DETAILED ACTION
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 2, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 25 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.
Claims 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 25 have limitations prefaced by the term “preferably”. This word renders the scope of the claims indefinite as call into question whether the limitations that follow it are being positively claimed or not. The examiner will interpret as best able.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The Claim simply repeats that the slotted through hole and the partially blind slot are offset from one another. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 18, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Norman (GB 2471992).
In re Claim 1, 2, 4, and 6, Norman teaches a module (12) with a at least one aperture (10) arranged to receive a connector for connecting the module to another module wherein the aperture comprises a slotted through hole (key hole shaped slot with a depth (14)); and an at least partially blind slot with a depth of 16. Figure 1c shows that the slotted through hole and the at least partially blind slot are shifted/offset from one another since their geometries do not exactly align and are offset. The slotted through hole and the at least partially blind slot do overlap and therefore can be said to intersect. Figure 1 C shows how the slotted through hole narrower that the partially blind slot. This narrow slotted though hole partially obstructs the partially blind slot which is wider and is therefore why it is considered a partially blind slot. Therefore, the width of the partially blind slot is at least the width of the slotted through hole (Figures 1-5)
PNG
media_image1.png
418
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 17 and 18, Norman teaches a connector for connecting the module to another module. The connector comprises first (24) and second connecting members (30), preferably jaws, positioned on a shank (28). (Figures 1-5)
In re Claims 20 -22, Figure 5 of Norman teaches at least one of the first and second connecting members (24,30) is arranged to be passed through the slotted through hole (key hole shaped slot with a depth (14)) and to be seated in the at least partially blind slot with a depth of (16). The limitation “to prevent rotation of the connector” is functional language directed to the intended use of the product and it therefore afforded only limited weight in the product claim. The width of the slotted through hole is at least the width of at least one of the first and second connecting members and/or wherein the length of the slotted through hole is at least the length of at least one of the first and second connecting members. (Figures 1-5; Page 7, Lines 4-25; Page 8, Lines 1,2))
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Getzner (WO 2010124306).
In re Claim 1 and 2, Getzner teaches a module (1) having at least one aperture arranged to receive a connector for connecting the module to another module, wherein the aperture comprises a slotted through hole (17) shown in Figures 1 and 2; and an at least partially blind slot (17) shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows that the slotted through hole (17) and the at least partially blind slot (17) are offset from one another. The blind slot (17) in module (1) is shown in Figure 6 to be open at one end and closed at the other while the slotted through hole (17) is shown in Figures 1 and 4 to pass completely through the module (1). This asymmetry and the and the fact that the slotted through hole is positioned above the partially blind slot can be interpreted to mean they are offset from each other. (Figures 1-12, annotated Figure)
PNG
media_image2.png
563
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 3 and 4, Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Getzner show a module (1) the slotted through hole (17) and the at least partially blind slot (17) are oriented perpendicular to one another to form what appears to be a T-shape. In this way they intersect each other. (Figures 1-12, annotated Figure)
In re Claim 11 and 12, Figure 5 and 7 of Getzner teaches shows two groups of holes (17). One can be used to correspond to the slotted through hole and partially blind slot described in Claim 1. This will be the group on the right. (Figures 1-12, annotated Figure)
The two holes (17) on the left, one horizontal and the other vertical, on hole (17) is a cavity; and the other hole (17) is an opening. As the holes are connected the opening (17) can be described as being arranged to provide access to the aperture (17) via the cavity. These holes (17) are shown to be an array. The term array is very broad and does not specify how many items it is composed of. Single element arrays exist. A single arrangement of horizontal and vertical holes (17) can be considered an array.
As was noted above the term “preferably” makes the claim indefinite. Therefore, the requirement for “preferably so as to enable securement of a connector to the module from within the cavity” is not definitively claimed. The examiner does not that a connector (4,6) is positioned withing these holes (17) to secure them to the module (1)/
In re Claim 15, Figures 1, 3, 5, and 7-11 of Getzner show modules with multiple faces and at least one aperture (17) capable of the functional limitation of receiving connectors (4,6) on two of those faces. (Figures 1-7, annotated Figure) The examiner notes that functional language is directed to the intended use of the product and is afforded very limited weight in a product claim.
As was noted above the term “preferably” makes the claim indefinite. Therefore, the requirement for ““preferably on every face” is not definitively claimed.
In re Claim 17 and 18, Getzner teaches a connector for connecting the module to another module. The connector comprises first and second connecting members (6,7,11,5,5’,5’’) positioned on a shank (4). (Figures 1-12, annotated Figure)
As was noted above the term “preferably” makes the claim indefinite. Therefore, the requirement for ““preferably jaw” is not definitively claimed.
In re Claims 20-22, Getzner teaches at least one of the first and second connecting members (24,30) is arranged to be passed through the slotted through hole (key hole shaped slot with a depth (14)) and to be seated in the at least partially blind slot with a depth of (16). The limitation “to prevent rotation of the connector” is functional language directed to the intended use of the product and it therefore afforded only limited weight in the product claim. The width of the slotted through hole is at least the width of at least one of the first and second connecting members (6,7,11,5,5’,5’’). (Figures 1-12, annotated Figure)
In re Claims 23-25, Getzner teaches that the first and second connecting members (6,7,11,5,5’,5’’) are arranged to be rotatable on or with the shank (4) about a longitudinal axis of the shank. At least one of the first and second connecting members (6,7,11) is arranged to be movable along the longitudinal axis of the shank. At least one of the first and second connecting members (5’) comprises screw holes (10). The limitation “for fastening the connecting member to the module via the at least partially blind slot” is functional language directed to the intended use of the product and is afforded only limited weight in the product claim. (Figures 1-12, annotated Figure)
As was noted above the term “preferably” makes the claim indefinite. Therefore, the requirement for ““preferably each” or “preferably screw holes” is not definitively claimed.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norman (GB 2471992).
In re Claim 15, Figure 5 of Norman teaches modules 34 and 36 that have multiple faces. Module 34 appear to show representations of the fasteners/connector (22,24) shown in Figures 3 and 4 which are inserted into holes (10,12) shown in Figures 1-2. However, should the applicant dispute this, the examiner maintains that these obviously are connectors that fit into the apertures and wherein at least one aperture arranged to receive a connector is provided on at least two of the faces.
As was noted above the term “preferably” makes the claim indefinite. Therefore, the requirement for ““preferably on every face” is not definitively claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Claims 8, 13 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a module with the combination of characteristics specified in the independent claim. Of particular note are the requirement that the slotted through hole and the at least partially blind slot bisect one another and are arranged within a recess. The prior art does not disclose or make obvious apertures in a first sub-array of apertures having slotted through holes with a first orientation and a second sub-array of apertures having slotted through holes with a second orientation different from the first orientation. There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant's invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights