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 .
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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,739,439) in view of Manson (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0042580).
Regarding claim 1, Weber et al. discloses a deck (10, Figs. 1-10) comprising a plurality of deck planks (14) providing an upper surface; a structural support system (12, 16, 94, 138, Fig. 10) underneath the deck surface and raising the same from the ground, the structural support system further comprising a plurality of joists (12) fitted with joist end caps (18/84, Fig. 8), each end cap featuring a boss (26), at least one structural support (96) having a plurality of slots (Fig. 15) to receive bosses of the joist end caps (82), at least one of the structural supports being a beam (96); at least one post (136, indirectly) supporting the at least one structural support (96). Weber et al. does not disclose the deck planks together providing at least one upper water control trough beneath the upper surface and at least one lower water control trough resident beneath the at least one upper water control trough, the lower water control trough being in fluid communication with the at least one upper water control trough and at least one water ejection port. However, Manson teaches that it is known to have a deck with a drainage system (101, Figs.1-7) where the deck planks provide at least one upper water control trough (102, Fig. 2) beneath the upper surface and in fluid communication with at least one lower water control trough resident (110) beneath the at least one upper water control trough and at least one water ejection port (170) to help prevent and direct any accumulation of water away from the structure.
Regarding claim 2, Weber et al. further discloses further discloses a plurality of deck edge caps (80, Fig. 10) that extend beyond a perimeter defined by the structural support system (12, 16, 94, 138) the deck edge caps further comprising a flange (60/62, Fig. 10) extending beneath an upper surface of the deck edge caps and interfacing with at least one beam; a slot (various slots Fig. 13) located forward and proximate the flange for receiving a deck apron.
Regarding claim 3, Weber et al. further discloses at least one hanger shield resident (104, Figs. 1 and 16) proximate a ledger board (108, Fig. 16) and having a plurality of slots (approximate 12) to receive a boss of at least one end cap.
Regarding claim 4, Weber et al. further discloses a wall transition structure (38) which also provides at least one upper water control trough (approximate 38).
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 JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm 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 Glessner can be reached at 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633