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 § 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 1-2, 4-7, 14, 16-21, 24-25, 35, 37-39, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Omni-Stop Ultra Security Bollard” (NPL; hereinafter will be referred to as “OmniStop”) in view of Fehr et al., US 2006/0236647 A1 and McCue et al., US 2010/0172692 A1.
Regarding claim 1, OmniStop teaches a barrier system comprising:
an impact receiving post (the entirety of the post inside of the foundation cage as shown in the figure in the middle of the first page on the left side) having a proximal and a distal end; and
a foundation cage (shown in the same figure) coupled to and overlapping the proximal end of the impact receiving post and configured for installation beneath a ground surface (see photo as installed at the top of the first page).
While OmniStop only shows one size of foundation cage, Fehr teaches a foundation construction and discloses a foundation cage (“cage-like metallic structure” 40; [0034]) for supporting a post wherein the foundation cage is commensurate in diameter to the post (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify OmniStop’s foundation cage to be commensurate in diameter to the post in view of Fehr’s disclosure that anchor support structures in the form of a foundation cage can be commensurate in diameter to the post based on engineering design choice. The resulting combination includes the foundation cage being coupled to an outside surface of the impact receiving post.
McCue teaches a barrier and discloses an impact receiving post (22; resilient stainless-steel rod) having a solid cross section and being bendable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the post of the resulting combination to include a resilient stainless-steel rod in view of McCue’s disclosure to help resiliently absorb impact on the bollard to minimize damage to the bollard. The resulting combination yields the impact receiving post being bendable and having a proximal and a distal end and a foundation cage coupled to the proximal end of the post.
McCue further discloses a damper (load ring 36) which McCue discloses to be coupled to the outer surface of the impact receiving post and extends at least partially along a length of the impact receiving post (Figures 2-3) and a cover (40) disposed over the distal end of the post. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the post of the resulting combination to include a damper coupled to an outer surface of the impact receiving post wherein the damper extends at least partially along a length of the impact receiving post, and a cover disposed over the distal end of the post in view of McCue’s further disclosure for a resilient post. The resulting combination yields the cover of the resulting combination being the most radially extending portion of the barrier system. Examiner notes that there is a lack in criticality of the relative diameter of the post and cover to the foundation cage since Applicant discloses several embodiments with a foundation cage much larger than the diameter of the post and cover.
Regarding claim 2, the resulting combination includes a damper (McCue’s 36) coupled to an outer surface of the impact receiving post wherein the damper extends at least partially along a length of the impact receiving post.
Regarding claim 4, the resulting combination includes the cover extending over an outer surface of the damper.
Regarding claim 5, since McCue discloses that the cover (40) can be formed of schedule 40 pipe ([0031]) which is conventionally known to be stainless steel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover of the resulting combination to be stainless steel in view of McCue’s further disclosure for a resilient post.
Regarding claim 6, the resulting combination includes the foundation cage comprising a plurality of members that form a three-dimensional lattice structure.
Regarding claim 7, the resulting combination includes the foundation cage defining a recess that receives the impact receiving post and wherein the foundation cage includes a platform (horizontal bar as shown in OmniStop’s figure) at least partially extending across the recess to support the impact receiving post and prevent the impact receiving post from extending further into the foundation cage.
Regarding claim 14, while the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation claimed, McCue explicitly discloses a bollard that has an upper end that can be displaced by flexing, and that in some environments a bollard may need to absorb larger impacts, such as areas with vehicles. According to ASTM F3016, the standard is met when the displacement distance of the distal end of a post is less than 48 inches when the post is struck by a 5,000 Ib vehicle traveling at up to 30 mph; at a displacement greater than 48 inches, it fails to meet the standard. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the foundation cage and the impact post such that the displacement of the impact of the distal end of the impact receiving post to 48 inches or less when the bollard system is struck by a vehicle weighing up to 5,000 pounds and traveling at up to 10 mph when the foundation cage and at least a portion of the impact receiving post are installed in concrete beneath the ground surface if it was desired to meet the standard for ASTM F3016.
Regarding claim 16, while the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose that the impact receiving post has a diameter of about 4 inches, McCue further discloses that the impact receiving post can have dimensions as needed to dictate the properties desired to withstand the impact force of a particular installation as would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of the impact receiving post to be about 4 inches in view of McCue’s disclosure based on common engineering.
Regarding claim 17, while the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose that the impact receiving post has a height of about 30 inches, McCue discloses that the impact receiving post can have a height of about 36 inches ([0026]) and also discloses that the impact receiving post dimensions can be modified at a particular installation as would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impact receiving post of the resulting combination to have a height of about 30 inches in view of McCue’s further disclosure if it was desired to have a slightly shorter impact receiving post and barrier.
Regarding claim 18, McCue discloses that the impact receiving post can have a height of about 36 inches ([0026]). While the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim, McCue further discloses that the impact receiving post can have dimensions as needed to dictate the properties desired to withstand the impact force of a particular installation as would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art ([(0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impact receiving post to have a diameter of about 4 inches and a height extending from the foundation cage of about 30 inches to about 54 inches in view of McCue’s disclosure based on common engineering.
Regarding claim 19, while the resulting combination includes the impact receiving post and the foundation cage overlapping but there are no dimensions for the overlap between the foundation cage and the impact receiving post, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have an overlapping portion that overlaps the impact receiving post by at least 21 inches based on common engineering as long as the impact post would perform as desired.
Regarding claim 20, since OmniStop discloses the post having a diameter of 6 inches (shown in the figure on the second page) and the resulting combination includes the foundation cage being commensurate in diameter to the post, the resulting combination includes the foundation cage having a diameter of about 6 inches.
Regarding claim 21, since OmniStop discloses the post having a diameter of 6 inches (shown in the figure on the second page) and the resulting combination includes a foundation cage being commensurate in diameter to the post, the resulting combination includes the foundation cage having a diameter of about 6 inches. While the resulting combination fails to disclose the height of the foundation cage, this is a matter of mere change in size. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to choose a height of the foundation cage to meet the desired function based on common engineering.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, while the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation claimed, since OmniStop discloses that the structure is intended to be used as a barrier to keep a vehicle away from a pedestrian area, it would be obvious to design the foundation cage and the impact receiving post to limit a displacement of the distal end of the impact receiving post to 48 inches or less when the barrier is struck by a vehicle weighing up to 5,000 pounds and traveling at up to 10 mph or 20 mph to maintain the function of a barrier, otherwise the barrier could just flop over and not function as intended.
Regarding claim 35, the resulting combination includes the foundation cage including a plurality of upright members spaced from each other and aligned with the impact receiving post substantially vertically when installed beneath the ground surface, and wherein an inner diameter formed by the plurality of upright members is approximately equal to the outer diameter of the impact receiving post.
Regarding claim 37, the resulting combination includes the three-dimensional lattice structure of the foundation cage at least partially touching the impact receiving post where the foundation cage overlaps the impact receiving post since OmniStop discloses the foundation cage to overlap the impact receiving post and the resulting combination modifies the sizing of the foundation cage to be commensurate to the diameter of the post.
Regarding claim 38, the foundation cage of the resulting combination is capable of maintaining the orientation of the impact receiving post relative to the ground surface during installation of the barrier system.
Regarding claim 39, the resulting combination includes the foundation cage being a continuous cylindrical cage.
Regarding claim 41, the resulting combination includes the foundation cage being cylindrical and has an innermost diameter approximately equal to an outermost diameter of the impact receiving post where the foundation cage overlaps the impact receiving post since OmniStop discloses the foundation cage to overlap the impact receiving post and the resulting combination modifies the sizing of the foundation cage to be commensurate to the diameter of the post.
Regarding claim 42, the resulting combination includes the innermost diameter of the foundation cage consisting of rebar, since OmniStop discloses “reo cage” (second page), “reo” being another name for “reinforcing bar” or “rebar”.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OmniStop in view of Fehr and McCue as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Johnston, US 2012/0090207 A1.
Regarding claim 3, while McCue discloses that the damper can be made of any of a plurality of materials but fails to explicitly disclose elastomeric material, Johnston teaches a bollard and discloses a damper (compressible foam pads 40, [0035] lines 1-3), between a core and a cover/shield which is similar to the resulting combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper of the resulting combination to be made of an elastomeric material in view of Johnston’s disclosure as an alternate material for a barrier damper.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OmniStop in view of Fehr and McCue as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Stobbs, WO 2012/059766 A1.
Regarding claim 9, while the resulting combination suggests that the foundation cage includes one or more support members (the two horizontal bars on either side of the post as shown in the OmniStop figure), but fails to disclose the impact receiving post extending through the one or more support members, Stobbs teaches a bollard and mounting and discloses a foundation cage that includes one or more support members (17 and 18; Figure 4) and the bollard extending through the one or more support members. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include one or more support members in view of Stobb’s disclosure to better secure the bottom of the impact receiving post. The resulting combination yields the impacting receiving post extending through the one or more support members.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OmniStop in view of Fehr and McCue as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Adler et al., US 7,699,558 B2.
Regarding claim 10, while the resulting combination fails to disclose the foundation cage includes a beam which extends from a top of the foundation cage to a bottom of the foundation cage, and wherein the beam extends from a first lateral side of the foundation cage to a second lateral side of the foundation cage, the second lateral side of the foundation cage opposite the first lateral side of the foundation cage, Adler teaches a bollard and mounting and discloses such (beam 24; Figure 4; column 7 lines 51-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to substitute the foundation cage with the foundation cage (Adler’s cage 30+24) as disclosed by Adler as an alternate type of foundation cage that can be placed in locations with little available depth. The resulting combination includes a beam (Adler’s 24) which extends from a top of the foundation cage to a bottom of the foundation cage, and wherein the beam extends from a first lateral side of the foundation cage to a second lateral side of the foundation cage, the second lateral side of the foundation cage opposite the first lateral side of the foundation cage.
Regarding claim 11, the resulting combination includes the beam (Adler’s 24) including a through-hole and the impact receiving post extending through the through-hole (Adler’s Figure 4; column 7 lines 51-53).
Claims 26-27 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Omni-Stop Ultra Security Bollard” (NPL; hereinafter will be referred to as “OmniStop”) in view of Fehr et al., US 2006/0236647 A1, McCue et al., US 2010/0172692 A1, and Johnston, US 2012/0090207 A1.
Regarding claim 26, OmniStop teaches a barrier system comprising:
an impact receiving post (the entirety of the post inside of the foundation cage as shown in the figure in the middle of the first page on the left side) having a proximal and a distal end; and
a foundation cage (shown in the same figure) including a plurality of members that define a three-dimensional lattice structure, coupled to and overlapping the proximal end of the impact receiving post and configured for installation in concrete beneath a ground surface (see photo as installed at the top of the first page and figure on second page).
While OmniStop only shows one size of foundation cage, Fehr teaches a foundation construction and discloses a foundation cage (“cage-like metallic structure” 40; [0034]) for supporting a post wherein the foundation cage is commensurate in diameter to the post (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify OmniStop’s foundation cage to be commensurate in diameter to the post in view of Fehr’s disclosure that anchor support structures in the form of a foundation cage can be commensurate in diameter to the post based on engineering design choice. The resulting combination includes the foundation cage having an inner diameter approximately equal to an outer diameter of the impact receiving post and wherein the foundation cage overlaps the receiving post and the cylindrical three-dimensional lattice structure directly contacts a lateral surface of the impact receiving post.
McCue teaches a barrier and discloses an impact receiving post (22; resilient stainless-steel rod) having a solid cross section and being bendable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the post of the resulting combination to include a resilient stainless-steel rod in view of McCue’s disclosure to help resiliently absorb impact on the bollard to minimize damage to the bollard. The resulting combination yields the impact receiving post being bendable and having a proximal and a distal end and a foundation cage coupled to the proximal end of the post.
McCue further discloses a cover (40) disposed over the distal end of the post. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the post of the resulting combination to include a cover disposed over the distal end of the post in view of McCue’s further disclosure for a resilient post.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose an elastomeric damper, Johnston teaches a bollard and discloses an elastomeric damper (compressible foam pads 40a+40b, [0035] lines 1-3) between a core and a cover/shield, similar to the resulting combination, the elastomeric damper (40a+40b) having inner portions (lower surface of 40a) in contact with the outer surface of a bollard and outer portions (lower surface of 40b) spaced away from the outer surface of the impact receiving post (since 40b sits on top of 40a), the inner portions and the outer portions arranged alternatingly around a periphery of the impact receiving post. See detail of Johnston’s Figure 2 provided below with Examiner’s annotation:
PNG
media_image1.png
119
233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include an elastomeric damper having inner portions in contact with the outer surface of the impact receiving post and outer portions spaced apart from the outer surface of the impact receiving post, the inner portions and the outer portions arranged alternatingly around a periphery of the impact receiving post in view of Johnston to increase resiliency of the post and minimize damage to the post. Since Johnston discloses that the damper is a compressible foam, the damper of the resulting combination is comprised of an elastomeric material. The resulting combination yields the cover being disposed over an outer surface of the elastomeric damper and includes the impact receiving post, the elastomeric damper, and the cover being configured to bend in response to being struck by a vehicle.
Regarding claim 27, while the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation claimed, since the purpose of the barrier is to keep a vehicle away from a protected area, it would be obvious to design the foundation cage and the impact receiving post to limit a displacement of the distal end of the impact receiving post to 48 inches or less when the barrier is struck by a vehicle weighing up to 5,000 pounds and traveling at up to 30 mph to maintain the function of a barrier, otherwise the barrier could just flop over and not function as intended.
Regarding claim 43, the resulting combination yields the cover of the resulting combination being the most radially extending portion of the barrier system. Examiner notes that there is a lack in criticality of the relative diameter of the post and cover to the foundation cage since Applicant discloses several embodiments with a foundation cage much larger than the diameter of the post and cover.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OmniStop in view of Fehr and McCue as applied to claim 38, further in view of Lang, US 4,861,194.
Regarding claim 40, while OmniStop clearly shows the bottom of the post oriented higher than the bottom of the foundation cage but fails to disclose how the post is supported, Lang teaches an underground cage with a plurality of horizontal support rods (rebar platform 4 shown in Figure 1) to support the bottom of a container within the foundation cage. It has been held that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include a plurality of horizontal support rods underneath the post of the resulting combination as a way to provide support to the post in view of Lang’s disclosure. The resulting combination yields the plurality of horizontal rods preventing the impact receiving post from extending further into the foundation cage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 36 is allowed.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Liskey are moot since the rejection no longer relies on Liskey.
Applicant argues (on the page numbered “10”) that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine OmniStop and McCue since McCue and OmniStop address different problems, with McCue pertaining to flexible bollards and OmniStop pertaining to heavy-duty barriers. This argument is not persuasive since they are both impact bollards explicitly disclosed for stopping vehicles. Applicant further argues (second paragraph on the page numbered “11”) that McCue’s bollard is designed to absorb low-energy impacts such as from forklifts and carts. This argument is not persuasive since Applicant is ignoring McCue’s disclosure that bollards can absorb larger impacts and discusses collisions from delivery vehicles and automobiles, and discloses that bollards can be used to block vehicular access for security reasons ([0003] and [0005]).
Pertaining to Applicant’s argument in the last paragraph on page 10 that reducing the cage size would compromise the crash resistance of OmniStop. This argument is not persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in engineering something like a cage, the diameter is not the only variable that affects crash performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that other variables, like the thickness of the rebar in forming the cage, would factor in, which is common engineering.
Applicant’s argument that “McCue teaches away…” is not persuasive since the rejection does not require modifying McCue.
Regarding Applicant’s argument against the rejection to claim 26, the rejection to claim 26 above has been modified in light of the newly added limitations. Additionally, the arguments against the use of Ianello are moot since the rejection no longer relies on Ianello.
Applicant does not provide arguments to the dependent claims, only relying on the arguments to independent claims 1 and 26.
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. Morris, US 1,292,012 is cited for teaching a foundation cage for post support, the foundation cage coupled to an outside surface of the post. McCue et al., US 9,732,485 B2 is cited for teaching an impact-absorbing member with alternating portions that contact a post and are spaced apart from a post.
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 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
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674