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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the following reference element “120” in Fig. 1a and reference element “115” in Fig. 1b have both been used to designate side walls, however, reference element “120” has been referred as flange extensions – per fig. 2b as reference elements “120a” and “120b” and reference element “115” has been referred as sidewalls per fig. 2b.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference elements mentioned in the description:
In regards to fig. 3, reference element 132b is not present, however 132b is used to designate mounting bolts per specification (pg. 12 [0042] lines 1-3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to the specification at pg. 5, [0023] lines 1-2, Fig. 2c appears to state “a top view of the removable bracket…” and should be “a front view of the removable bracket…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The term “similar” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” 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.
How is the shape of the receiving recess similar to a shape of the safety railing post? Is the recess similar to the cross-section of the length, the width, etc. The examiner suggests to use the term “complementary” to the shape. This case will be examined as “best understood” until further clarification is provided.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
It is unclear on how a method claim depends on an apparatus claim 9. The examiner believes that this is a typo and claim 13 should depend from 10. This examiner will examine claim 13 as being dependent on claim 10 until further clarification is provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 4-7, 9-12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over eGlass Railing Store (NPL document via eGlassrailing.com: Inline Fascia Bracket & Instructions).
In regards to claim 1, The eGlass railing store discloses a removable bracket capable for temporarily installing a safety railing post on a deck at a side surface thereof, the bracket comprising:
A top open post holder having a receiving recess (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element A) defined by a pair of end walls and a pair of side walls (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element B), the recess (A) extending between a proximal portion and a distal portion (as seen in annotated fig. 1, near reference element A & B), and a bottom provided with a weep hole (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element C), the bottom (C) is capable to support a bottom (C) of the safety railing post (as seen on pg. 10 fig. 7); a pair of spaced apart flange extensions (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element D), extending transversely away from one of the pair of sidewalls (B) of the top open recess (A) (as seen in annotated fig. 1), two generally co-planar mounting flanges each extending generally perpendicularly away from one of the pair of flange extensions (D) (as seen in annotated fig. 1, reference element E), each capable to be temporarily secured to the side surface of the deck with mounting bolts (as seen
PNG
media_image1.png
915
1910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
on pg. 7).
However, the eGlass Railing Store does not disclose wherein said safety post when installed within the receiving recess is spaced from the side surface of the deck by at least 3 inches.
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the design choice by increasing the length of the already presented flange extensions (D) so when the safety post is installed within the receiving recess (A) is of at least 3 inches from the side surface of the deck. This allows the operator more room to work and to meet all the necessary safety requirements for on-site operations.
In regards to claim 4, as best understood, the eGlass Railing Store discloses wherein the receiving recess (A) is capable of a shape that is similar to a shape of the safety railing post (as seen on pg. 10 fig. 7).
In regards to claim 5, The eGlass Railing Store discloses wherein the receiving recess (A) is capable of a cross-section adapted to receive the safety railing snugly fitted therein (as seen on pg. 7).
In regards to claim 6, The eGlass Railing Store discloses wherein the top open post holder is configured with a height to secure the safety railing post. The eGlass Railing Store does not disclose to secure the safety railing post without a fastener. However, there are additional holes located on the sidewalls (B) that are suitable for screws (as seen on pg. 10, reference element 44) to provide additional support to the safety railing post when necessary.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not utilize those holes due to the already presented depth of the top open post holder and where only static friction is required to keep the post snugly fitted. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would only utilize these holes when additional support is required such as high winds.
In regards to claim 7, The eGlass Railing Store discloses wherein each of the mounting flanges (E) comprises at least two mounting holes (as seen in annotated fig. 1) capable to receive a respective mounting bolt therethrough for securing the flange onto the side surface of the deck (as seen on pg. 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
235
1909
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9, The eGlass Railing Store discloses wherein the bracket is made of metal (as seen in annotated fig. 2).
Annotated Figure 2
In regards to claim 10, The eGlass Railing store’s instructions discloses a method capable for temporarily installing a safety railing post on a deck at a side surface thereof, the method comprising:
Securing the mounting flanges (E) to the side surface of the deck (as seen in pg. 10, bullet point 12 & 13);
Inserting the safety railing post into the receiving recess (A) of the top open post holder (as seen in pg. 10, bullet point 6); and
Securing the safety railing post within the top open post holder (as seen on pg. 10, bullet point 6).
However, eGlass Railing store does not disclose wherein said safety railing post when installed within the receiving recess is spaced from the side surface of the deck by at least 3 inches. However, eGlass Railing Store has stack shims with an ½ inch thickness (as seen on pg. 6, reference element 40).
It would have to obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add more of the 1/2 in. stack shims 40 to the back of the mounting flanges to add distance of the receiving recess (A) from the side surface of the deck to at least 3 inches in order to provide the operator without fear of safety concerns and to prevent possible scratches to the removable bracket.
In regards to claim 11, The eGlass Railing Store discloses a method capable of securing the mounting flanges to the side surface of the deck (as seen on pg. 10, bullet point 12 & 13).
However, The eGlass Railing Store Instructions does not specifically state of inserting mounting bolts through the mounting holes provided on each of the mounting flanges and into the side surface of the deck. The instructions state of using shims, sleeves, and screws for installing mounting hardware.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the instructions to forgo the instructions of utilizing multiple layers of attachment mechanisms and use a single bolt for the purpose of easier installations, more efficiency, and quick adjustment to removable bracket if required.
In regards to claim 12, The eGlass Railing Store discloses a method capable of inserting the safety railing post into the top open post-receiving recess (A) comprises snugly fitting the safety railing post within the recess (A) (as seen on pg. 7).
In regards to claim 14, The eGlass Railing Store discloses a method of mounting the fascia bracket (as seen on pg. 10). However, The eGlass Railing Store does not specifically disclose on how to remove the safety railing post from the top open post holder and detach the removable bracket from the side surface of the deck.
However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the installation instructions of The eGlass Railing Store to include the removal of the safety railing post from the top open post holder and detach the removable bracket from the side surface by reversing the mounting steps (as seen on pg. 10) for the purpose of relocating the bracket to another location on said project, breaking down of equipment for completion of job, and or bracket repair.
Claims 2, 3, 8 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over eGlass Railing Store (NPL document: eGlass Railing Store - Inline Fascia Bracket & Instruction) in view of Regan (8870163).
In regards to claim 2, The eGlass Railing Store does not disclose wherein the top open post holder is able to accommodate a post from two 2 x 4s. The top open post holder recess (A) dimensions only accommodate a 2 3/8-inch standard post (as seen on pg. 11). A standard single 2 x 4 is 1.5 x 3.5 inches. Therefore, if you put two together, they would be 3 x 3.5 inches and the top post holder recess would not fit two 2 x 4s.
However, Regan teaches that the safety post 10 is made of a 4 x 4 post, or approximately 3.5 x 3.5 inches and the recess of the bracket 40 is capable to configure sufficient clearance to receive the safety post (col. 7 lines 29-38).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of the receiving recess (A) by increasing the current dimensions of the top open post holder’s recess (A) to be capable to accommodate a 4 x 4 or two 2 x 4s due to availability of material, cost of material, or aesthetic purposes.
In regards to claim 3, The eGlass Railing Store does not disclose wherein each of the spaced apart flange extension (D) is of a width lesser than a length of the corresponding side wall (B).
However, Regan teaches that the flange height (FH) (as seen in fig. 2A) and the height of the cup (CH) (as seen in fig. 2A) may be manufactured at different shapes and/or sizes (col. 13 lines 54-65).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flange height (FH) and or height of the cup (CH) of eGlass Railing Inline Fascia Bracket for the purpose of easier accessibility of the Inline Fascia Bracket to the side of the surface deck.
In regards to claim 8, The eGlass Railing Store does not disclose wherein the bracket is a one-piece structure. However, Regan teaches where the bracket 40 can be made as a single piece (col. 11 lines 35-37).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of The eGlass Railing Store’s Inline Fascia Bracket be made of one-piece structure in order to provide a sturdier fit for the post, durability, and easier installation.
In regards to claim 13, as best understood, The eGlass Railing Store does not disclose wherein the step of forming the safety railing post from two 2 x 4s. However, Regan teaches that a safety railing post 10 may be configured of wood and be made of a 4 x 4 (Col. 7 lines 15-18) or approximately two 2x4s.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the design choice by choosing a different material due to availability, cost or aesthetics purposes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARRETT C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7.30am-5pm.
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 (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.
/Garrett Patterson/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights