DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 1, 7-9 and 11-14 have been amended, Claims 4-5 have been cancelled and Claims 15-22 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Claim Objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objections of Claims 13 and 14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Drawing Objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection of the Drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of Claims 1, 8 and 11-14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been considered but are moot because the amendments have necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection [see rejection below].
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 7, 8 and 17 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the headlap gap". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the headlap gap”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-3 and 6-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 10,100,530 to Clark in view of US Patent # 10,947,730 to Nowacek.
Regarding claim 1, Clark teaches in Figures 2 and 3, a bracket (10) [invention (Column 3, Lines 21-22)] for use in installing a target material (28/32) [siding (Column 3, Lines 33-34 and 44)] on a target substrate (15) [stud (Column 3, Line 27)] comprising: a body [sheet metal (Column 1, Line 54)] that is generally rectangular, comprising an outward face, an inner face, an upper edge, a left edge, a lower edge, a right edge, a first bend, and a second bend [all as seen in the Figures], wherein a distance between the upper edge and lower edge of the body determines a height of the body, a distance between the left edge and the right edge of the body determines a length of the body, and a distance between the outward face and the inner face determines a width of the body [as seen in the Figures]; a fastener area (16) [rear wall (Column 3, Line 30)] having a top-most edge that forms the upper edge of the body and has a bottom-most edge that partially forms the first bend of the body; a headlap area (24) [inner wall section (Column 3, Line 41)], having a bottom-most edge that forms the lower edge of the body and has a top-most edge that partially forms the second bend of the body; at least one retaining tab (26) [base portion (Column 3, Line 43)] positioned along the bottom-most edge of the headlap area (24); and a riser lip (30) [ledge (Column 3, Line 47)], positioned between the fastener area (16) and the headlap area (24), having a top-most edge that partially forms the first bend of the body and has a bottom-most edge that partially forms the second bend of the body. Clark does not teach at least one pawl tab. However, Nowacek teaches in Figure 10, at least one pawl tab (131) [slot tab (Column 5, Line 17)] positioned between a bend of the body and a bottom-most edge of a headlap area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Clark with Nowacek with a reasonable expectation of success because Nowacek teaches the pawl tab [slot tab] is used to correctly space and align the bracket during installation (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Clark in view of Nowacek teach a bracket. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 3, the first bend comprises an angle of 90 degrees; and the second bend comprises an angle of 270 degrees; such that Figure 2 shows when the fastener area (16) is placed on the target substrate (15) the riser lip (30) will extend outward from the target substrate (15) and the headlap area (24) will be above and substantially parallel to the target substrate (15) creating a headlap gap [as seen] between the headlap area (24) and the target substrate (15).
Regarding claim 3, Clark in view of Nowacek teach a bracket. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 3, the fastener area (16), comprises: at least one fastener hole (18) [apertures or slots (Column 3, Lines 34-35)].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Clark in view of Nowacek teach a bracket. Furthermore, Nowacek teaches in Figure 10, each of the at least one pawl tab (131) comprises: a short member oriented towards a bend that is biased inward into a headlap gap; wherein Figure 1 shows the at least one pawl tab (131) comprises: a semi-circular shaped slit formed in the headlap area (Column 5, Lines 5-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Clark with Nowacek with a reasonable expectation of success because Nowacek teaches the pawl tab [slot tab] is used to correctly space and align the bracket during installation (Abstract).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Clark in view of Nowacek teach a bracket. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 2 and 3, each of the at least one retaining tab (26) comprises: a protrusion (22) [outer lip (Column 3, Line 41)] extending from the bottom-most edge of the headlap area (24); wherein the protrusion (22) of each of the at least one retaining tab (26) further comprises a first outward bend and a second upward bend such that the protrusion (22) turns back towards and above the headlap area (24) and can engage the target material (28/32).
Regarding claim 12, Clark in view of Nowacek teach a bracket. Furthermore, Clark teaches the material of construction [sheet metal (Column 1, Lines 53-54)] has the following qualities: weather resistant, durable, stiff, strong and malleable [all qualities of sheet metal].
Regarding claim 13, Clark in view of Nowacek teach a bracket. Furthermore, Nowacek teaches a material of construction is stainless steel, iron or copper (Column 3, Lines 48-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Clark with Nowacek with a reasonable expectation of success because Nowacek teaches these materials exhibit resistance to the effects of weather exposure (Column 3, Lines 43-45).
Regarding claims 14-16, Clark in view of Nowacek teach a bracket. Furthermore, Nowacek teaches the body further comprises a coating of copper plated iron or steel (Column 3, Lines 50-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Clark with Nowacek with a reasonable expectation of success because Nowacek teaches coatings exhibit resistance to the effects of weather exposure (Column 3, Lines 43-45). Note: the limitations “to improve weather resistance, aesthetic appearance and grip” are recitations of the intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Clark teaches in Figures 2 and 3, a bracket (10) [invention (Column 3, Lines 21-22)] for use in installing a target material (28/32) [siding (Column 3, Lines 33-34 and 44)] on a target substrate (15) [stud (Column 3, Line 27)] comprising: a body [sheet metal (Column 1, Line 54)] that is generally rectangular, comprising an outward face, an inner face, an upper edge, a left edge, a lower edge, a right edge, a first bend, and a second bend [all as seen in the Figures], wherein a distance between the upper edge and lower edge of the body determines a height of the body, a distance between the left edge and the right edge of the body determines a length of the body, and a distance between the outward face and the inner face determines a width of the body [as seen in the Figures]; a fastener area (16) [rear wall (Column 3, Line 30)] having a top-most edge that forms the upper edge of the body and has a bottom-most edge that partially forms the first bend of the body; a headlap area (24) [inner wall section (Column 3, Line 41)], having a bottom-most edge that forms the lower edge of the body and has a top-most edge that partially forms the second bend of the body; at least one retaining tab (26) [base portion (Column 3, Line 43)] positioned along the bottom-most edge of the headlap area (24); and a riser lip (30) [ledge (Column 3, Line 47)], positioned between the fastener area (16) and the headlap area (24), having a top-most edge that partially forms the first bend of the body and has a bottom-most edge that partially forms the second bend of the body. Clark does not teach a plurality of pawl tabs. However, Nowacek teaches in Figure 10, at least one pawl tab (131) [slot tab (Column 5, Line 17)] positioned between a bend of the body and a bottom-most edge of a headlap area and Figure 8 shows the pawl tab (131) is of a plurality of pawl tabs (131, 133 and 135) spaced at regular intervals along the length of the headlap area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Clark with Nowacek with a reasonable expectation of success because Nowacek teaches the pawl tab [slot tab] is used to correctly space and align the bracket during installation (Abstract). Clark does not teach a plurality of retaining tabs. However, Nowacek teaches in Figure 8, a plurality of retaining tabs (121) spaced at regular intervals along the length of the bottom-most edge of the headlap area (Column 2, Lines 21-23). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comprise a plurality of retaining tabs, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 17, Clark in view of Nowacek teach a bracket. Furthermore, Nowacek teaches in Figures 9 and 10, each of the plurality of pawl tabs (131, 133 and 135) comprises: a short member oriented towards a bend that is biased inward into a headlap gap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Clark with Nowacek with a reasonable expectation of success because Nowacek teaches the pawl tab [slot tab] is used to correctly space and align the bracket during installation (Abstract).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Clark in view of Nowacek teach a bracket. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 2 and 3, the retaining tab (26) comprises: a protrusion (22) [outer lip (Column 3, Line 41)] extending from the bottom-most edge of the headlap area (24); wherein the protrusion (22) of the retaining tab (26) further comprises a first outward bend and a second upward bend such that the protrusion (22) turns back towards and above the headlap area (24) and can engage the target material (28/32).
Regarding claims 20-22, Clark in view of Nowacek teach a bracket. Furthermore, Nowacek teaches the body further comprises a coating of copper plated iron or steel (Column 3, Lines 50-51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Clark with Nowacek with a reasonable expectation of success because Nowacek teaches coatings exhibit resistance to the effects of weather exposure (Column 3, Lines 43-45). Note: the limitations “to improve weather resistance, aesthetic appearance and grip” are recitations of the intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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 Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635