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)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 102a (paragraph [0039]), 110a (paragraph [0044]), and 136a (paragraph [0052]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 141a.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “121” has been used to designate both the channel (paragraph [0045] figure 8C) and the opening (paragraph [0053] and figure 17).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “121a” has been used to designate both the opposite sides (paragraph [0045] figure 8C) and the opening (paragraph [0053] and figure 17).
The drawings are objected to because:
Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l) all lines, numerals, and letters should be clean, durable, black, and well defined. All figures include lines that are blurry or pixelated and not black.
In figure 1 the reference numerals 100, 102, 112, and 120 are oversized, font similar to reference numerals 110 and 1130 would be appropriate.
There is an extraneous horizontal line between the arrows for reference numerals 120, 121, and 122 in figure 8C.
A similar issue occurs with multiple extraneous lines on gap closer 136 in figure 15A.
The arrow for reference numeral 120 in figure 11A is mostly missing (i.e. only a portion of the arrowhead and no line is shown).
A similar issue occurs with reference numeral 136 in figure 15B and reference numeral 156 in figure 17.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7 recites “the channel”. The previously recited channel was “longitudinal channel” and while all of the descriptive terms do not need to be used in later recitations (in the present case “longitudinal”) the claims later recite the panel insert having a channel and thus referring to both channels as “the channel” can cause confusion. As such examiner suggests all recitations of the longitudinal channel of the uprights include the descriptive term longitudinal.
A similar issue occurs in claim 2.
Claim 4 line 2 recites “a panel insert”. Claim 1 already recites both first and second uprights having a longitudinal channel and the longitudinal receiving a panel insert so the correct antecedent is “the panel insert”. See also below 112(d).
A similar issue occurs in claim 5 with respect to “a gate panel” and claim 6 with respect to “a panel insert”.
Claim 6 lines 1-2 recite “the second upright is configured for receiving a panel insert”. As recited in claim 1, the upright does not receive the panel insert but instead the longitudinal channel of the upright receives the panel insert. It appears that claim 6 was meant to mirror claim 4 for the second upright instead of the first. Examiner notes should claim 6 be amended to mirror claim 4 the 112(d) noted below with respect to claim 4 would similarly apply to claim 6.
Claim 7 line 1 recites “the panel insert includes a channel”. As noted above with respect to claim 1 this is the second singular “channel” recited. Examiner suggests the correction to avoid potential confusion be made to the channel of the uprights as detailed above.
Claim 13 line 8 recites “a series of panels”. The series of panels was previously recited in line 4.
Claim 14 line 2 recites “individual panels”. As claims 13 and 14 previously recite “the series of panels” later panels should relate back to the series as the later panels are part of the series not separate different panels.
A similar issue occurs with “each new panel” in line 3, “a previous panel” in lines 3-4, and “the individual panels” in lines 4-5.
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.
Claims 5, 8, and 13-19 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.
Claim 5 lines 1-2 recite “the panel insert is configured for receiving the plurality of panels in series to create a gate panel”. Only the panel insert of the first upright receives the plurality of panels in series. The panel insert of the second upright only receives the panels after they have been placed in series to form the gate panel (i.e. the panel insert of the second upright does not receive the panels in series, only in whole as the gate panel).
Both first and second uprights have panel inserts in independent claim 1 as claim 1 requires “a longitudinal channel extending from and outer wall of each of the first and second uprights” (emphasis added)and “the [longitudinal channel] is configured for receiving a panel insert”. As such “the panel insert” of claim 8 is the panel insert of both the first and second uprights (i.e. the generic panel insert of claim 1) as there is no language present to indicate otherwise.
There appears to be an issue with claims 4-5 and 6-8 being premised on the first and second uprights not having previously recited panel inserts, i.e. claim 4 appears to be premised on the first upright not having a panel insert and claim 6 appears to be premised on the second upright. As noted above both uprights have panel inserts in independent claim 1 so later recitations, if not applicable to the panel insert of both uprights, should use distinguishing language. Examiner suggests for claim 5 “the panel insert of the first upright” to clarify which panel insert is meant.
Claim 8 lines 1-2 recite “the channel of the panel insert is configured for receiving the gate panel”. Only the channel of the panel insert of the second upright receives the gate panel (i.e. the stacked formation of the plurality of panels). The channel of the panel insert of the first upright only receives the plurality of panels one at a time such that the gate panel is formed only after all the panels are in the channel.
Examiner suggests for claim 8 “the panel insert of the second upright” to clarify which panel insert is meant.
Claim 13 line 10 recites “inserting the gate panel into a second upright”. The gate panel is not inserted into the upright but instead inserted into a channel mounted on the exterior of the upright (see claim 13 line 4 with respect to the first upright and channel). As such claim 13 should include the channel for the second upright.
Dependent claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “the channel of the first upright is configured for receiving a panel insert”. As detailed above with respect to the 112(b) rejections claim 1 already recites both first and second uprights having a channel and the channel configured to receive a panel insert. As such everything in claim 4 is already recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 20 2014 105 305 to Societe Innovation Du Batiment (from IDS of 1/8/2025, hereinafter Societe) in view of US patent 11286687 to Springborn (from IDS od 1/8/2025, hereinafter Spring) and US patent 5702090 to Edgman (hereinafter Edgman).
Regarding claim 1 the modular gate assembly is shown in Societe in figures 1-5 with
a first upright (20) formed from four side walls surrounding an open interior (shown figure 1, receives hinge 201,501);
a second upright (30) formed from four side walls surrounding an open interior (shown figure 1, receives unlabeled cap), the second upright (30) opposing the first upright (20);
a longitudinal channel (shown figure 4, top of 20);
wherein the channel is configured for receiving a plurality of panels (10a,10b,10c) within each upright to form a gate panel (10).
However, the longitudinal channel does not appear to extend from the outer wall of the upright and there is no panel insert in Societe.
A longitudinal channel from an outer wall is shown in Spring in figures 1A-1F where first (20) and second (22) uprights have longitudinal channels (31’ and 31” respectively) extending from an outer wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the modular gate of Societe with the outer wall exterior channel of Spring because the separate channel on the outer wall allows for a less complex shape of the upright (i.e. a flat outer surface rather than channeled) and allows for the channel to be replaced without replacing the entire upright in case of damage or repair.
A panel insert is shown in Edgman in figures 1-5 where panel insert (52,54) is configured to be received in a longitudinal channel (56) and configured to receive a panel (58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the modular gate of Societe with the panel insert of Edgman because the panel insert provides the benefit of better securement of the panel (i.e. more grip on the panel and engagement of channel) than a U-shaped channel alone.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected with claim 1, see above claim objection and 112(d).
Regarding claim 2, when provided with the channel of Spring, the longitudinal channel would be formed by two opposing walls extending outward from and perpendicular to the walls of the uprights.
Regarding claim 3, while the opposing walls in Spring do not have flanges (i.e. are flat walls) the addition of flanges would be a design choice change in shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the modular gate of Societe, having the outer wall exterior channel of Spring and the panel insert of Edgman, with a flanged channel wall because flanges provided the benefit of allowing for better manipulation of the channel, i.e. flanges provide improved grip area over flat wall (see also MPEP 2144.04 IV Section B change in shape obvious).
Regarding claim 5, when provided with the panel insert of Edgman, the panel insert would be configured to receive the plurality of panels (10a,10b,10c) to create the gate panel (10) in Societe. Examiner notes “in series” is a product by process limitation and patentability of a product is not determined by its method of production (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 7, the panel insert (52,54) includes a channel in Edgman.
Regarding claim 8, when provided with the panel insert of Edgman, the panel insert would be configured to receive the gate panel (10) in Societe.
Regarding claim 9, the first upright (20) includes a top hinge (201,501) and a bottom hinge (202,502) in Societe.
Regarding claim 10, the second upright (30) includes a lock and handle assembly (unnumbered, shown in figure 1 with handle and lock keyhole) in Societe.
Regarding claim 11, the gate assembly (0) includes a gap closer (unnumbered, shown on left edge of right unnumbered gate in figure 1) in Societe.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Societe, Spring, and Edgman as applied to claim 11 (as well as claims 1-10) above, and further in view of US patent 4344253 to Stiles (hereinafter Stiles).
Regarding claim 12, the gap closer in Societe is between the two gates in the gate assembly (i.e. the gap closed is not between gate and post).
A gap cover is shown in Stiles in figures 1-3 where gap cover (10,11) is between movable member (18) and fixed vertical support (14). When provided to Societe for a gate, the gap closer would be between gate and support post.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the modular gate of Societe, having the outer wall exterior channel of Spring and the panel insert of Edgman, with the gap cover of Stiles because gap covers on the hinges edge (as opposed to the free edge in Societe) provided the known benefit of preventing objects from getting to the hinge or support as taught in Stiles in column 1 lines 32-35.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619