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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the securing elements for securing the engagement element to socket portion must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 9 and 20-22 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 9 recites the limitation “wherein: said swivel flange nut comprises a base portion and a socket portion; and said swivel flange nut is configured to rotate relative to threaded shaft”, which is vague and indefinite, since it appears as though in order to maintain a seated orientation, as recited in amended claim 1, only the base portion is rotating relative to the threaded shaft. Thus, the base and socket rotate relative to one another, and the base and threaded shaft rotate relative to one another.
Claims 20 (and 22 in regards to a round configuration) recites the limitation “the engagement element comprises the square configuration, each attachable to the socket portion of the swivel flange nut”, which is vague and indefinite since it is unclear how the engagement element is attachable. The specification does not sufficiently describe the mechanism which secures the socket to the engagement element. Is it a snap-fit connection? Is it welded?
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the square configuration” and “the “C” shaped interface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouche; Michel (FR 2624495 A1); (see attached translation) in view of Garcia; Jaime E. (US 5902084 A).
Regarding claim 1 Bouche discloses A horse pen bar system (the structure of Bouche could be used for the intended function), configured for installation within an entrance of a horse pen for containing a horse and improving the psychological well-being of the horse; wherein:
said horse pen bar system comprises a main support bar (6) and two threaded assemblies (Fig. 3; 8, 9, 11, 12); said main support bar extends longitudinally between said two threaded assemblies; said two threaded assemblies comprises a first threaded assembly (8, 9) and a second threaded assembly (11, 12); said two threaded assemblies are positioned at opposing ends of main support bar (Fig. 3); each of said two threaded assemblies includes a threaded shaft (9, 12) and an engagement element (8, 11); said entrance defines the open area between two vertical supports (the structure of Bouche allows for the device to be positioned between two vertical supports); said two vertical supports comprise a first vertical support and a second vertical support, positioned on opposing sides of said entrance (the examiner notes that the entrance and vertical supports are not positively required by the claim. Thus the device of Bouche must only be capable of performing the intended use)
said threaded shaft enables length adjustment through rotational movement, allowing the horse pen bar system to fit securely within said entrance (page 3); said two threaded assemblies each comprise the threaded shaft featuring a first threading orientation and a second threading orientation (Fig. 3); said first threading orientation and said second threading orientation are opposite one another (shown as opposite spiral lines in Fig. 2); these opposing threading orientations allow for simultaneous expansion or contraction of said horse pen bar system (page 3), ensuring secure and precise adjustments between mounting points;
at either end of said main support bar, a first internal threaded receptacle (10) and a second internal threaded receptacle are integrated (13); said first internal threaded receptacle comprises threading matching said first threading orientation of said first threaded assembly (Fig. 3; and corresponding to the normal operation of the device); said second internal threaded receptacle comprises threading matching said second threading orientation of said second threaded assembly (Fig. 3; and corresponding to the normal operation of the device); by rotating main support bar while holding a portion of two threaded assemblies secure, said two threaded assemblies will extend into or out of main support bar causing a system width of horse pen bar system to transition between an extended configuration and a contracted configuration (the device is functionally capable of performing the intended use); wherein said main support bar comprises a tube interior and a tube body (page 3), and further comprises a centrally positioned torque aperture (16) configured to receive a torque tool (page 3; corresponding to screwdriver).
PNG
media_image1.png
172
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bouche further discloses that the engagement elements do not rotate “Thanks to this arrangement, it is no longer necessary for the sole and / or the plate to be pivoted.”. Thus, it appears that Bouche discloses that rotation of the main support bar via the torque aperture simultaneously extends or contracts both threaded assemblies while maintaining a seated orientation of the engagement element against the respective support. However, Bouche does not explicitly disclose swivel flange nuts comprising a base portion and a socket portion that are configured to rotate relative to one another.
Garcia teaches a swivel flange nut comprising a base portion (See annotated Fig. 7 above) and a socket portion that are configured to rotate relative to one another (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the socket portion, shown in Fig. 3 below the engagement element of Bouche, with a swivel flange nut comprising a base portion and a socket portion that are configured to rotate relative to one another, as tuaght by Garcia, in order to provide independent rotation (abstract). One of ordinary skill would have recognized that substituting a swivel flange nut with the arrangement of Bouche would result in essentially the same function, since the intended use of Bouche is to keep the engagement element from rotating.
Bouche in view of Garcia does not explicitly disclose said entrance defines the open area between two vertical supports; said two vertical supports comprise a first vertical support and a second vertical support, positioned on opposing sides of said entrance.
Regarding claim 2 Bouche in view of Garcia, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bouche does not disclose wherein: said main support bar is tubular and fabricated from 14-gauge tubing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the main support bar to be 14 gauge tubing for improved sturdiness, and 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.
Regarding claim 3 Bouche in view of Garcia, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bouche further discloses the centrally positioned torque aperture is sized and positioned to receive a torque tool (corresponding to screwdriver) and to impart torque to the main support bar to symmetrically increase or decrease the system width without rotating the engagement element relative to the vertical supports (page 3).
Regarding claim 4 Bouche in view of Garcia, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bouche further discloses wherein: said main support bar (Fig. 2; 6) comprises rounded edges and smooth finishes to minimize injury risks to horses during use, particularly in environments where horses may apply pressure to or rub against the horse pen bar system.
Regarding claim 6 Bouche in view of Garcia, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bouche further discloses said two threaded assemblies are configured to rotatably enter and exit the tube interior by rotating either said main support bar via the torque aperture or said threaded shaft ”In the case where the intermediate part is made in a "round" tube, one or more openings such as 16 may be made in the wall to allow the passage of a rod or a tool such as a screwdriver so as to screw or unscrew the threaded rods in the intermediate part ,. that is, reduce or increase the length of the leg.” (page 3).
Regarding claim 7 Bouche in view of Garcia, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bouche in view of Garcia does not disclose two swivel flange nuts.
However it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the threaded assemblies of Bouche and Garcia to each include a swivel flange nut, in order to provide the same rotational effect on both ends of the device, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Note that the combination would result in the device offering stability while accommodating slight angular misalignments during installation, thus satisfying the functional limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 9 Bouche in view of Garcia, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Bouche in view of Garcia further discloses said swivel flange nut is configured to rotate relative to threaded shaft by securing engagement element to socket portion, securing a portion of said threaded shaft to base portion, and allowing base portion and socket portion to rotate relative to one another (note that the combined device of Bouche and Garcia would meet the claimed limitation, and since the claim is not a method claim).
Regarding claim 12 Bouche in view of Garcia, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bouche in view of Garcia does not disclose wherein: said main support bar comprises a length which is 40 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the main support bar to be 40 inches in order to provide a length which is less than a standard stall door width, which is 48 inches. Thus the device can be adjusted in order to fit snugly within the entrance as desired.
Regarding claim 19 Bouche in view of Garcia, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Bouche further discloses wherein: rotation of the main support bar via the torque aperture causes simultaneous translation of the threaded shafts within the internal threaded receptacles while the engagement elements remain substantially non-rotational relative to the vertical supports due to the relative rotation between the base portion and the socket portion of each swivel flange nut (page 3).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouche; Michel (FR 2624495 A1); (see attached translation) in view of Garcia; Jaime E. (US 5902084 A), further in view of Goto, Kunio (US 20030159764 A1).
Regarding claim 5 Bouche in view of Garcia, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bouche in view of Garcia does not disclose wherein: the threading of the threaded shaft is lubricated with a molybdenum disulfide-based lubricant, ensuring smooth operation, reducing wear, and preventing dirt accumulation.
Kunio teaches wherein: the threading of the threaded shaft is lubricated with a molybdenum disulfide-based lubricant, ensuring smooth operation, reducing wear, and preventing dirt accumulation [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threading of the threaded shaft of Bouche in view of Garcia to include wherein: the threading of the threaded shaft is lubricated with a molybdenum disulfide-based lubricant, ensuring smooth operation, reducing wear, and preventing dirt accumulation, as taught by Kunio, in order to provide excellent galling resistance (abstract).
Claim(s) 10 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouche; Michel (FR 2624495 A1); (see attached translation) in view of Garcia; Jaime E. (US 5902084 A), further in view of NAKANO, NAOKO (JP 2000145016 A).
Regarding claim 10 Bouche in view of Garcia, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1. Bouche in view of Garcia does not disclose wherein: said engagement element comprises a square configuration; said square configuration comprises a "C" shaped interface having a back portion, a first side portion and second side portion; both said first side portion and said second side portion extend outward and substantially perpendicular to said back portion.
Nakano teaches an engagement element comprises a square configuration; said square configuration comprises a "C" shaped interface having a back portion, a first side portion and second side portion; both said first side portion and said second side portion extend outward and substantially perpendicular to said back portion. (See Fig. 4).
It would have been a matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement element of Bouche and Garcia, wherein: said engagement element comprises a square configuration; said square configuration comprises a "C" shaped interface having a back portion, a first side portion and second side portion; both said first side portion and said second side portion extend outward and substantially perpendicular to said back portion, as taught by Nakano, in order to fit a particular support element depending on the needs of the user.
Regarding claims 20-21 Bouche in view of Garcia and Nakano, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 10. Bouche in view of Garcia and Nakano further discloses the engagement element is attachable to the socket portion of the swivel flange nut so that rotation of the main support bar through the torque aperture provides mechanical capture of a square post during installation (the resulting engagement element would be capable of being attached to the socket portion of Garcia, and since it is unclear which structure is capable of being attachable to the socket portion of the instant invention).
In combination, the resulting device of Bouche in view of Garcia and Nakano would allow the swivel flange nut to maintain the back portion in a seated orientation while permitting relative rotation between the base portion and socket portion during torque-aperture installation, thereby preventing slippage of the "C" shaped interface on a square post, since Bouche discloses the non-rotational movement of the engagement elements.
Claim(s) 11 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouche; Michel (FR 2624495 A1); (see attached translation) in view of Garcia; Jaime E. (US 5902084 A), further in view of Worthington; E (US 1021650 A).
Regarding claim 11 Bouche in view of Garcia, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bouche in view of Garcia does not disclose wherein said engagement element comprises a round configuration; said round configuration is adapted for pressing firmly against vertical supports with round posts; said round configuration of said engagement element comprises a half pipe shape; and said engagement element comprises a rounded inner face.
Worthington teaches a round configuration; said round configuration is adapted for pressing firmly against vertical supports with round posts; said round configuration of said engagement element comprises a half pipe shape; and said engagement element comprises a rounded inner face (Fig. 4); (page 1; lines 83-87).
It would have been a matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement element of Bouche and Garcia wherein said engagement element comprises a round configuration; said round configuration is adapted for pressing firmly against vertical supports with round posts; said round configuration of said engagement element comprises a half pipe shape; and said engagement element comprises a rounded inner face, as taught by Worthington in order to fit a particular support element depending on the needs of the user. One of ordinary skill would recognize that in order to have a firm engagement with an element, the engagement element must match the shape of the element itself.
Regarding claims 22-23 Bouche in view of Garcia and Nakano, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 10. Bouche in view of Garcia and Nakano further discloses wherein the engagement element comprises the round configuration, each attachable to the socket portion of the swivel flange nut so that rotation of the main support bar through the torque aperture provides distributed contact on a round post during installation (the resulting engagement element would be capable of being attached to the socket portion of Garcia, and since it is unclear which structure is capable of being attachable to the socket portion of the instant invention).
In combination, the resulting device of Bouche in view of Garcia and Nakano would allow wherein: the round configuration is adapted for pressing firmly against vertical supports with round posts; and the round configuration comprises the half pipe shape with the rounded inner face, since Bouche discloses the non-rotational movement of the engagement elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY LOWERY whose telephone number is (571)270-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/BRITTANY A LOWERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644