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 .
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 § 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.
Claims 3, 16 (and 17 through dependency), 18-19, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the upright segment section” in the third line. It appears “segment” should have been deleted.
Claim 16 recites “at least one receiving hole in the curved elongated members” and then “the at least two connectors are configured to pass through”. The limitation “at least one receiving hole” only requires one hole, and there is no disclosure in the specification or drawings that support two connectors going through one hole. Did Applicant intend “at least two receiving holes in each of the curved elongated members”?
Claim 18 depends from 16. Claim 16 requires the at least two connectors to pass through the barrier units to connect one barrier unit to another barrier unit; this limitation pertains to rod 30 such as shown in Applicant’s Figure 5. However, claim 18 requires the at least one receiving hole to accommodate a fastener for connecting the at least two connectors to the barrier unit. Applicant’s specification and drawings disclose a fastener is a screw, bolt, nail, pin, or the like for a connection such as shown in Figures 4D-E, 15, and 17, and this type of connection does not involve the connector passing through the barrier units as required in claim 16. Applicant appears to be mixing embodiments.
Additionally for claim 18, the limitation “a fastener for connecting the at least two connectors” appears to not be in accordance with Applicant’s specification and drawings, as there is no disclosure of how one fastener can connect at least two connectors. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how one fastener can connect at least two connectors.
Claim 19 recites “at least one receiving hole so that the at least two connectors can connect two adjacent barrier units”. “At least one” only requires one. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how one hole can be used with at least two connectors to connect two adjacent barrier units.
Claim 32 recites “the connector” in the third line and depends from claim 28. However, claim 28 introduced “at least one connector”. Did Applicant intend “the at least one connector”?
Claim 32 recites “the plurality of barrier units” in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Did Applicant intend “the at least two barrier units”?
Claim 33 recites “the connectors” in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Did Applicant intend “the at least one connector”?
Claim 33 recites “corresponding receiving holes of at least two barrier units” in the last line. However, claim 28 already introduced at least two barrier units. Did Applicant intend “corresponding receiving holes of the at least two barrier units”?
Claim 34 depends from claim 32 which depends from claim 28. Claim 28 required each upright segment has…a projecting element with a receiving hole”. This pertains to the receiving holes shown in, as an example, Figure 7, the holes receiving rods 30. However, claim 34 recites “the at least one receiving hole is configured to accommodate a fastener”. Applicant’s specification and drawings disclose a fastener is a screw, bolt, nail, pin, or the like for a connection such as shown in Figures 4D-E, 15, and 17, and this type of connection does not involve the connector passing through the barrier units as required in claim 32. Applicant appears to be mixing embodiments.
Claim 35 recites “wherein the curved elongated members are provided with at least one projecting element with at least one receiving hole”. However, claim 28 already required each elongated member to have a projecting element with a receiving hole. The inclusion of this portion of claim 35 is indefinite because, as written, it is confusing and also does not further limit claim 28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-31, 2, and 10 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 2, 3, 10, 16-19, and 27-35 have been considered but are moot because those references are no longer relied on. The current rejection is only for clarity issues. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request to fix a minor matter through a supplemental amendment or an Examiner’s Amendment; however, there are numerous matters as detailed above.
If Applicant amends the claims in such a way that changes the scope of the claims, allowability will be reconsidered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671