DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/696,431.
Claims 1-5 and 7-24 are pending.
Claims 6 and 25-27 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-24 are examined.
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
Figures 1a and 1b should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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 1-5, 7-12, and 24 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 1 defines “its” in the second to last line, which renders the claimed invention indefinite since multiple elements have been defined prior to use of such a term and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know exactly what element is being referred back to. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, “its” is considered to refer to a respective decking panel. Moreover, claims 2-5 and 7-12 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 1. Claim 24 includes a similar “its” limitation and is similarly rejected and interpreted to refer back to the first panel.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pollock (U.S. Patent 5,613,339).
Regarding claim 1, Pollock discloses a decking assembly comprising:
a first decking panel (the left panel #9 of figure 6) having a decking surface (#17);
a second decking panel (the right panel #9 of figure 6) having a decking surface (#17);
a drainage channel component (#101) positioned between the first decking panel and the second decking panel (see figure 6);
wherein a portion of each of the decking panels overhangs the drainage channel (see figure 6 at #27); and,
wherein the decking panels are configured such that no part of either decking panel is positioned under any part of the drainage channel component (see figure 6), to enable either decking panel to be lifted in a direction normal to its decking surface without moving the drainage channel component (see figure 6, where either panel #9 can be removed without moving or removing the channel #101).
Regarding claim 2, Pollock discloses at least one of the decking panels comprises: a leg (#19a/b) extending downwardly with respect to the decking surface (see figures 6 and 7); a foot (#13/b) extending from the leg (see figures 6 and 7), which the foot overhangs the drainage component (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, Pollock discloses the drainage channel component and the decking panels are configured such that abutting the decking panels either side of the drainage channel component forms a drainage gap between the decking panels, directly above the drainage channel component in use (see figure 6, where a drainage gap is formed between the two panels #9 on both the left and right sides of the component #101 and each panel).
Regarding claim 9, Pollock discloses an underlying structure (#3); wherein each of the first and second decking panels are mounted to the underlying structure such that the drainage channel component is retained in position by the portion of each of the decking panels that overhang the drainage channel component (see figure 6 at #27 for the overhang).
Regarding claim 12, Pollock discloses each of the decking panels comprise a mounting portion (#11) in contact with the underlying structure (see figure 3) and a cover (#7), wherein each of the decking panels are attached to the underlying structure by a mechanical fastener (#31) engaged with the mounting portion (see figure 3), and wherein the cover is provided to cover the mechanical fastener in use (see figure 3).
Claim(s) 13-16, 19-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knapp (EP 2902567).
Regarding claim 13, Knapp discloses a decking assembly comprising:
a first decking panel (#2) having a decking surface (the top surface of figure 3), and a drainage channel (the channel #3 formed to the right of edge #21 of figure 3) formed at a first edge (#21);
a second decking panel (#1) having a decking surface (the top surface of figure 2), and an overhanging formation (#11) formed at a second edge (see figures 1 and 2);
wherein the first decking panel and the second decking panel are configured such that the drainage channel is received under the overhanging formation (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Knapp discloses the overhanging formation comprises a downwardly depending retaining formation (the right, downwardly depending formation to the right of channel #11 of figure 2), which the retaining formation retains the first decking panel relative to the second decking panel (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 15, Knapp discloses the first decking panel and the second decking panel are assembled such that a drainage gap (the gap between upper surface of the panels of figure 5) is formed between the respective decking surfaces (see figure 5), the drainage gap positioned above the drainage channel (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 16, Knapp discloses the first decking panel comprises a leg (the vertical leg that extends downwardly from the upper surface and on the right side of channel #3 of figure 3) extending downwardly with respect to the decking surface (see figure 3), and wherein the drainage channel extends from a position on the leg to the overhanging formation (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, Knapp discloses a gap is provided on an underside of the drainage channel to facilitate rotation of the first decking panel into engagement with the second decking panel (see figure 4, where the first panel comprises of a gap under the channel #3 in order to allow for rotation of the panels relative to one another).
Regarding claim 20, Knapp discloses the drainage channel comprises a curved portion (#16) at a free end (#21), which the curved portion engages the overhang overhanging formation (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 21, Knapp discloses the curved portion is dimensioned to elastically deform into engagement with the overhang overhanging formation (the curved portion #26 comprises of an elastic coating that is configured to compress and thus elastically deform to ensure a reliable seal against the overhanging formation).
Regarding claim 24, Knapp discloses a decking assembly comprising a plurality of interlocking decking panels (#1 and #2), each decking panel comprising:
a decking surface (the top surface of figure 1);
a drainage channel (#3) formed at a first edge (#21); and
an overhanging formation (#11) formed at a second end (see figure 2);
wherein a drainage channel of a first panel is engaged with an overhanging formation of a second panel (see figure 5); a drainage channel of a third panel is engaged with an overhanging formation of the first panel (see figure 5, where a plurality of such panels are engaged in such a manner in order to complete the entire decking structure); and
the drainage channels and overhanging formations engage such that the first panel can be removed by rotation about its drainage channel (see figure 4, where such panels can be removed through rotation of such panels relative to one another).
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) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp in view of Steigmiller (EP 3733995).
Regarding claim 3, Pollock discloses the claimed invention except specifically for the foot comprises a downwardly depending tab extending therefrom, which the tab retains the drainage channel component adjacent the decking panel. Instead, the tab #27 of Pollock extends horizontally from an end of the portions #13a/b. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Steigmiller, that such decking panels #110 can be constructed with edges #18 that comprise of tabs that extend outwardly and downwardly in order to form a channel that is configured to receive the legs #152 and #153 of a drainage channel #150. See figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the feet of Pollock to comprise of tabs that extend downwardly so as to retain the legs of the channel therein, as taught in Steigmiller, in order to prevent accidental movement or removal of the channel from such a connection between the panels yet still allow for connection of the cover to such panel edge tabs.
Regarding claim 4, Pollock in view of Steigmiller render obvious the tab mates with a corresponding formation on the drainage channel component (see figure 6 of Pollock and figure 1 of Steigmiller, where the upper ends of such drainage channels comprise of formations which are configured to mate with the tabs as defined).
Regarding claim 5, Pollock in view of Steigmiller render obvious the drainage channel component comprises an at least partially curved outer surface in section (the bottom curved surface of channel #101 of figure 6 of Pollock), to enable the drainage channel component to be engaged with, and disengaged from, the at least one of the decking panels by rotation without moving the at least one of the decking panels (such a curved bottom section of the channel #101 of Pollock allows for bending of the channel and removal or insertion of such a channel from between the panels).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollock in view of Andres (U.S. Publication 2005/0284072).
Regarding claim 10, Pollock discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality decking panel mounting brackets attached to the underlying structure and each decking panel is attached to a respective bracket. Pollock depicts such panels can comprise of a solid bottom surface as depicted in figure 13 or can comprise of an open channel thereunder in figure 15 in order to reduce costs of construction of such panels yet still maintain strength for such panels. Andres discloses such decking panels #5 can comprise of a central channel portion with legs #30 and #35 and lips #45 and #50 in order to engage a mounting bracket #100 and snap fit attach the panel to an underlying structure #155 yet still allow for mechanical fasteners #170 to attach the panel to the underlying structure as well . See figure 5B. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attached the panels of Pollock to the underlying structure using mounting brackets #100 that snap fit to the panels, as taught in Andres, in order to make installation quicker and alignment of such panels easier.
Regarding claim 11, Pollock in view of Andres render obvious each of the decking panels and the respective decking panel mounting brackets are attached by a mechanical snap-fit (see figure 5B and paragraph 27 of Andres, where such features would be provided within Pollock as explained above).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp in view of Zeng (U.S. Publication 2005/0284058).
Regarding claim 17, Knapp discloses the claimed invention except specifically for the drainage channel extends at a sloped angle from the leg to the overhanging formation. Zeng teaches that such decking panels #10 can comprise of a first end which comprises of a channel #44 that is configured to engage with an overhang portion #34 of an adjacent panel, where such a channel #44 can comprise of a U-shaped channel, as depicted in figure 3, a rectangular shaped channel as depicted in figure 4, or a sloped angle channel as depicted in figure 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the drainage channel of Knapp so as to comprise of a sloped angle from the leg to the overhanging formation, as taught in figure 5 of Zeng, in order to drain water to specific areas of the channel and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed drainage channel was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 18, Knapp in view of Zeng render obvious the drainage channel extends at a slope angle of between 30 and 60 degrees to the horizontal (Though figure 5 of Zeng depicts the angle of the slope of the drainage channel leg #38 and #38b are acute and approximately 45 degrees, Zeng does not specifically disclose the slope of such elements. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sloped the drainage channel of Knapp in view of Zeng to be between 30 and 60 degrees as defined so as to properly drain the water to the bottom of the channel and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp in view of Andres.
Regarding claim 22, Knapp discloses the claimed invention except for an underlying structure and a plurality of decking panel mounting brackets attached to the underlying structure such that the first and second decking panels are attached to respective brackets. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Andres, that such decking panels #5 can comprise of a central channel portion with legs #30 and #35 and lips #45 and #50 in order to engage a mounting bracket #100 and snap fit attach the panel to an underlying structure #155 yet still allow for mechanical fasteners #170 to attach the panel to the underlying structure as well . See figure 5B. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attached the panels of Knapp to the underlying structure using mounting brackets that snap fit to the panels, as taught in Andres, in order to make installation quicker and alignment of such panels easier while still allowing for such rotation of such panels relative to one another before snap fitting the panels to the underlying structure.
Regarding claim 23, Knapp in view of Andres render obvious each of the decking panels and the respective decking panel mounting brackets are attached by a mechanical snap-fit (see figure 5B and paragraph 27 of Andres, where such features would be provided within Knapp as explained above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Though Pollock in view of Steigmiller are considered to render the claimed invention of claim 5 obvious as explained above, such prior art references as well as the prior art of record, do not specifically disclose a drainage channel component which comprises inwardly projecting tabs which extend at the ends of sidewalls that extend from a base region of the component and still meet the other limitations of the claimed invention and modifying such prior art of record to meet each and every feature of the claimed invention could only be done through impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635