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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1-3 and 5-19, the cancellation of claims 4 and 20, and the addition of new claim 21 filed November 9, 2025. The examiner would like to note that per 37 CFR 1.121 canceled claims 4 and 20 should not include stricken-through text since these claims are canceled. Also, since the entirety of claim 21 is new, the limitations in lines 2-6 do not need to be underlined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 13, 18, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, line 5, the phrase “at least two handle elements” should be changed to “two handle elements” so as to be consistent with the language of the dependent claims, and in line 7, the phrase “the handle elements” should be changed to “the two handle elements.”
In regards to claim 5, the claim should be canceled, see rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
In regards to claim 6, the claim should depend from claim 1.
In regards to claim 7, the claim should depend from claim 1 based on the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
In regards to claim 10, line 3, the phrase “the distance between the opening and a first handle” should be changed to “a distance between the opening and a first handle portion,” in line 4, the phrase “the first elongate member” should be changed to “a first elongate member,” in line 6, the phrase “a first elongate member having first opposing end and second opposing end” should be changed to “the first elongate member having a first end opposed to the second end,” in line 13, the phrase “first opposing side and such that a first receptacle” should be changed to “first opposing side of the opening, such that,” in line 14, the phrase “the first opposing side” should be changed to “the first opposing side of the opening,” in line 25, the phrase “second opposing side such that a second receptacle” should be changed to “second opposing side of the opening, such that a second receptacle,” in line 26, the phrase “the second opposing side” should be changed to “the second opposing side of the opening,” and in lines 30 and 32, the phrase “at least one barricade” should be changed to “barricade” so as to be consistent with the language used in claims 17 and 18.
In regards to claim 13, line 2, the phrase “at least two handle elements” should be changed to “two handle elements” so as to be consistent with the language of claim 14 and the drawings, and in line 3, the phrase “of the elongate member” should be changed to “of the corresponding elongate member.”
In regards to claim 18, the claim should depend from claim 10.
In regards to claim 21, line 1, the phrase “is not needed comprising” should be changed to “is not needed, the method comprising,” in line 2, the phrase “first end” should be changed to “a first end,” in line 3, the phrase “second end” should be changed to “a second end,” in line 4, the phrase “opposing side” should be changed to “a first opposing side,” and in line 5, the phrase “opposing side of an opening” should be changed to “a second opposing side of the opening.”
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 5-7, 10-19, and 21 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 regards to claim 5, it is unclear how claim 5 further limits claim 1, since claim 1 has been amended to recite that the handle portion includes two handle elements (see rejection in Paragraph 7 above). It is suggested that claim 5 be canceled. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 6, the claim depends from a canceled claim, and therefore, claim 6 will be examined as dependent upon claim 1. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 10, the claim recites the limitation "the distance" in line 3 and the limitation “the first elongate member” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 10, the relationship between the “first handle portion,” as recited in lines 3 and 4, and the “first handle,” as recited in line 3, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “first handle portion” is equivalent to the “first handle” and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 10, the relationship between the “first elongate member” and the “second opposing end,” as recited in line 6, and the “first elongate member” and the “second end,” as recited in line 4, it unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “first elongate member” in line 6 is equivalent to the “first elongate member” in line 4 and that the “second opposing end” in line 6 is equivalent to the “second end” in line 4, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 18, it is unclear how the claim can depend from claim 17, since claims 17 and 18 recite the alternative forms of the barricade, whereas, the current claim language suggests that the barricade is both a rod and a board simultaneously, which is not supported by the specification. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as depending from claim 10. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 21, the claim recites the limitation "first end" in line 2 and the limitation ‘”second end” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 21, the relationship between the “opposing side” of the opening, as recited in line 4, and the “opposing side” of another opening,” as recited in line 5, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “opposing side” in line 4 refers to a first opposing side of an opening, and that the “opposing side” in line 5 refers to a second opposing side of the same opening, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 7, 11-17, and 19, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claims 5 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng (CN 204754260 U).
In regards to claim 21, Peng discloses a method for removing a barricade 3 that is not needed, the method comprising: removing a first end of the barricade (see Figure 1 below); removing a second end of the barricade (see Figure 1 below); removing a first reusable safety fitting from an opposing side of an opening (see Figure 1 below); and removing a second reusable safety fitting from the opposing side the opening (see Figure 1 below, with the first end of the barricade and the first reusable safety fitting being removed, and then the second end of the barricade and the second reusable safety fitting being removed, Paragraph 11 of the Computer Generated Translation), wherein the first reusable safety fitting and second reusable safety fitting are reusable (reusable because only the expansion bolt 6 is cut, allowing the safety fittings to be removed).
PNG
media_image1.png
825
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendee (US-1201295).
In regards to claims 1 and 5, Hendee discloses a reusable safety fitting comprising: an elongate member 5 having first and second opposing ends (see Figure 2 below); a fastener portion 7 disposed at the first end of the elongate member; a handle portion 10 disposed at the second end of the elongate member, wherein the handle portion is comprised of two handle elements (see Figure 2 below) extending radially from the second end of the elongate member (Figure 2); and a stop 6 disposed between the first and second ends, wherein the stop comprises a continuous flange (the stop is formed by a flange, and the flange is considered to be continuous at least across the section show between dashed lines in Figure 3 below). Although Hendee does not specify that the two handle elements are 4 inches to 8 inches in length and that the continuous flange extends from .25 inch to 1 inch from the elongated member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the dimensions of the two handle elements and the continuous flange, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image2.png
810
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
330
313
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 2 and 3, Hendee discloses that the fastener portion is a screw portion (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 6, Hendee discloses that the two handle elements are integral (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 7, Hendee discloses that the two handle elements have a common longitudinal axis (see Figure 2 on Page 8 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 8, Hendee discloses that the stop is fixedly secured to the elongate member (Figure 2).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/056939).
In regards to claims 1 and 5, Ernst et al. discloses a reusable safety fitting comprising: an elongate member 310 having first and second opposing ends (first end with portion 320 and second end with portion 372, Figure 11); a fastener portion 320 disposed at the first end of the elongate member; a handle portion 372 disposed at the second end of the elongate member, wherein the handle portion is comprised of two handle elements (see Figure 10 below) extending radially from the second end of the elongate member (Figures 10 and 11); and a stop 326 disposed between the first and second ends, wherein the stop comprises a continuous flange (the stop formed by a flange having a continuous outer periphery at the indicator line for reference character 326, Figure 10). Although Ernst et al. does not specify that the two handle elements are 4 inches to 8 inches in length and that the continuous flange extends from .25 inch to 1 inch from the elongated member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the dimensions of the two handle elements and the continuous flange, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image4.png
470
559
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 2 and 3, Ernst et al. discloses that the fastener portion is a screw portion (Figures 10 and 11).
In regards to claim 6, Ernst et al. discloses that the two handle elements are integral (Figure 2).
In regards to claim 7, Ernst et al. discloses that the two handle elements have a common longitudinal axis (see Figure 10 above).
In regards to claim 8, Ernst et al. discloses that the stop is fixedly secured to the elongate member (Figure 10 and 11).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendee (US-1201295) in view of Taylor (US-5335452). Hendee discloses the reusable safety fitting as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose that the stop is adjustably secured to the elongate member. Taylor teaches a stop component 72 that is adjustable relative to an elongate member 34. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to specify that the stop can be adjustable, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/056939) in view of Taylor (US-5335452). Hendee discloses the reusable safety fitting as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose that the stop is adjustably secured to the elongate member. Taylor teaches a stop component 72 that is adjustable relative to an elongate member 34. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to specify that the stop can be adjustable, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13-16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (US-3863968).
In regards to claim 10, Fraser discloses a method for blocking an opening (opening of the door frame 11, and closed by the door 12, Figure 1) having first and second opposing sides (first and second sides shown in Figure 1 below) and a bottom (See Figure 1 below), the method comprising: predetermining a distance between the opening and a first handle portion (see the first handle portion in Figure 6 below, and it is understood and inherent from at least Figure 1 that a user would determine a location, and thereby the distance from the opening, to place the first reusable safety fitting having the first handle portion relative to the opening), wherein the first handle portion is disposed at a second end of a first elongate member (see Figure 6 below); removably securing a first reusable safety fitting (fitting shown in Figure 6 and located on the first side of the opening) comprising: the first elongate member having a first end opposed to the second end (see Figure 6 below); a first fastener portion (see Figure 6 below) disposed at the first end of the first elongate member; and a first stop 22 disposed between the first and second ends of the first elongate member (the first stop shown in Figure 2 would be located in the same position on the fitting in Figure 6), whereby the first replaceable safety fitting abuts the first opposite side of the opening, such that a first receptacle is formed between the first reusable safety fitting and the first opposing side (the receptacle being the space between the stop 22 and wall 25 in which the barricade 18 is located, as shown in Figure 2), wherein the first stop is comprised of a continuous flange (see Figure 7 below); removably securing a second reusable safety fitting (fitting shown in Figure 6 and located on the first side of the opening) comprising: a second elongate member having first and second opposing ends (see Figure 6 below); a second fastener portion disposed at the first end of the second elongate member (see Figure 6 below); a second handle portion disposed at the second end of the second elongate member (see Figure 6 below); and a second stop 22 disposed between the first and second ends of the second elongate member (the second stop shown in Figure 2 would be located in the same position on the fitting in Figure 6), whereby the second reusable safety fitting abuts the second opposing side of the opening, such that a second receptacle is formed between the second reusable safety fitting and the second opposing side (the receptacle being the space between the stop 22 and wall 25 in which the barricade 18 is located, as shown in Figure 2), wherein the second stop is comprised of a continuous flange (see Figure 7 below); and placing a first end (see Figure 1 below) of at least one barricade 18 in the first receptacle and placing a second opposing end of the at least one barricade (see Figure 1 below) in the second receptacle to block the opening (Figure 1). Although Fraser does not specify that the two handle elements are 4 inches to 8 inches in length and that the continuous flange extends from .25 inch to 1 inch from the elongated member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the dimensions of the two handle elements and the continuous flange, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image5.png
657
647
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
322
272
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
750
527
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11, Fraser discloses that the first and second fastener portions are bolt portions (Figure 6).
In regards to claim 13, Fraser discloses that the first and second handle portions are each comprised of at least two handle elements (see Figure 6 above) extending radially from the second end of the corresponding elongate member.
In regards to claim 14, Fraser discloses that the first and second handle portions are each comprised of two handle elements (see Figure 6 on Page 16 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 15, Fraser discloses that each set of the two handle elements is integral (Figure 6) and wherein each set of the two handle elements has a common longitudinal axis (see Figure 6 on Page 16 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 16, Fraser discloses that the first and second stops are each fixedly secured to the first and second elongate members, respectively (the stops being fixed in the position shown in Figure 2 until a user rotates the stops out of this position).
In regards to claim 18, Fraser discloses that the barricade is a board (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 19, Fraser discloses that the first and second reusable safety fittings are attached to the first and second opposing sides of the opening equidistant from the bottom of the opening (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 10-16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendee (US-1201295) in view of Pearson (US-3980328).
In regards to claim 10, Hendee discloses a reusable safety fitting comprising: an elongate member 5 having first and second opposing ends (see Figure 2 on Page 9 of the current Office Action); a fastener portion (the nails through slots 9, Lines 52-58) disposed at the first end of the elongate member; a handle portion 10 disposed at the second end of the elongate member; and a stop 6 disposed between the first and second ends, wherein the stop is comprised of a continuous flange (the stop is formed by a flange, and the flange is considered to be continuous at least across the section show between dashed lines in Figure 3 on Page 9 of the current Office Action). Hendee further discloses that the reusable safety fitting is capable of being mounted on a support such that the stop 6 abuts the support and such that a receptacle (space between the stop and the handle portion, Figure 2) is formed between the reusable safety fitting and the support (Lines 73-80).
Although Hendee does not specify that the two handle elements are 4 inches to 8 inches in length and that the continuous flange extends from .25 inch to 1 inch from the elongated member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the dimensions of the two handle elements and the continuous flange, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Hendee fails to disclose a method for blocking an opening having first and second opposing sides and a bottom, with the method comprising: predetermining a distance between the opening a first handle portion of a first reusable safety fitting; removably securing two or first and second ones of the reusable safety fitting, and placing a first end of a barricade in a first receptacle of the first reusable safety fitting and placing a second opposing end of the barricade in a second receptacle of the second reusable safety fitting to block the opening. Pearson teaches a method for blocking an opening (opening within the door frame 32 closed by the door 12, Figure 1) having first and second opposing sides and a bottom (see Figure 1 below), the method comprising: predetermining a distance between the opening and a first reusable safety fitting (see Figure 1 below, and it is understood and inherent from at least Figure 1 that a user would determine a location, and thereby the distance from the opening, to place the first reusable safety fitting having the first handle portion relative to the opening); removably securing the first reusable safety fitting (see Figure 1 below); removably securing a second reusable safety fitting (see Figure 1 below); and placing a first end (see Figure 1 below) of a barricade 34 in a first receptacle formed between the first reusable safety fitting and the first opposing side (Figures 1-3) and a second opposing end (see Figure 1 below) in a second receptacle formed between the second reusable safety fitting and the second opposing side to block the opening (Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to utilize two reusable safety fittings of Hendee in the manner of the first and second reusable safety fittings of Pearson since the safety fittings of Hendee would function in the same manner, allowing the first and second ends of the barricade to be placed in the receptacles of the safety fittings to locate the barricade such that the opening is blocked.
PNG
media_image8.png
816
606
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 11 and 12, Hendee discloses that the first and second fastener portions are nail portions (the nails through slots 9, Lines 52-58).
In regards to claims 13 and 14, Hendee in view of Pearson teaches that the first and second handle portions are each comprised of two handle elements (see Figure 2 on Page 9 of the current Office Action) extending radially from the second end of the elongate member.
In regards to claim 15, Hendee in view of Pearson teaches that each set of the two handle elements is integral (Figure 2 of Hendee) and wherein each set of the two handle elements has a common longitudinal axis (see Figure 2 on Page 9 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 16, Hendee in view of Pearson teaches that the first and second stops are each fixedly secured to the first and second elongate members, respectively (Figure 2 of Hendee).
In regards to claim 18, Pearson teaches that the barricade is a board or a rectangular piece of material (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 19, Hendee in view of Pearson teaches that the first and second reusable safety fittings are attached to the first and second opposing sides of the opening equidistant from the bottom of the opening (Figures 1-3 and 5 of Pearson).
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13-16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/056939) in view of Pearson (US-3980328).
In regards to claim 10, Ernst et al. discloses a reusable safety fitting comprising: an elongate member 310 having first and second opposing ends (first end with portion 320 and second end with portion 372, Figures 10 and 11); a fastener portion 320 disposed at the first end of the elongate member; a handle portion 372 disposed at the second end of the elongate member; and a stop 326 disposed between the first and second ends, wherein the stop is comprised of a continuous flange (the stop formed by a flange having a continuous periphery at the indicator for reference character 326, Figure 10). Ernst et al. further discloses that the reusable safety fitting is capable of being mounted on a support such that the stop abuts the support and such that a receptacle (space between the stop and the handle portion, Figure 11) is formed between the reusable safety fitting and the support (Paragraph 63).
Although Ernst et al. does not specify that the two handle elements are 4 inches to 8 inches in length and that the continuous flange extends from .25 inch to 1 inch from the elongated member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the dimensions of the two handle elements and the continuous flange, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Ernst et al. fails to disclose a method for blocking an opening having first and second opposing sides and a bottom, with the method comprising: predetermining a distance between the opening a first handle portion of a first reusable safety fitting; removably securing two or first and second ones of the reusable safety fitting, and placing a first end of a barricade in a first receptacle of the first reusable safety fitting and placing a second opposing end of the barricade in a second receptacle of the second reusable safety fitting to block the opening. Pearson teaches a method for blocking an opening (opening within the door frame 32 closed by the door 12, Figure 1) having first and second opposing sides and a bottom (see Figure 1 on Page 20 of the current Office Action), the method comprising: predetermining a distance between the opening and a first reusable safety fitting (see Figure 1 on Page 20 of the current Office Action, and it is understood and inherent from at least Figure 1 that a user would determine a location, and thereby the distance from the opening, to place the first reusable safety fitting having the first handle portion relative to the opening); removably securing the first reusable safety fitting (see Figure 1 on Page 20 of the current Office Action); removably securing a second reusable safety fitting (see Figure 1 on Page 20 of the current Office Action); and placing a first end (see Figure 1 on Page 20 of the current Office Action) of a barricade 34 in a first receptacle formed between the first reusable safety fitting and the first opposing side (Figures 1-3) and a second opposing end (see Figure 1 on Page 20 of the current Office Action) in a second receptacle formed between the second reusable safety fitting and the second opposing side to block the opening (Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to utilize two reusable safety fittings of Ernst et al. in the manner of the first and second reusable safety fittings of Pearson since the safety fittings of Ernst et al. would function in the same manner, allowing the first and second ends of the barricade to be placed in the receptacles of the safety fittings to locate the barricade such that the opening is blocked.
In regards to claim 11, Ernst et al. in view of Pearson teaches that the first and second fastener portions are screw portions (Figures 10 and 11 of Ernst et al.).
In regards to claims 13 and 14, Ernst et al. in view of Pearson teaches that the first and second handle portions are each comprised of two handle elements (see Figure 10 on Page 11 of the current Office Action) extending radially from the second end of the elongate member.
In regards to claim 15, Ernst et al. in view of Pearson teaches that each of the two handle elements is integral (Figures 10 and 11 of Ernst et al.) and wherein each of the two handle elements has a common longitudinal axis (see Figure 10 on Page 11 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 16, Ernst et al. in view of Pearson teaches that the first and second stops are each fixedly secured to the elongate member (Figures 10 and 11 of Ernst et al.).
In regards to claim 18, Pearson teaches that the barricade is a board or a rectangular piece of material (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 19, Ernst et al. in view of Pearson teaches that the first and second reusable safety fittings are attached to the first and second opposing sides of the opening equidistant from the bottom of the opening (Figures 1-3 and 5 of Pearson).
Claim(s) 10-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendee (US-1201295) in view of Palmer (US-4082332).
In regards to claim 10, Hendee discloses a reusable safety fitting comprising: an elongate member 5 having first and second opposing ends (see Figure 2 on Page 9 of the current Office Action); a fastener portion (the nails through slots 9, Lines 52-58) disposed at the first end of the elongate member; a handle portion 10 disposed at the second end of the elongate member; and a stop 6 disposed between the first and second ends, wherein the stop is comprised of a continuous flange (the stop is formed by a flange, and the flange is considered to be continuous at least across the section show between dashed lines in Figure 3 on Page 9 of the current Office Action). Hendee further discloses that the reusable safety fitting is capable of being mounted on a support such that the stop 6 abuts the support and such that a receptacle (space between the stop and the handle portion, Figure 2) is formed between the reusable safety fitting and the support (Lines 73-80).
Although Hendee does not specify that the two handle elements are 4 inches to 8 inches in length and that the continuous flange extends from .25 inch to 1 inch from the elongated member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the dimensions of the two handle elements and the continuous flange, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Hendee fails to disclose a method for blocking an opening having first and second opposing sides and a bottom, with the method comprising: predetermining a distance between the opening a first handle portion of a first reusable safety fitting; removably securing two or first and second ones of the reusable safety fitting, and placing a first end of a barricade in a first receptacle of the first reusable safety fitting and placing a second opposing end of the barricade in a second receptacle of the second reusable safety fitting to block the opening. Palmer teaches a method for blocking an opening (opening within the door frame 12 closed by the door 10, Figure 1) having first and second opposing sides and a bottom (the first side being the side with component 24, the second side being the side with component 22, and the opening having an inherent bottom located at the floor), the method comprising: predetermining a distance between the opening and a first reusable safety fitting (the first reusable safety fitting being 24, and it is understood and inherent from at least Figure 1 that a user would determine a location, and thereby the distance from the opening, to place the first reusable safety fitting having the first handle portion relative to the opening); removably securing the first reusable safety fitting (Figure 1); removably securing a second reusable safety fitting 22; and placing a first end (end at reference character 19, Figure 1) of a barricade 16 in a first receptacle formed between the first reusable safety fitting and the first opposing side (Figures 1 and 3) and a second opposing end (end at reference character 17, Figure 1) in a second receptacle formed between the second reusable safety fitting and the second opposing side to block the opening (Figures 1, 2, and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to utilize two reusable safety fittings of Hendee in the manner of the first and second reusable safety fittings of Palmer since the safety fittings of Hendee would function in the same manner, allowing the first and second ends of the barricade to be placed in the receptacles of the safety fittings to locate the barricade such that the opening is blocked.
In regards to claims 11 and 12, Hendee discloses that the first and second fastener portions are nail portions (the nails through slots 9, Lines 52-58).
In regards to claims 13 and 14, Hendee in view of Palmer teaches that the first and second handle portions are each comprised of two handle elements (see Figure 2 on Page 9 of the current Office Action) extending radially from the second end of the elongate member.
In regards to claim 15, Hendee in view of Palmer teaches that each set of the two handle elements is integral (Figure 2 of Hendee) and wherein each set of the two handle elements has a common longitudinal axis (see Figure 2 on Page 9 of this action).
In regards to claim 16, Hendee in view of Palmer teaches that the first and second stops are each fixedly secured to the first and second elongate members, respectively (Figure 2 of Hendee).
In regards to claim 17, Palmer teaches that the barricade is a rod (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 19, Hendee in view of Palmer teaches that the first and second reusable safety fittings are attached to the first and second opposing sides of the opening equidistant from the bottom of the opening (Figure 1 of Palmer).
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ernst et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/056939) in view of Palmer (US-4082332).
In regards to claim 10, Ernst et al. discloses a reusable safety fitting comprising: an elongate member 310 having first and second opposing ends (first end with portion 320 and second end with portion 372, Figures 10 and 11); a fastener portion 320 disposed at the first end of the elongate member; a handle portion 372 disposed at the second end of the elongate member; and a stop 326 disposed between the first and second ends, wherein the stop is comprised of a continuous flange (the stop formed by a flange having a continuous periphery at the indicator for reference character 326, Figure 10). Ernst et al. further discloses that the reusable safety fitting is capable of being mounted on a support such that the stop abuts the support and such that a receptacle (space between the stop and the handle portion, Figure 11) is formed between the reusable safety fitting and the support (Paragraph 63).
Although Ernst et al. does not specify that the two handle elements are 4 inches to 8 inches in length and that the continuous flange extends from .25 inch to 1 inch from the elongated member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to specify the dimensions of the two handle elements and the continuous flange, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Ernst et al. fails to disclose a method for blocking an opening having first and second opposing sides and a bottom, with the method comprising: predetermining a distance between the opening a first handle portion of a first reusable safety fitting; removably securing two or first and second ones of the reusable safety fitting, and placing a first end of a barricade in a first receptacle of the first reusable safety fitting and placing a second opposing end of the barricade in a second receptacle of the second reusable safety fitting to block the opening. Palmer teaches a method for blocking an opening (opening within the door frame 12 closed by the door 10, Figure 1) having first and second opposing sides and a bottom (the first side being the side with component 24, the second side being the side with component 22, and the opening having an inherent bottom located at the floor), the method comprising: predetermining a distance between the opening and a first reusable safety fitting (the first reusable safety fitting being 24, and it is understood and inherent from at least Figure 1 that a user would determine a location, and thereby the distance from the opening, to place the first reusable safety fitting having the first handle portion relative to the opening); removably securing the first reusable safety fitting (Figure 1); removably securing a second reusable safety fitting 22; and placing a first end (end at reference character 19, Figure 1) of a barricade 16 in a first receptacle formed between the first reusable safety fitting and the first opposing side (Figures 1 and 3) and a second opposing end (end at reference character 17, Figure 1) in a second receptacle formed between the second reusable safety fitting and the second opposing side to block the opening (Figures 1, 2, and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to utilize two reusable safety fittings of Ernst et al. in the manner of the first and second reusable safety fittings of Palmer since the safety fittings of Ernst et al. would function in the same manner, allowing the first and second ends of the barricade to be placed in the receptacles of the safety fittings to locate the barricade such that the opening is blocked.
In regards to claim 11, Ernst et al. in view of Palmer teaches that the first and second fastener portions are screw portions (Figures 10 and 11 of Ernst et al.).
In regards to claims 13 and 14, Ernst et al. in view of Palmer teaches that the first and second handle portions are each comprised of two handle elements (see Figure 10 on Page 11 of the current Office Action) extending radially from the second end of the elongate member.
In regards to claim 15, Ernst et al. in view of Palmer teaches that each of the two handle elements is integral (Figures 10 and 11 of Ernst et al.) and wherein each of the two handle elements has a common longitudinal axis (see Figure 10 on Page 11 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 16, Ernst et al. in view of Palmer teaches that the first and second stops are each fixedly secured to the elongate member (Figures 10 and 11 of Ernst et al.).
In regards to claim 17, Palmer teaches that the barricade is a rod (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 19, Ernst et al. in view of Pearson teaches that the first and second reusable safety fittings are attached to the first and second opposing sides of the opening equidistant from the bottom of the opening (Figure 1 of Palmer).
Response to Arguments
74. Applicant's arguments filed November 9 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
75. In regards to applicant’s remarks in the first paragraph under the “Motivation to combine arguments,” it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the aim of the device is to prevent someone from falling out of an opening (without a door)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
76. In regards to applicant’s remarks in the second paragraph under the “Motivation to combine arguments,” it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the elongate member includes threading along the entire body of the elongate member) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
77. In regards to applicant’s remarks in the third paragraph under the “Motivation to combine arguments,” applicant is referred to the interpretation of the Hendee reference applied to the claims in the current Office Action in light of the “continuous flange” limitation amendment, and applicant is referred to the new rejections with Ernst et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/056939) based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
78. Based on applicant’s amendments to the claims, applicant is referred to the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 with Peng (CN 204754260 U) and the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with Ernst et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/056939), Hendee (US-1201295), and Palmer (US-4082332).
79. In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, new claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
80. 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.
81. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights