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 § 112
Claims 7-12 and 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.
In claim 7, it recites “a wall incline” but the claim depends from claim 1 that already recited “a wall incline”. It is unclear if these are the same or different.
In claim 10, it recites “a wall incline” but the claim depends from claim 1 that already recited “a wall incline”. It is unclear if these are the same or different.
In claim 17, it recites “a wall incline” but the claim depends from claim 1 that already recited “a wall incline”. It is unclear if these are the same or different.
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 1-3, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2003/0097810 to Leichtfried.
Regarding claim 1, Leichtfried teaches in Figure 6 [annotated below], an incline wedge (100) [J-trim element (Paragraph 0039)] being monobloc [of a single sheet], the incline wedge (100) comprising: a planar first section (102) [body (Paragraph 0039)] configured to be fastened to a wall (12) (Paragraph 0039) incline [vertical] having a generally rectangular shape [as seen] and having a first edge (A); and a retaining section (112) [U-shaped channel (Paragraph 0039)] including a planar second section (108) [vertical portion (Paragraph 0039)] having a generally rectangular shape [as seen], the second section (108) connected by a second edge (B) thereof to the first edge (A) of the first section (112) by way of an angled section (106) [horizontal portion (Paragraph 0039)], the retaining section (112) further comprising a clamping section (C), folded back from a third edge (D) of the second section (108), opposite the second edge (B) and against the second section (108) so as to form a fastening clip [to receive the edge of a panel (Paragraph 0039)]. Leichtfried does not teach the incline wedge to be metallic. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the incline wedge from metal since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. The Examiner finds the following limitations to be towards the intended use of the invention: for a wall; for fastening a rail or smooth support of a panel; and the angled section being configured to allow an angular adjustment between the first section and the second section by way of a deformation of the angled section. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
622
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Leichtfried teaches in Figure 6 [annotated above], the incline wedge has an angled section (106). The Examiner finds the following limitations to be towards the intended use of the invention: wherein the angled section is configured such that a force exerted on one and/or the other of the first section and the retaining section to make an angular adjustment between the first section and the second section results in the deformation of the angled section. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Leichtfried teaches in Figure 6 [annotated above], the angled section (106) comprises at least one through opening (110) [air holes (Paragraph 0039)]. The Examiner finds the following limitations to be towards the intended use of the invention: such that the force exerted on one and/or the other of the first section and the retaining section preferentially results in a deformation of the angled section relative to the first section and the retaining section. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Leichtfried teaches in Figure 6 [annotated above], the angled section (106) comprises at least one through opening (110) [air holes (Paragraph 0039)]. The Examiner finds the following limitations to be towards the intended use of the invention: such that the force exerted on one and/or the other of the first section and the retaining section preferentially results in a deformation of the angled section relative to the first section and the retaining section. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Leichtfried teaches in Figure 6 [annotated above], the first planar section (102) comprises holes (16) (Paragraph 0039) for fastening the first section (102) against the wall (12) with fasteners (14) [nails (Pagraph 0039)].
Regarding claim 18, Leichtfried teaches an incline wedge with an angled section. The Examiner finds “the angled section is configured to allow angular adjustment within an angle range between 18 degrees and 60 degrees” to be towards the intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Leichtfried teaches an incline wedge but is silent about it being formed from a sheet metal plate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the incline wedge from a sheet metal plate since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Claims 4-12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication # 2003/0097810 to Leichtfried in view of WO 2010/149625 to Franz.
Regarding claim 4, Leichtfried teaches in Figure 6 [annotated above], the clamping section (C) comprises, in order and along one first direction, going from the third edge (D) toward the second edge (B), a main portion (E) and an end portion (F), the end portion (F) extending, from the main portion (E), relative to the second section (108). Leichtfried does not teach the end portion extends in a diverging manner. However, Franz teaches in Figures 2 and 3, an end portion (3.4) extending from a main portion (3.3) in a divergent manner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leichtfried with Franz and have a reasonable expectation of success because Franz teaches the shape creates a spring tongue which fixes a support section with a clamping action (Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Leichtfried in view of Franz teach an incline wedge. Furthermore, Leichtfried teaches in Figure 6 [annotated above], the main portion (E) is parallel to the second section (108).
Regarding claim 6, Leichtfried in view of Franz teach an incline wedge. Furthermore, Franz teaches in Figures 2 and 3, the main portion (3.3) extends, along a first direction, in a convergent manner toward a second section (2) such that a clamping section [the inflection point between the end portion and the end portion] is in contact with the second section (2) only with a rim (3) formed between the main portion (3.3) and the end portion (3.4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leichtfried with Franz and have a reasonable expectation of success because Franz teaches the shape creates a spring tongue which fixes a support section with a clamping action (Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Leichtfried in view of Franz teach an incline wedge. Furthermore, Leichtfried teaches in Figure 6 [annotated above], the first planar section (102) comprises holes (16) (Paragraph 0039) for fastening the first section (102) against the wall (12) with fasteners (14) [nails (Pagraph 0039)].
Regarding claim 8, Leichtfried in view of Franz teach an incline wedge with an angled section. The Examiner finds “the angled section is configured to allow angular adjustment within an angle range between 18 degrees and 60 degrees” to be towards the intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Leichtfried in view of Franz teach an incline wedge but are silent about it being formed from a sheet metal plate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the incline wedge from a sheet metal plate since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 10, Leichtfried in view of Franz teach an incline wedge. Furthermore, Leichtfried teaches in Figure 6 [annotated above], the first planar section (102) comprises holes (16) (Paragraph 0039) for fastening the first section (102) against the wall (12) with fasteners (14) [nails (Pagraph 0039)].
Regarding claim 11, Leichtfried in view of Franz teach an incline wedge with an angled section. The Examiner finds “the angled section is configured to allow angular adjustment within an angle range between 18 degrees and 60 degrees” to be towards the intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Leichtfried in view of Franz teach an incline wedge but are silent about it being formed from a sheet metal plate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the incline wedge from a sheet metal plate since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 14, Leichtfried teaches in Figure 6 [annotated above], the clamping section (C) comprises, in order and along one first direction, going from the third edge (D) toward the second edge (B), a main portion (E) and an end portion (F), the end portion (F) extending, from the main portion (E), relative to the second section (108). Leichtfried does not teach the end portion extends in a diverging manner. However, Franz teaches in Figures 2 and 3, an end portion (3.4) extending from a main portion (3.3) in a divergent manner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leichtfried with Franz and have a reasonable expectation of success because Franz teaches the shape creates a spring tongue which fixes a support section with a clamping action (Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Leichtfried in view of Franz teach an incline wedge. Furthermore, Leichtfried teaches in Figure 6 [annotated above], the main portion (E) is parallel to the second section (108).
Regarding claim 16, Leichtfried in view of Franz teach an incline wedge. Furthermore, Franz teaches in Figures 2 and 3, the main portion (3.3) extends, along a first direction, in a convergent manner toward a second section (2) such that a clamping section [the inflection point between the end portion and the end portion] is in contact with the second section (2) only with a rim (3) formed between the main portion (3.3) and the end portion (3.4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leichtfried with Franz and have a reasonable expectation of success because Franz teaches the shape creates a spring tongue which fixes a support section with a clamping action (Abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Leichtfried in view of Franz teach an incline wedge. Furthermore, Franz teaches in Figures 2 and 3, the main portion (3.3) is in contact with a second section (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leichtfried with Franz and have a reasonable expectation of success because Franz teaches the shape creates a spring tongue which fixes a support section with a clamping action (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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 Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
