DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 (line 1) “An anchor pin support for” should recite –An anchor pin for--.
In claim 1 (line 6) “having at least” should recite –having one of at least--.
In claim 12 (line 7) “having a first” should recite –having one of a first--.
In claim 17 (line 7) “having a first” should recite –having one of a first--.
In claim 17 (line 12) “another of” should recite –one of--.
For the purpose of examining the application, it is assumed that appropriate correction has been made.
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, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (US 2005/0246981).
As to claims 1 and 6, Austin discloses an anchor pin for a post, comprising:
a central shaft 30;
first and second arms 10,20 extending upward from a top of the central shaft and defining a gap therebetween; and
each of the first and second arms having one of at least two sets of aligned holes 12,14,22,24, each shaped to receive a connector 76 (Figures 1-6).
Austin fails to disclose a pin comprising a flared base at an end of the central shaft; wherein the flared base has a circular shape. Austin does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific shape of the central shaft.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the shape of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific shape of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, 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 anchor pin disclosed by Austin to comprise a flared base at an end of the central shaft; wherein the flared base has a circular shape, as Austin does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific shape of the central shaft., and as such practice is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
As to claim 2, Austin discloses an anchor pin wherein the connector 76 is removeable (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 4, Austin discloses an anchor pin wherein the holes 22,24 on the first arm 20 have recesses 26,28 shaped to receive a head of the connector (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 5, Austin discloses an anchor pin wherein the at least two sets of aligned holes 12,14 are threaded to receive threaded connectors 76 (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 7, Austin fails to disclose an anchor pin wherein the flared base has a diameter of approximately 1.75 inches, and the central shaft has a diameter of approximately 1.25 inches. Austin does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific width of the anchor pin.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, 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 anchor pin disclosed by Austin wherein the flared base has a diameter of approximately 1.75 inches, and the central shaft has a diameter of approximately 1.25 inches, as Austin does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific width of the anchor pin, and as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
As to claim 8, Austin discloses an anchor pin comprising a height pin 50 inserted into a bottom of the anchor pin, where the position of the height pin is adjustable relative to the bottom of the anchor pin to change a height of the anchor pin (Figures 1-6).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin in view of Poma et al. (US 10,876,297).
As to claim 3, Austin fails to disclose an anchor pin comprising at least one recess around the central shaft.
Poma et al. teach an anchor pin comprising at least one recess around the central shaft 86; the recess interlockably receiving adhesive 90 therein, providing for more secure coupling between the anchor pin and a support surface (Figures 1-5). Accordingly, 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 pin disclosed by Austin to comprise a recess around the central shaft, as taught by Poma et al., in order to interlockably receive adhesive therein, providing for more secure coupling between the anchor pin and the support surface.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin in view of Heung Hwa (KR 10-1047370) and Dalton (US 10,954,687).
As to claims 9-11, Austin fails to disclose an anchor pin comprising an I-beam shaped to be mounted in the gap of the anchor pin and connected to the anchor pin; a post shaped to be mounted over the I-beam and connected to the I-beam and the anchor pin; and a railing connected to the post.
Heung Hwa teaches an anchor pin comprising a support beam 111 mounted on an anchor pin 120 and connected to the anchor pin; a post 110 shaped to be mounted over the beam and connected to the beam and the anchor pin; and a railing 10 connected to the post; the support beam and post enabling a fence railing to be assembled to the anchor pin, providing for a greater utility of the anchor pin and the assembly of greater variety of barriers of fences (Figures 3-7).
Dalton teaches a support assembly comprising an I-beam 30; a post 50 shaped to be mounted over the I-beam and connected to the I-beam; and a railing 71 connected to the post; the I-beam extending the entire length of the post, providing for a more rigid, stronger fence post (Figures 1-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the pin disclosed by Austin to comprise a support beam and post mounted to the anchor pin, as taught by Heung Hwa, in order to enable a fence railing to be assembled to the anchor pin, providing for a greater utility of the anchor pin and the assembly of greater variety of barriers of fences; and wherein the support beam comprise an I-beam extending the entire length of the post, as taught by Dalton, such that the I-beam is mounted in the gap of the anchor pin, in order to provide for a more rigid, stronger fence post.
As to claims 12, 15 and 16, Austin discloses a support for a post, comprising:
an anchor pin, comprising:
a central shaft 30;
first and second arms 10,20 extending upward from a top of the central shaft and defining a gap therebetween;
each of the first and second arms having one of a first set of aligned holes 12,14,22,24, each shaped to receive a connector 76; and
a connector 76 insertable into the first set of aligned holes of the anchor pin (Figures 1-6).
Austin fails to disclose a pin comprising a flared base at an end of the central shaft; wherein the flared base has a circular shape. Austin does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific shape of the central shaft.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the shape of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific shape of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, 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 anchor pin disclosed by Austin to comprise a flared base at an end of the central shaft; wherein the flared base has a circular shape, as Austin does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific shape of the central shaft., and as such practice is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
Austin fails to disclose a support comprising an I-beam having two arms and a web, the web shaped to insert into the gap, the web of the I-beam having at least one hole; wherein the connector is insertable into one of the holes of the web of the I-beam to attach the anchor pin to the I-beam; a post shaped to be mounted over the I-beam and connected to the I-beam and the anchor pin; and a railing connected to the post.
Heung Hwa teaches a support comprising a support beam 111 having at least one hole mounted on an anchor pin 120; wherein a connector B is insertable into one of holes of the beam to attach the anchor pin to the beam; a post 110 shaped to be mounted over the beam and connected to the beam and the anchor pin; and a railing 10 connected to the post; the support beam and post enabling a fence railing to be assembled to the anchor pin, providing for a greater utility of the anchor pin and the assembly of greater variety of barriers of fences (Figures 3-7).
Dalton teaches a support comprising an I-beam 30 having two arms and a web; a post 50 shaped to be mounted over the I-beam and connected to the I-beam; and a railing 71 connected to the post; the I-beam extending the entire length of the post, providing for a more rigid, stronger fence post (Figures 1-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the support disclosed by Austin to comprise a support beam and post mounted to the anchor pin, as taught by Heung Hwa, in order to enable a fence railing to be assembled to the anchor pin, providing for a greater utility of the anchor pin and the assembly of greater variety of barriers of fences; and wherein the support beam comprise an I-beam extending the entire length of the post, as taught by Dalton, such that the I-beam is mounted in the gap of the anchor pin and the connector is insertable into a hole in the web of the I-beam, in order to provide for a more rigid, stronger fence post.
As to claim 13, Austin discloses a support wherein the connector 76 is removeable (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 14, Austin discloses a support comprising a height pin 50 inserted into a bottom of the anchor pin, where the position of the height pin is adjustable relative to the bottom of the anchor pin to change a height of the anchor pin (Figures 1-6).
As to claims 17 and 20, Austin discloses a post support assembly, comprising:
an anchor pin, comprising:
a central shaft 30;
first and second arms 10,20 extending upward from a top of the central shaft and defining a gap therebetween;
each of the first and second arms having one of a first set of aligned holes 12,14,22,24, each shaped to receive a connector 76; and
a first connector 76 insertable into the first set of aligned holes of the anchor pin (Figures 1-6).
Austin fails to disclose a pin comprising a flared base at an end of the central shaft; wherein the flared base has a circular shape. Austin does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific shape of the central shaft.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the shape of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific shape of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, 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 anchor pin disclosed by Austin to comprise a flared base at an end of the central shaft; wherein the flared base has a circular shape, as Austin does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific shape of the central shaft., and as such practice is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
Austin fails to disclose an assembly comprising an I-beam having two arms and a web, the web shaped to insert into the gap, the web of the I-beam having at least one hole; a post mountable over the I-beam, the post having at least one hole; and a railing connected to the post; wherein the first connector is insertable into one of the holes of the web of the I-beam, and one of the holes of the post, to attach the anchor pin, the I-beam, and the post together.
Heung Hwa teaches a post support assembly comprising a support beam 111 having at least one hole mounted on an anchor pin 120; a post 110 mountable over the beam, the post having at least one hole; and a railing 10 connected to the post; wherein a connector B is insertable into a hole of the beam, and a hole of the post, to attach the anchor pin, the I-beam, and the post together; the support beam and post enabling a fence railing to be assembled to the anchor pin, providing for a greater utility of the anchor pin and the assembly of greater variety of barriers of fences (Figures 3-7).
Dalton teaches a post support assembly comprising an I-beam 30 having two arms and a web; a post 50 mountable over the I-beam; and a railing 71 connected to the post; the I-beam extending the entire length of the post, providing for a more rigid, stronger fence post (Figures 1-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the assembly disclosed by Austin to comprise a support beam and post mounted to the anchor pin, as taught by Heung Hwa, in order to enable a fence railing to be assembled to the anchor pin, providing for a greater utility of the anchor pin and the assembly of greater variety of barriers of fences; and wherein the support beam comprise an I-beam extending the entire length of the post, as taught by Dalton, such that the I-beam is mounted in the gap of the anchor pin and the connector is insertable into a hole in the web of the I-beam, in order to provide for a more rigid, stronger fence post.
As to claim 18, Austin discloses a post support assembly wherein the first connector 76 is removeable (Figures 1-6).
As to claim 19, Austin discloses a post support assembly comprising a height pin 50 inserted into a bottom of the anchor pin, where the position of the height pin is adjustable relative to the bottom of the anchor pin to change a height of the anchor pin (Figures 1-6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
06/25/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights