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
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 3c, 16. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 7, lines 4-8, Figures 5 and 6 are mentioned twice.
On page 11, lines 3 and 5, threaded rod labelled ‘X’ instead of ‘15’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dennis (U.S. Patent No. 3061302).
Regarding claim 1, Dennis teaches a fence tightening device comprising (Column 1, lines 29-33):
a threaded rod (18) (Column 2, lines 11-13; Fig. 1, element 18);
an impact driver that is configured to rotate the threaded rod (18) in a first direction and in a second direction, the impact driver having a nose housing (27) (Column 2, lines 41-45; Fig. 1, element 27; annotated figure);
a three-sided tube having a bottom surface (11), a first side surface (16), a second side surface (17), and an open top, the three-sided tube being configured to contain the threaded rod (18) (Column 1, lines 62-70; Column 2, lines 11-13; Fig. 1, elements 17, 16, 11);
a moveable gripping block comprised of:
a first bracket (25) that is configured to surround the three-sided tube around the bottom (11), the first side surface (16), the second side surface (17), and the open top of the three-sided tube (Column 2, lines 33-36; Fig. 1, elements 11, 16, 17, 25);
a second bracket (22) having a threaded central bore that is configured to receive the threaded rod (18), the second bracket (22) being situated within the first bracket (25) (Column 2, lines 28-33; Fig. 1, elements 18, 22, 25);
a first plate (33) that extends upwardly from a top surface of the first bracket (25) and that is aligned with a longitudinal axis of the threaded rod (18) (Fig. 4, elements 25, 33); and
a first clamping assembly (37) that is situated on the first plate (33) and configured to hold and release a fence wire (39) (Column 3, lines 9-16; Fig. 4, elements 33, 37, 39);
a second plate (15) that extends upwardly from the nose housing (27) of the impact driver and that is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the threaded rod (18) (Column 2, lines 41-45 Fig. 1, elements 15, 27); and
a second clamping assembly (30) that is situated on the second plate (15) and configured to hold and release a fence wire (39) (Column 2, lines 53-58; Fig. 3, element 30).
Additional details are given in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
259
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Dennis teaches the first plate (33) comprises an inner edge that is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the three-sided tube (Fig. 2, element 33; annotated figure); and
wherein the second plate (15) comprises an inner edge that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the three-sided tube (Fig. 2, element 15; annotated figure).
Additional details are given in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
232
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowrey (WO 2023035025).
Regarding claim 2, Dennis fails to teach a clamping assembly with a lever. Lowrey teaches a fencing device wherein the first clamping assembly (51A) comprises (Page 5, paragraph 6; Fig. 11, element 51A):
a first clamp (79) having an arcuate edge and a lever (78), the first clamp being pivotally connected to the first plate (70) (Page 6, paragraph 6; Fig. 13, elements 70, 78, 79; annotated figure);
a first stop (71, 72) that is situated on the first plate (70) above the first clamp (79) (Page 6, paragraph 6; Fig. 17, elements 71, 72); and
a first spring (75) that is configured to maintain the arcuate edge of the first clamp (79) in direct contact with the first stop (71, 72) (Page 6, paragraph 6; Fig. 17, element 75); and
wherein the second clamping assembly (51B) comprises (Page 5, paragraph 6; Fig. 11, element 51B):
a second clamp (79) having an arcuate edge and a lever (78), the second clamp (79) being pivotally connected to the second plate (70) (Page 6, paragraph 6; Fig. 13, elements 70, 78, 79; annotated figure);
a second stop (71, 72) that is situated on the second plate (70) above the second clamp (79) (Page 6, paragraph 6; Fig. 17, elements 71, 72);
and a second spring (75) that is configured to maintain the arcuate edge of the second clamp (79) in direct contact with the second stop (71, 72) (Page 6, paragraph 6; Fig. 17, element 75).
Additional details are given in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Lowrey in Dennis to facilitate the creation of a clamp that can retain and release the wire as taught by Lowrey (Page 6, paragraphs 5, 6; Page 7, paragraph 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
321
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 3061302).
Regarding claim 4, Dennis teaches the first plate (33) comprises an outer edge that is at a first angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the three-sided tube (Fig. 2, element 33; annotated figure);
wherein the second plate (15) comprises an outer edge that is at a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the three-sided tube (Fig. 2, element 15; annotated figure). Additional details are given in the figure below.
Dennis does not teach the angle of the plates. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create plates with an edge that has an angle between one hundred ten and one hundred thirty degrees, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to create a plate with this angle on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
PNG
media_image4.png
232
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Dennis teaches the first plate (33) has a bottom edge with a length and a top edge with a length (Fig. 2, element 33; annotated figure); and
wherein a second plate (15) with a bottom edge with a length and a top edge with a length (Fig. 2, elements 15; annotated figure). Additional details are given in the figure below.
Dennis does not teach the length of the top edge being one-third of the length of the bottom edge. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a plate wherein the top edge is one-third of the length of the bottom edge, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to create a plate with differing edge lengths on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
PNG
media_image5.png
234
750
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seesing (US 20200102105).
Regarding claim 6, Dennis discloses the claimed invention except for a gear system. Seesing teaches a fencing device wherein a shaft (47, 50) is driven by a battery-powered motor and configured to engage with a plurality of planetary gears (11, 12, 13, 18, 38, 44, 45, 46, 49) (Paragraph 0020, lines 4-5; Paragraph 0098, lines 1-15; Paragraph 0099, lines 1-5; Fig. 3, elements 11, 12, 13, 45, 46, 47; Fig. 4, elements 18, 38, 44, 49, 50);
wherein the plurality of planetary gears (11, 12, 13, 18, 38, 44, 45, 46, 49) is configured to engage with a main gear (10, 37) that is situated inside of a first collar (14), the first collar (14) being coupled to the nose housing (1), and the first collar (14) and the main gear (10, 37) being stationary relative to the nose housing (1) (Paragraph 0096, lines 28-34; Paragraph, 0097, lines 5-11; Fig. 3, element 10; Fig. 4, element 37);
wherein a second collar (14) is configured to fit within the nose housing (1), and the plurality of planetary gears (11, 12, 13, 18, 38, 44, 45, 46, 49) is configured to cause the second collar (14) to rotate with the planetary gears (11, 12, 13, 18, 38, 44, 45, 46, 49) (Paragraph, 0097, lines 5-11; Fig. 2, elements 17, 38, 18, 14); and
wherein the second collar (14) comprises cutouts that are configured to receive an anvil on a proximal end of the threaded rod, thereby causing the threaded rod to rotate in either the first direction or the second direction, depending on a direction of rotation of the second collar (14) (Paragraph 0096, lines 39-41, 49-55; Fig. 3, element 13; Fig. 4, element 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Seesing in Dennis to facilitate the creation of a gear system that can hold the wire in place as taught by Seesing (Paragraph 0015, lines 11-18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:00am to 4:30pm.
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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights