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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Line 2, replace “comprises” with “includes.” Legalese style language is not permitted within the abstract.
It is also noted that the abstract appears to contain reference numerals which are normally not included within the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, Line 25, replace “embodiment,” with “embodiment;”
Page 2, Line 27, replace “embodiment,” with “embodiment;”
Page 2, Line 29, replace “gripper,” with “gripper;”
Page 2, Line 31, replace “2,” with “2;”
Page 2, Line 32, replace “embodiment,” with “embodiment;”
Page 2, Last Line, replace “embodiment,” with “embodiment;”
Page 3, Line 2, replace “gripper,” with “gripper;”
Page 3, Line 4, replace “6,” with “6;”
Page 3, Line 6, replace “spring,” with “spring;”
Page 3, Line 8, replace “hose,” with “hose;”
Page 3, Line 10, replace “hose,” with “hose;”
Page 3, Line 11, replace “embodiment,” with “embodiment;”
Page 3, Line 13, replace “12” with “12;”
Page 3, Line 14, replace “state,” with “state;”
Page 3, Line 15, replace “state,” with “state;”
Page 3, Line 17, replace “embodiment,” with “embodiment;”
Page 3, Line 18, replace “detent,” with “detent;”
Page 3, Line 19, replace “17,” with “17;”
Page 3, Line 22, replace “attachment,” with “attachment;”
Page 3, Line 23, replace “19,” with “19;”
Page 3, Line 25, replace “embodiment,” with “embodiment;”
Page 3, Line 27, replace “embodiment,” with “embodiment;”
Page 3, Line 29, replace “joiner,” with “joiner;”
Page 3, Line 30, replace “23,” with “23;”
Page 3, Line 31, replace “23,” with “23;”
Page 3, Line 32, replace “use, and” with “use; and”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “connector means” in claims 3, 4, 7, 8 have structure in the form of an “aperture”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-17 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 1 recites “a third plurality of spaced apart apertures.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the “third apertures” as there does not appear to be any first or second apertures? Clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites “a fourth plurality of wire grippers.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the “fourth grippers” as there does not appear to be any first, second or third apertures? Clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites “each slide saddle being substantially as claimed in claim 1.” However, the term “substantially” leaves it indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the term “substantially”? I.e., is it all of the elements as recited in claim 1 or just some elements?
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said third plurality of apertures" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the “third apertures” as there does not appear to be any first, or second apertures? Clarification is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said third plurality of apertures" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is indefinite and unclear as to what is meant by the “third apertures” as there does not appear to be any first, or second apertures? Clarification is required.
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.
(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, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 507,966 (Bradford).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6-9, Bradford teaches: Claim 1 - a slide saddle (3) for use with a tension board (1) of substantially constant transverse cross-sectional shape for straining mesh style fencing materials having a first plurality of spaced apart substantially horizontal wires and a second plurality of spaced apart substantially vertical wires, said slide saddle (3) comprising a hollow tubular body (6) having an interior transverse cross-sectional shape arranged to slidingly engage said tension board cross-sectional shape and seat said slide saddle (3) on said tension board (1), a connector means (9/10) on said body (6) shaped to connect with a wire gripper corresponding to said slide saddle (3), and a releasable detent means (5) sized to releasably engage with one of a third plurality of spaced apart apertures (2) extending along said tension board (1), (Figures 1-4); Claim 6 – wherein said hollow body (6) comprises a strip having a generally C-shaped configuration, (Figures 1-4); Claim 7 – wherein said strip has a projection (9) extending therefrom and said connector means (10) comprises an aperture (10) in said projection (9), (Figures 1-4); Claim 8 – wherein said -releasable detent means (5) is located adjacent said aperture (10), (Figures 1-4); Claim 9 – wherein the slide saddle (3) is configured to be attached to a tension board (not positively recited as part of the claimed invention) which has a solid generally U or V-shaped configuration, (Figures 1-4).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,056,287 (Lockridge) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,918,568 (Blake).
Regarding Claim 1, Lockridge teaches: Claim 1 - a slide saddle (A) for use with a tension board (2 – not positively recited) of substantially constant transverse cross-sectional shape for straining mesh style fencing materials having a first plurality of spaced apart substantially horizontal wires and a second plurality of spaced apart substantially vertical wires, said slide saddle (A) comprising a hollow tubular body (17/18) having an interior transverse cross-sectional shape arranged to slidingly engage said tension board cross-sectional shape and seat said slide saddle (A) on said tension board (2), a connector means (21/24) on said body (A) shaped to connect with a wire gripper corresponding to said slide saddle (A), and a detent (screws seen in Figure 4) sized to engage said tension board (2), (Figures 1-4).
Lockridge does not teach: the detent being a releasable detent means sized to releasably engage with one of a third plurality of spaced apart apertures extending along said tension board (Claim 1). However, Blake teaches: Claim 1 – wherein it is well known for connectors (57 and 80) to slide along supports (20 and 40) and attach to said supports (20 and 40) via releasable detents (56 and 86), (Figures 1-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the saddle of Lockridge to have the detent being a releasable detent means sized to releasably engage with one of a third plurality of spaced apart apertures extending along said tension board (Claim 1) as taught by Blake as it would have been obvious to try for the purposes of easily adjusting the position of the saddle along the tension boards.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,056,287 (Lockridge) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,918,568 (Blake), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,740,233 (Larsen).
Regarding Claims 2-5, Lockridge as modified by Blake teaches the saddle as described above, in addition to Lockridge teaching: Claim 3 – wherein said body (17/18) has a projection (19/20) extending therefrom and said connector means (21/24) comprises an aperture (21) in said projection (19/20), (Figures 1-4); Claim 5 – wherein the slide saddle (A) is configured to interact with a tension board (again noted that this element is not positively recited a spart of the claimed invention) having a hollow substantially square or substantially rectangular configuration, (Figures 1-4); and Blake teaching: Claim 4 - wherein said releasable detent means (86) is located adjacent a projection (84) on the body (80), (Figures 1-7).
Lockridge as modified by Blake does not teach: wherein said hollow body comprises a looped strip (Claim 2). However, Larsen teaches: Claim 2 – wherein saddles can be in the form of looped strips (such as (230) as seen in Figure 13g), (Figure 13g). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the body of the saddle of Lockridge as modified by Blake to have wherein said hollow body comprises a looped strip (Claim 2) as taught by Larsen as it would have been an obvious substation of one known element (the integral body (230) of Larsen) for another (the pivoting body (17/18) of Lockridge) to obtain the predictable result having a single body with no additional structure which may need repaired or manufactured.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 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.
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 Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights