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 . 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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the multifunction fence component of claims 1-18 (Group I) in the reply filed on July 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 20-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “shallow” in claim 1, line 8, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “shallow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What one person may think is shallow, another may not. Claims 2-18 inherit this issue for depending upon claim 1. It is to be noted the term is also present in claims 4-6 and 14.
Claim 1 first recites fence posts as part of an intended use of a multifunction fence post component in lines 1-5. However, claim 3 goes on to positively recite the fence posts in setting forth “said fence post(s) is/are symmetrical about said stem and said component has a first axis of symmetry extending between said flanks and a second axis of partial symmetry extending between said elbows.” Therefore, it is unclear from the claim whether Applicant is intending to claim the combination of the fence posts and post component, or only the subcombination of the post component. For the purpose of this action, the Examiner has interpreted the claim(s) as being directed to the subcombination of the post component, given the preamble of the claim. Therefore, limitations directed to structure not a part of the post component itself are given limited patentable weight. Claims 4-6 inherit this issue for depending upon claim 3.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a coupling tube” in line 2. It is unclear from the claim if this coupling tube is the same as, or different from, the coupling tube previously recited in claim 2. For the purpose of this action, the Examiner has interpreted the coupling tube of claim 10 as being the same as the coupling tube set forth in claim 2. Claims 11, 12, and 15-18 inherit this issue for depending upon claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an aligned pair of said coupling tubes of different sizes.” It is unclear from the claim how a single “component” can be now comprised of multiple components. This issue also makes it unclear whether Applicant is intending to claim a combination of multiple fence components, or the subcombination of a multifunction fence post component. For the purpose of this action, the Examiner has interpreted the claim(s) as being directed to the subcombination of the post component, given the preamble of the claim. Therefore, limitations directed to structure not a part of the post component itself are given limited patentable weight (i.e. the presence of multiple components). The Examiner notes if the claim is intended to be directed to a combination of multiple components, it would be incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements, as it is unclear how the multiple components are connected.
In claim 14, line 3, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2,227,553 (Paque).
Regarding claim 1, Paque discloses a multifunction fence post component (9) for use with elongated tricuspid fence posts (1), each of said fence posts having a generally Y-shaped or T-shaped transverse cross-sectional shape in which said Y comprises a stem and two V arms each of which has an outer edge and said T comprises a stem and crosspiece having two outer edges (see Figures 7-10),
said multifunction fence post component comprising an elongate sleeve having a longitudinal axis (see Figure 10), said sleeve having a generally C-shaped transverse cross-sectional configuration (see Figure 9) with a shallow V-shaped back portion (17) having two flanks (21) each of which terminates in an acute V-shaped elbow (18) having a free arm extending therefrom, said free arms extending towards each other and forming a longitudinally extending open mouthed slot (15) dimensioned to receive said fence post stem, and the distance between said elbows being dimensioned to receive said fence post outer edges (see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 2, Paque discloses component as claimed in claim 1 and selected from the class consisting of a coupling tube (9) for joining two elongated tricuspid fence posts end to end, a fence post extender, a fence post, and a dropper (see Figures 7-10).
Regarding claim 3, Paque discloses said fence post(s) is/are symmetrical about said stem and said component (9) has a first axis of symmetry extending between said flanks (21) and a second axis of partial symmetry extending between said elbows (18; see Figures 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 9, Paque discloses component (9) as claimed in claim 1 and formed from rolled sheet steel (see page 2, line 35, and NOTE below).
NOTE: The limitation “rolled” comprises a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 10, Paque discloses component as claimed in claim 2 and comprising a coupling tube (9) having a substantially centrally located protrusion extending into the tube interior (see Figure 9).
Regarding claim 11, Paque discloses component as claimed in claim 10 and comprising an aligned pair of said coupling tubes (9) of different sizes (see 112 rejection above; see also Figure 3 vs. Figure 9, where different sized structures can be connected).
Regarding claim 13, Paque discloses a series of spaced apart through holes (16) extending along said V-shaped back portion (17).
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.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paque.
Regarding claim 4-6, Paque discloses component as claimed in claim 3, but does not expressly said shallow V between said flanks is obtuse, wherein said shallow V between said flanks is in the range of from 110° to 150°, and further wherein said shallow V between said flanks is approximately 120°.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. an angle of a V-shaped part of a fence component) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence post component of Paque such that said shallow V between said flanks is obtuse, wherein said shallow V between said flanks is in the range of from 110° to 150°, and further wherein said shallow V between said flanks is approximately 120°, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification based on the size and shape of the fence posts to be connected via the fence post component.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Paque discloses component as claimed in claim 2, but does not expressly disclose one of said acute V's is in the range of from 50° to 70°, and further wherein said one acute V is approximately 60°.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. an angle of a V-shaped part of a fence component) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence post component of Paque such that one of said acute V's is in the range of from 50° to 70°, and further wherein said one acute V is approximately 60°, as such a modification involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification based on the size and shape of the fence posts to be connected via the fence post component.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paque in view of US 4,078,754 (Gould).
Paque discloses coupling tube as claimed in claim 10 wherein said protrusion comprises a fastener selected from the class of rivets and screws, and instead discloses the interaction of protrusions (7) with slots (16).
Gould teaches it is known in the art of multifunction fence post components to provide a fastener selected from the class of rivets and screws (54) in addition to a protrusion (42) and slot (24) structure to properly secure the fence post component (see Figures 1-3 and column 3, line 54, through column 4, line 18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fence post component of Paque such that wherein said protrusion comprises a fastener selected from the class of rivets and screws, as Gould teaches it is known in the art of multifunction fence post components to provide a fastener selected from the class of rivets and screws in addition to a protrusion and slot structure to properly secure the fence post component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-18 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.
Regarding claim 14, Paque discloses a method of rolling the component as claimed in claim 1, said method comprising the steps of:
optionally stamping a length of strip sheet steel (see page 2, line 35) to create any desired apertures (16) therein (see Figure 10), and
docking said strip to a desired length (see Figure 10).
Paque fails to disclose passing said strip through a first centrally located roller means to form said shallow V-shaped back portion,
simultaneously passing said strip through a pair of spaced apart roller means to simultaneously form both said free arms and said acute V-shaped elbows.
US 2022/0220768 (Olsson) teaches it is known in the art of fence post components to form said components via stamping or rolling, but does not expressly teach the use of stamping and rolling, nor passing said strip through a first centrally located roller means to form said shallow V-shaped back portion, and simultaneously passing said strip through a pair of spaced apart roller means to simultaneously form both said free arms and said acute V-shaped elbows. Therefore, the prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Paque to meet the aforementioned deficiencies.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Paque discloses the post component of claim 10, but fails to disclose a method of extending the height of a first, lower, tricuspid fence post having a generally Y or T-shaped transverse cross-sectional configuration by co-axially locating a second, upper, like fence post there above, said method comprising the steps of:
locating a lower portion of a coupling as claimed in claim 10 on the upper end of said lower post,
retaining said coupling tube lower portion in position by abutment of a protrusion of said tube with the top of said lower post, and
locating said like post within the upper portion of said coupling tube.
Instead, the post component (9) of Paque is provided to provide a means of anchoring a single fence post (1) at a desired height (see page 1, column 1, lines 1-45). The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Paque such that the anchor of Paque may be used as a means of connecting multiple posts together in order to provide a fence post with an extended height. Further, given the post component of Paque is directed to anchoring posts, such a modification would teach away from the intended method/structure of Paque, where flanges (12) are provided for stability when attaching the post to the ground (see Figure 7). Further, even if the post component of Paque could be used to connect two components, these flanges would interfere with the wires (6) of the fence to be connected between the posts, while also providing a dangerous edge for a person installing said component.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Paque discloses the post component of claim 11, but fails to disclose a method of extending the height of a first, lower, tricuspid fence post having a generally Y-shaped transverse cross-sectional configuration by coaxially locating a second upper, similar fence post thereabove, said second fence post being more slender than said first post, said method comprising the steps of:
locating a lower portion of a first coupling tube as claimed in claim 11 and dimensioned to mate with said first post, on the upper end of said first post,
retaining said first coupling tube lower portion in position by abutment of a protrusion of said first tube with the top of said lower post,
locating an upper portion of a second coupling tube as claimed in claim 11 and dimensioned to mate with said second post, on one end of said second post, and
locating a lower portion of said second coupling tube in the upper end of said first coupling tube.
Instead, the post component (9) of Paque is provided to provide a means of anchoring a single fence post (1) at a desired height (see page 1, column 1, lines 1-45). The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Paque such that the anchor of Paque may be used as a means of connecting multiple posts together in order to provide a fence post with an extended height. Further, given the post component of Paque is directed to anchoring posts, such a modification would teach away from the intended method/structure of Paque, where flanges (12) are provided for stability when attaching the post to the ground (see Figure 7). Further, even if the post component of Paque could be used to connect two components, these flanges would interfere with the wires (6) of the fence to be connected between the posts, while also providing a dangerous edge for a person installing said component.
Conclusion
The prior art set forth in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure in the field of multifunction fence post components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM ET.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on (571)270-5281. 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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights