchion 10;
a second stanchion 10;
a first horizontal support 5 configured to extend between and secure to the first stanchion and the second stanchion; and
a first vertical panel P including a first securing recess A (Figure 1 reprinted below with annotations), a second securing recess A, and a first protrusion B extending between the first recess and the second securing recess, wherein the first vertical panel is configured to secure to the first horizontal support (Figures 1-4).
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
212
129
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 18, Cofield discloses a modular fence system wherein the first vertical fence panel P comprises a dog-eared top end (Figures 1-4).
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunitz in view of Patrick (US 5,657,967).
As to claim 11, Kunitz fails to disclose a modular fence system wherein each of the first tab and second tab comprise an aperture, and wherein the modular fence system comprises a second plurality of fasteners, each of the second plurality of fasteners configured to extend through the apertures in the first tab or second tab and into one of the first and second vertical posts to secure the first horizontal support to one of the first or second vertical posts.
Patrick teaches a modular fence system wherein a first horizontal support 16 comprises a first tab 25 comprising an aperture 28,30,32, and wherein a plurality of fasteners 34 are configured to extend through the apertures in the first tab and into one of a first and second vertical posts 12 to secure the first horizontal support to one of the first or second vertical posts; the apertures in the tab enabling the horizontal support to be affixed to greater variety of vertical posts utilizing a conventional fastener (Figures 1-4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Kunitz wherein each of the first and second tabs comprises apertures, as taught by Patrick, in order to enable the horizontal support to be affixed to greater variety of vertical posts utilizing a conventional fastener.
As to claim 12, Kunitz as modified by Patrick discloses a modular fence system wherein the aperture (28,30,32 Patrick Figure 3) in the first tab 18.1 and the aperture (28,30,32 Patrick Figure 3) in the second tab 18.1 are disposed at an aperture distance, DA, from the first end, wherein the first horizontal support 14 is configured such that the first horizontal support and one of the first and second vertical posts 12 form a gap when the first horizontal support is secured to and extending orthogonally from one of the first or second vertical posts, wherein the gap has a gap width, WG (Figures 1-11).
Kunitz as modified by Patrick fails to explicitly disclose a fence system wherein WG/DA ≥ 0.06.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Kunitz as modified by Patrick wherein WG/DA ≥ 0.06, as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cofield in view of Walker Industries (GB 2 298 439).
As to claims 15-17, Cofield fails to disclose a modular fence system wherein the first vertical panel comprises a second protrusion extending from the first securing recess oppositely from the first protrusion and a third protrusion extending from the second securing recess oppositely from the first protrusion; and a first edge extending from the second protrusion oppositely from the first securing recess and a second edge extending from the third protrusion oppositely from the second securing recess, and wherein the first and second edges comprise an open hem.
Walker Industries teaches a modular fence system wherein a first vertical panel 2 comprises a second protrusion 7 extending from a first securing recess 3 oppositely from a first protrusion 6 and a third protrusion 7 extending from a second securing recess 3 oppositely from the first protrusion; and a first edge extending from the second protrusion oppositely from the first securing recess and a second edge extending from the third protrusion oppositely from the second securing recess, and wherein the first and second edges comprise an open hem; the second and third protrusions providing for greater rigidity of the vertical panels (Figures 1-3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Cofield wherein the vertical panels comprise second and third protrusions, as taught by Walker Industries, in order to provide for greater rigidity of the vertical panels.
Claims 1-9, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cofield in view of Simioni (US 6,152,428).
As to claim 1, Cofield discloses a modular fence system, comprising:
a first vertical post 10;
a second vertical post 10;
a first horizontal support 5 configured to extend between and secure to the first vertical post and the second vertical post;
a first vertical panel P comprising a first slot and a second slot; and
a first plurality of fasteners 22 each configured to extend through one of the first or second slots into the first horizontal support to secure the first vertical panel to the first horizontal support (Figures 1-4).
Cofield fails to explicitly disclose a modular fence system wherein the first and second slots comprise vertically elongated slots.
Simioni teaches a modular fence system comprising a first vertical panel 3 comprising first and second vertically elongated slots 36; and a first plurality of fasteners 39 each configured to extend through one of the first or second vertically elongated slots into a first horizontal support 2 to secure the first vertical panel to the first horizontal support; the vertically elongated slots allowing for adjustment in the positioning of the vertical panel (Figures 1-2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Cofield wherein the first and second slots comprise vertically elongated slots, as taught by Simioni, in order to allow for adjustment in the positioning of the vertical panels.
As to claim 2, Cofield as modified by Simioni discloses a modular fence system wherein each of the first and second vertically elongated slots (36 Simioni Figure 2) comprises a height, HSL, and are separated by a distance, DSL (Figures 1-4).
Cofield as modified by Simioni fails to explicitly disclose a fence system wherein HSL/DSL ≥ 0.35.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Cofield as modified by Simioni wherein HSL/DSL ≥ 0.35, as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
As to claim 3, Cofield as modified by Simioni discloses a modular fence system wherein each of the first and second vertically elongated slots (36 Simioni Figure 2) comprise a slot width, WSL, wherein each of the first plurality of fasteners 22 comprise a shaft having a shaft width, WFS (Figures 1-4).
Cofield as modified by Simioni fails to explicitly disclose a fence system wherein (WSL-WFS)/DSL ≥ 0.03.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Cofield as modified by Simioni wherein (WSL-WFS)/DSL ≥ 0.03, as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
As to claim 4, Cofield discloses a modular fence system comprising a second horizontal support 5 configured to extend between and secure to the first vertical post 10 and the second vertical post 10, wherein the second horizontal support is above or below the first horizontal support 5 when the first and second horizontal supports are secured to the first and second vertical posts (Figures 1-4).
As to claim 5, Cofield as modified by Simioni discloses a modular fence system wherein the first vertical panel P comprises a third vertically elongated slot (36 Simioni Figure 2) and a fourth vertically elongated slot (36 Simioni Figure 2), and wherein each of the first plurality of fasteners 22 are configured to extend through one of the third or fourth vertically elongated slots into the second horizontal support 5 to secure the first vertical panel to the second horizontal support (Figures 1-4).
As to claim 6, Cofield discloses a modular fence system comprising a plurality of vertical panels P including the first vertical panel, wherein the first and second horizontal supports 5 include a first side and a second side opposite the first side, wherein the first and second sides of the first and second horizontal supports are configured such that vertical panels from the plurality of vertical panels are capable of being secured to both the first and second sides of the first and second horizontal supports (Figures 1-4).
As to claim 7, Cofield discloses a modular fence system wherein the first and second sides of the first and second horizontal supports 5 comprise a plurality of holes 20 configured to receive the first plurality of fasteners 22 (Figures 1-4).
As to claim 8, Cofield discloses a modular fence system wherein the plurality of holes 20 are prefabricated holes (Figures 1-4).
As to claim 9, Cofield discloses a modular fence system wherein the plurality of holes 20 are grouped into sets of two holes, and wherein each hole in each of the set of holes is closer to the other hole in the same set than to holes in other sets (Figures 1-4).
As to claim 13, Cofield as modified by Simioni discloses a modular fence system wherein each of the first plurality of fasteners 22 comprises a head having a flange and a flange width, and wherein the flange width is greater than the slot width of the first and second vertically elongated slots (36 Simioni Figure 2) (Figures 1-4).
As to claim 19, Cofield discloses a method of installing a modular fence system, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a first vertical post 10, a second vertical post 10, a first horizontal support 5 configured to extend between and secure to the first and second vertical posts, a first vertical panel P comprising a first slot and a second slot, and a first plurality of fasteners 22 each configured to extend through one of the first or second slots into the first horizontal support to secure the first vertical panel to the first horizontal support;
securing the first and second vertical posts to the ground;
securing the first horizontal support to the first and second vertical posts; and
securing the first vertical panel to the first horizontal support by inserting fasteners from the first plurality of fasteners through each of the first and second vertically elongated slots and into the first horizontal support (Figures 1-4).
Cofield fails to explicitly disclose a modular fence system wherein the first and second slots comprise vertically elongated slots.
Simioni teaches a modular fence system comprising a first vertical panel 3 comprising first and second vertically elongated slots 36; and a first plurality of fasteners 39 each configured to extend through one of the first or second vertically elongated slots into a first horizontal support 2 to secure the first vertical panel to the first horizontal support; the vertically elongated slots allowing for adjustment in the positioning of the vertical panel (Figures 1-2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence system disclosed by Cofield wherein the first and second slots comprise vertically elongated slots, as taught by Simioni, in order to allow for adjustment in the positioning of the vertical panels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
01/27/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619