DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 11/10/2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Newly added figure 9 discloses new matter issues. Here are some non-limiting examples:
The newly added remote control/electric actuator adds new matter as the dimensions and appearance of the device was not shown nor disclosed previously. Examiner recommends applicant to simply add a schematic form for the remote control/electric actuator in one of the current replacement sheets to avoid new matter issue.
Dimensions and the type of spring members 54 were not shown nor disclosed previously, as such the spring members 54 in figure 9 also discloses new matter.
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 following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. For some of these elements, examiner notes that applicant can simply provide a schematic form in the current set of drawings instead of adding a new figure to avoid new matter issues. Also note that these elements below were retained as they are shown in the newly added figure 9 with new matter issues.
Claim 10 - “a spring member, which is biased in the first position of the central member and held by a retaining member”.
Claim 11 - “the retaining member is connected via a Bowden cable to a lever”.
Claim 12 - “electric actuator”, “electric member”, and “battery”.
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 Interpretation
In claim 1, “the lateral boundary members” questions that clarity of the claim whether it is referring to the first lateral boundary member or second lateral boundary member. However, since the claim only requires two lateral boundary members, the scope of the claim is clear and the recitation is clearly referring to both first lateral boundary member and second lateral boundary member.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 5-9 of claim 1, “a central member…is displaceable along the guide member into at least one first position and one second position without being removed or folded” is objected because the table 40 of the central member is disclosed to be folded as shown in figures 5-6 and in paragraph 2 of page 7 shown below.
Examiner takes the position to not reject this for new matter and only brought to applicant’s attention as the disclosure does not actually disclose the central member itself to be removed or folded and only referring to a part that is arranged to the central member. Additionally, par. 3 of page 7 below discloses the foldable table to be alternatively arranged on the lateral boundary members which would make it not part of the central member.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Page 7
In line 3 of claim 7, “the direction of passage” should read --a direction of passage--.
In line 6 of claim 7, “the handrail of the at least one of the first and second lateral boundary member” should read --a handrail of the at least one of the first and second lateral boundary members--.
Above provides non-limiting examples, the applicant(s) must find and correct all issues similar to those discussed above.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7
Recitations such as “in the direction of passage, a smaller length than at least one of the first and second lateral boundary members, and the central member, in the second position, is located between the vertical posts and underneath the handrail of the at least one of the first and second lateral boundary member” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is applicant attempting to claim.
Is applicant attempting to claim that the at least one of the first and second lateral boundary members or the central member has a smaller length that is located between the vertical posts and underneath the handrail?
For the rejection below, this was interpreted as the central member has a height and a length that is respectively lower and smaller (i.e., shorter) than the height and length of the first and second lateral boundary members such that the central member is located between the vertical posts and underneath the handrail of the first and second lateral boundary members similar to applicant’s invention shown in figure 6.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lerche et al. (US 20220002957) (hereinafter “Lerche”).
Claim 1
(Lerche discloses) A person-separating installation (figures 5-6), comprising:
a first lateral boundary member and a second lateral boundary member (left and right members 20; figure 5), wherein a passage (5) for persons is formed between the first and second lateral boundary members,
a central member (10), configured to be disposed in the passage and which is supported on a floor side on a guide member (15; figure 5) orientated transversely to the lateral boundary members (see orientation of 15 with respect to 20) and is displaceable along the guide member into at least one first position (position shown in figure 5) and one second position (stowed state as described in Excerpt 1 from par. 46 below and shown in figure 6) without being removed or folded (Excerpt 1 below discusses translational movement of the central member),
in the at least one first position (position shown in figure 5), is arranged between the lateral boundary members and divides the passage into two aisles (figure 5 and two aisles 5),
in the at least one second position (stowed state), clears the passage substantially over its entire width (Excerpt 1 below; see partial position of the central member shown in figure 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
210
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 1
Claim 2
The person-separating installation according to claim 1, wherein the guide member is disposed underneath a walk-on floor panel (figure 5), which has a guide opening (the floor opening shown in Annotated figure 6 below), which extends above the guide member and along the guide member (see opening above the guide member 15 in Annotated figure 6 below), and through which extends a vertical post (Annotated figure 6 below) of the central member that is guided through the guide member (Annotated figure 6 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
556
859
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 6
Claim 3
The person-separating installation according to claim 1, wherein the guide member extends approximately from a center of the passage to one of the two lateral boundary members (figure 5).
Claim 4
The person-separating installation according to claim 1, wherein the central member is configured as a u-shaped railing with two vertical posts and a handrail horizontally connecting the two vertical posts (Annotated figure 6 above; see colored lines showing the u-shaped railing of the central member).
Claim 5
The person-separating installation according to claim 1, wherein the lateral boundary members are configured as u-shaped railings with in each case two vertical posts and a handrail horizontally connecting the vertical posts (Annotated figure 6 above; see colored lines showing the u-shaped railing of the lateral boundary member; note that both 20 have the same design).
Claim 6
The person-separating installation according to claim 1, wherein in the second position, the central member is located completely outside the passage (figure 6).
Claim 7
The person-separating installation according to claim 4, wherein the central member has a lower height than at least one of the first and second lateral boundary members (Annotated figure 6 (II) below) and, in the direction of passage, a smaller length than at least one of the first and second lateral boundary members (figure 6), and the central member, in the second position, is located between vertical posts and underneath the handrail of the at least one of the first and second lateral boundary member (Annotated figure 6 (II) below; due to the clarity issue of this claim, this was interpreted as noted in the 112(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image4.png
394
823
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 6 (II)
Claim 8
The person-separating installation according to claim 1, wherein the central member is configured to be moved laterally to one of the first and second lateral boundary members and is disposed directly adjacent to this boundary member in the second position (figure 6; Excerpt 1 above).
Claim 9
The person-separating installation according to claim 1, wherein the central member is configured to be moved from the first position into the second position by means of a drive unit (13; Excerpt 1 above).
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 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerche, as applied to claims 1-9 above, in view of Zinda (US 9689189).
Claim 10
The person-separating installation according to claim 9.
Lerche fails to disclose wherein the drive unit is formed by a spring member, which is biased in the first position of the central member and held by a retaining member configured to be triggered, wherein a triggering of the retaining member causes a movement from the first position into the second position due to a spring force.
(However, Zinda teaches) a drive unit (134; Zinda figures 4A-4B) is formed by a spring member (Zinda figures 4A-4B), which is biased in a first position of a central member (spring 134 is biased when a central member 108 is in a first position shown in figure 4B) and held by a retaining member (124) configured to be triggered (124 is triggered to wind-unwind from 106; Excerpts 2 and 3 from cols. 7-8 below), wherein a triggering of the retaining member causes a movement from the first position into a second position (position in figure 4A) of the central member due to a spring force (Excerpts 2 and 3 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lerche with the spring-actuated drive unit of Zinda, with a reasonable expectation of success, because both drive units of Lerche and Zinda were known in the art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, using known methods with no change in their respective functions [i.e., providing a lateral translation to a central member]. Such a substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected.
PNG
media_image5.png
375
610
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 2
PNG
media_image6.png
167
612
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 3
Claim 12
The person-separating installation according to claim 10, wherein the retaining member is configured to be triggered via an electric actuator (104; Excerpt 2 above), wherein an electric member is provided with electrical power via a battery (lines 59-62 of col. 8).
Claim 13
The person-separating installation according to claim 12, wherein the electric actuator is configured to be remotely controlled by a remote control (lines 31-47 of col. 9).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerche in view of Zinda, as applied to claims 10 and 12-13 above, in further view of Eichner et al. (DE 102007010385) (hereinafter Eichner).
Claim 11
The person-separating installation according to claim 10.
Modified Lerche fails to disclose wherein the retaining member is connected via a Bowden cable to a lever, via which the retaining member is configured to be triggered.
(However, Eichner teaches) wherein a retaining member (13; Eichner figures 3-6) is connected via a Bowden cable (40) to a lever (as described on Excerpt 4 from page 11 below), via which the retaining member is configured to be triggered (Excerpt 4 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the drive unit of modified Lerche such that the drive unit is actuated by an operation of a lever to trigger a retaining member via Bowden cables as taught by Eichner, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the drive unit can be operated from a distance thus improving the safety aspect of the operators/users.
PNG
media_image7.png
187
643
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Excerpt 4
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerche.
Claim 14
(Lerche discloses) A person-separating system (1; figures 5-6) formed from a person-separating installation according to claim 1 (see rejection in claim 1 above).
Lerche fails to disclose the person-separating system formed from at least two person-separating installations.
(However, an embodiment of Lerche teaches) a person-separating system (figure 3) formed from at least two person-separating installations (two separating installations shown in figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the person-separating system of Lerche such that it is comprised by two person-separating installations as taught by the embodiment of Lerche, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the predictable and expected benefits of accommodating a larger crowd and to improve the speed of allowing people in and evacuating people out during an emergency.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerche, as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Zinda.
Claim 15
The person-separating system according to claim 14
Modified Lerche is silent regarding wherein retaining members of the central members are connected to each other such that the retaining members are configured to be triggered together.
(However, Zinda teaches) retaining members (124; Zinda figures 1A-3B) of a central members (multiple 108) are connected to each other such that the retaining members are configured to be triggered together to move the central members laterally (via the rotation of shaft 106; lines 7-21 of col. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the multiple central members of the person-separating system of modified Lerche such that they are operated together as taught by Zinda, with a reasonable expectation of success, to lower the cost of manufacturing by not having multiple redundant parts while efficiently operating all central members. Additionally, the unified controlling system also makes it easier for users to operate the central members.
Response to Arguments
Amendments directed to the drawing objections were considered. Newly added objections were added above. Amendments directed to the specification, abstract, and claim objections were considered and the some of the objections were withdrawn.
Amendments directed to the claim indefinite issues were considered and the rejections were withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended the claim 1 to recite “without being removed or folded” then argued that “Figure 8 illustrates that the arms 46 of the turnstiles 44 are configured to be foldable, so that in the second position of the central member 30, they do not protrude into the passage 28 and clear the escape route. In this case, the turnstiles 44 and the arms 46 have dimensions that do not impede a displacement of the central member 30 into the second position” (page 3 of the Remarks section). The underlined section above seems that applicant’s own argument contradicts what is claimed in claim 1 regarding the ‘without being removed or folded’ of the central member.
Applicant also argues that “This is different from the Lerche document which describes folding, retracting, or removing the primary limiting element. Upon review of Lerche, it is clear that there is no corresponding central member that slides along a fixed guide and remains attached” (page 3 of the Remarks section), however the embodiment in figures 5-6 of Lerche and Excerpt 1 above clearly discloses that the central member of Lerche is translationally moved. The folding mechanism of the central member of Lerche is directed to the embodiment in figure 7 which was not relied upon in the rejection above.
Regarding “As seen in Figure 6 of Lerche, the guide is not positioned underneath the walk-on floor panel but instead is formed as a groove. As described in paragraph [0046], the guide is never open in any state. Furthermore, the vertical post does not extend through a guide opening”, the annotated figure below clearly shows the guide member 15 being positioned underneath the walk-on floor panel thus this argument is not persuasive. The figure below also clearly shows the vertical post extending through the guide opening.
PNG
media_image8.png
520
720
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK B PONCIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-9910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/PATRICK B. PONCIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634