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 Objections
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2, after “of” insert --said--;
Claim 4, line 3, after “of” insert --said--;
Claim 5, line 2, after “single” insert --said--;
Claim 5, line 3, after “single” insert --said--;
Claim 7, line 2, after “first” insert --said--;
Claim 7, line 3, after “first” insert --said--;
Claim 7, line 3, after “second” insert --said--; and
Claim 7, line 4, after “second” insert --said--.
Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maxcy et al. (US#3879017).
Regarding claim 1, Maxcy discloses a fencing system, comprising: posts P having upper and lower ends, wherein the posts include: cavities 14; and flutes 15,23 formed in end walls defined by the cavities; rails R,R’ extending between the posts; mounting brackets S supporting the rails and connected to the posts via fasteners 22 extending into threaded engagement with portion 23 of the flutes such that the mounting brackets and the rails are vertically repositionable in relation to the posts; and infills (posts P between the corner posts P, see Fig. 1) supported by the rails.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the flutes extend continuously between the upper and lower ends of the posts (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Maxcy discloses a fencing system, comprising: posts P; rails R,R’ extending between the posts, wherein the rails include: first rails R having a first configuration (first direction of extension); and second rails R’ having a second configuration (second direction of extension) different from the first configuration (second rails R’ are transverse to first rails R and are thus of different configurations, see Fig. 3) ; and mounting brackets S supporting the rails and connected to the posts via 22,23 to facilitate adjustments in heights of the rails in a manner inhibiting damage to the posts.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the rails include: chambers (openings) configured to receive infills (posts P between the corner posts P, see Fig. 1); and hollows (interior) configured to receive the mounting brackets such that the mounting brackets extend into the rails (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Maxcy discloses a fencing system, comprising: posts P including threaded flutes 15,23; rails R,R’ extending between the posts; and mounting brackets S supporting the rails and connected to the posts via fasteners 22 extending into the threaded flutes at 23 such that the mounting brackets are repositionable in relation to the posts to thereby vary vertical positions of the rails.
Regarding claim 17, wherein the rails include: first rails R having a first configuration (first direction of extension); and second rails R’ having a second configuration (second direction of extension) different from the first configuration (second rails R’ are transverse to first rails R and are thus of different configurations, see Fig. 3), wherein the mounting brackets are configured for connection to the posts in a first orientation (first face of the post) to facilitate use with the first rails and in a second orientation (second face of the post) to facilitate use with the second rails (see Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10, 13-15, and 18-20 are 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.
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 WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights