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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 19/109359, filed 3/6/2025.
Claims 1-15 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “A post” should be “The post”. 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 1-15 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.
In claim 1, line 10, “the trailing end” has no antecedent basis and should be changed to “trailing end” to overcome the rejection.
In claim 1, it is not clear how a “trailing end” of a surface(s) are too wide to pass the nodes rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear as to how the nodes and post interrelate. It appears to be the spacing between trailing ends and leading ends of the surfaces(not the ends themselves) allowing for the wedging of the post with respect to the nodes.
In claim 14, the term “constricts” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear as to how the nodes are angled given that the term is considered to mean am action such as changing the angle/distance due to “constricting”. By changing the term to “narrows” the rejection appears to be overcome.
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.
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 1-3, 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Catt(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2015/0082742; cited on PTO 892).
Catt discloses a post(see Fig. 2) comprising:
a) a pole(48/54/56, see Fig. 2);
b) a rigid sleeve(10) that has at least two inwardly extending locking nodes(inner side of 18 and 20, see Figs. 1 and 3a-c); and
c) a fastener(44);
the post being such that:
d) a base portion of the pole is lodged within the ground(the pole is used for a fence and considered to be used in the ground, see “sunken in para. [0005] to keep the fence posts upright, see paras. [0001] and [0002] and [0005] and [0009]);e) the pole cantilevers upright out of the ground(inherent from a fence post);
f) the sleeve extends around and covers at least most of the portion of the post that is cantilevered out of the ground(see Fig. 2); and
g) the fastener exerts pressure on the pole and trailing ends of opposing substantially planar contact surfaces of the pole are too wide to pass the nodes, but leading ends of the contact surfaces can, to cause said contact surfaces to wedge between the nodes to prevent the post from rotating with respect to the sleeve(the pole cannot move within the sleeve and considered to meet the claim limitation).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Catt discloses the post according to claim 1, wherein each of the two nodes has a substantially planar contact surface(portions at 16 adjacent fastener) that butts against one of the planar contact surfaces of the pole such that there is a rotational impasse between the butting surfaces(see contacting surfaces in Fig. 3c).
Regarding claims 8-9, Catt discloses the post according to claim 1, wherein each of the two nodes(inside of 18 and 20 in Fig. 3c) has a rounded or otherwise curved contact surface that butts against a respective one of the substantially planar contact surfaces of the pole such that there is a rotational impasse between these butting surfaces(see Fig. 3c).
Regarding claim 12, Catt discloses the post according to claim 1, wherein the pole is substantially rigid(the post is metal and holds up a fence and is therefore considered “substantially rigid”).
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 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catt.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Catt discloses the post according to claim 9, wherein the pole is a plethora of different shapes(see Fig. 3a-i) but lacks the pole specifically being substantially triangular or hexagonal in transverse cross-section at least where the pole's contact surfaces wedge between the nodes.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the specific shape of the pole(see page 2, lines 13-14).
The specific shape of the pole is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the pole and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Catt discloses the post according to claim 1, but lacks the pole having bend memory such that if the post is knocked into a less upright position the post is biased to return to, or towards, its original position.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the pole having bend memory(see page 3, lines 3-4).
The specific material of the pole to provide at least some bend memory to maintain the pole in an upright position is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the pole and design requirements thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art of record shows a post having a pole, a sleeve with inner nodes and a fastener, and the specifics of the nodes with respect to the fastener, nor any motivation to do so.
Prior Art
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 BETH A. AUBREY whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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.
BETH A. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights