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 1-4 and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL 2013140 B1 (hereinafter will be referred to as “NL ‘140”) in view of Chinni, WO 2015/161394 A1; Ballesteros, US 5,137,391; and Krage et al., US 5,425,594.
Regarding claim 1, NL ‘140 teaches a barrier element to block traffic and/or as a security precaution, comprising:
an elongated casing (2; Figures 1-4) with two opposing longitudinal side walls, an upper wall (12) joining the two longitudinal side walls, and a plurality of supports (8) connected to a lower side (bottom) of the elongated casing between the two opposing longitudinal side walls for resting the barrier element on a ground surface; and
a ballast (3 shown in Figures 1 and 4).
While NL ‘140 discloses ballast as blocks but fails to explicitly disclose a ballast compartment, Chinni teaches a similar hollow road barrier that uses ballast and discloses ballast material that can be concrete, water, or any other material, that “the ballast means can be incorporated entirely into the barrier” and contained in a compartment or not (third full paragraph on page 5 of English translation). In view of Chinni disclosing that ballast disposed within an interior of a barrier element can be within a compartment or not, and in view of NL ‘140 disclosing the ballast as blocks which essentially compartmentalizes the ballast, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ballast blocks of NL ‘140 to be a ballast compartment that is filled with ballast in view of Chinni’s disclosure as discussed above.
While Chinni discloses that the ballast can be concrete but the resulting combination fails to explicitly disclose that the ballast is a liquid curing material, Ballasteros further discloses filling a barrier element with ballast such as concrete from a concrete mixer truck (Abstract). 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 the ballast compartment filled with a curing material such as concrete from a concrete mixer truck in view of Ballasteros’s disclosure as an alternative ballast suitable for a roadway barrier. The resulting combination includes the limitation of “liquid curing material” since concrete from a mixer truck starts as liquid and is a curing material which hardens when it cures.
Since NL ‘140 discloses the barrier element having a closed top and opposing closed ends with an open bottom and the block structure of ballast disposed within the interior, 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 ballast compartment to also have a similar structure for receiving the ballast.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose at least one casing support structure with the limitations as claimed in the last clause, Krage teaches a roadside barrier and discloses at least one casing support structure (internal frame/grate 102; Figure 10) that is disposed within an interior of an elongated casing between, and connected to, two opposing longitudinal side walls wherein the at least one casing support structure does not extend to the bottom of the casing (Figure 10). 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 at least one casing support structure disposed within the interior of the elongated casing between the two opposing longitudinal side walls and connected to each of the two opposing longitudinal side walls in view of Krage’s disclosure that the internal frame strengthens the barrier against bending (Krage’s column 5 lines 32-33) to be able to strengthen the barrier of the resulting combination from bending. Since Krage discloses that the at least one casing support structure does not extend to the bottom of the casing but instead to an interior secondary bottom wall (Figure 10) which is the result of a feature, it is an obvious modification to have the at least one casing support structure connect to the closed top of the ballast compartment since the closed top of the ballast compartment of the resulting combination is synonymous with the interior secondary bottom wall, the feature being the ballast compartment in the resulting combination.
Regarding claim 2, the resulting combination makes obvious that the closed top and closed sides of the ballast compartment must be liquid tight in order to be able to hold the liquid concrete.
Regarding claim 3, since NL ‘140 shows the ballast to be rectangular, it appears obvious that the ballast compartment would have similar dimensions, which would be an elongated ballast compartment casing, to fit within the barrier element.
Regarding claim 4, the top and sides of the ballast compartment (inner surface of elongate casing) are made out of metal sheet material (metal plate casing; page 6 of English translation lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 8, as shown in NL ‘140’s Figures 3 and 4, the ends of the elongated casing are provided with couplings (pins 11 and openings 24).
Regarding claim 9, as shown in NL ‘140’s Figures 3 and 4, the couplings are connected to the ballast compartment (via plates 10 and 23 and side walls).
Regarding claim 10, as shown in NL ‘140’s Figure 4, the ends (from a bird’s eye view looking down at the upper wall) of the elongated casing are chamfered (slanted walls connecting to upper wall shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, the resulting combination from claim 1 includes the ballast compartment being filled with the liquid curing material (Ballesteros’s teaching of concrete from a concrete mixer truck).
Regarding claim 12, the resulting combination includes the liquid curing material being concrete.
Regarding claim 13, while the resulting combination from claim 1 fails to explicitly disclose the method steps, given that the resulting combination includes the barrier element having an open bottom (space between bottom flanges 20) that clearly exposes the ballast compartment (NL ‘140’s Figure 4), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a method for making ready for use of a barrier element comprising a) placing a barrier element according to claim 1 in an inverted position (as a way to easily reach the ballast compartment which is at the bottom of the barrier element), b) filling the inverted ballast compartment with the liquid curing material (since the resulting combination from claim 1 includes uncured concrete), c) hardening the liquid curing material (since concrete must harden), and d) turning the barrier element back to a working position (since the proper orientation of the barrier element is as shown in NL ‘140’s Figures 1-4 with the ballast at the bottom).
Regarding claim 14, as shown in NL ‘140’s Figure 1, the plurality of supports (8) are connected to the ballast compartment (via the bottom walls).
Regarding claim 15, as shown in NL ‘140’s Figure 1, the plurality of supports (8) are connected to two opposing sides of the ballast compartment (bottom left side and bottom right side via the bottom walls).
Regarding claim 16, while the resulting combination includes at least one casing support structure but fails to explicitly disclose that the barrier element comprises a plurality of casing support structures, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). 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 casing support structures for greater strength against bending.
Regarding claim 17, the resulting combination from claim 16 includes the plurality of casing support structures being disposed within the interior of the elongated casing between the two opposing longitudinal side walls and connected to the two opposing longitudinal side walls and the ballast compartment.
Regarding claim 18, since the plurality of casing support structures extend from one side wall to the other, they can provide structural stability to the barrier element.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL ‘140 in view of Chinni, Ballesteros, and Krage and applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Bennet, US 1,421,150. Regarding claim 7, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the ballast compartment is provided with at least one internal protrusion, Bennet discloses an uncured concrete-filled box/shell with pins, with “concrete adapted to be poured into the shell around said pins…, said pins being adapted to anchor the concrete into said shell after it [the concrete] has set therein” (bottom half of claim 2). 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 ballast compartment of the resulting combination to have at least one internal protrusion if it was desired to ensure that the concrete remained in the ballast compartment by anchoring in view of Bennet’s disclosure that pins (which are at least one internal protrusion) would anchor the concrete in the shell (bottom half of claim 2).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NL ‘140 in view of Chinni, Ballesteros, and Krage and applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Hotchkin, US 11,933,004 B2.
Regarding claim 19, the resulting combination from claim 3 includes an elongated ballast compartment casing. NL ‘140 shows multiple separate ballast compartments along the bottom of the barrier element (as shown in NL ‘140’s Figure 1) but the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation claimed. Hotchkin teaches a barrier element and discloses a continuous ballast compartment (cavity 11, after the concrete cures becomes ballast block 15 shown in Figure 3) along the full length of the bottom of that barrier element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the separate ballast compartments of the resulting combination to be a continuous elongated ballast compartment casing along the full length of the bottom of that barrier element in view of Hotchkin’s disclosure as discussed above based on obvious design choice as an alternate type of elongated ballast compartment casing for a barrier element. The resulting combination includes the elongated ballast compartment casing traversing each of the plurality of supports (NL ‘140’s plurality of supports 8 as shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, the resulting combination from claim 3 includes an elongated ballast compartment casing. NL ‘140 shows multiple separate ballast compartments along the bottom of the barrier element (as shown in NL ‘140’s Figure 1) but the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation claimed. Hotchkin teaches a barrier element and discloses a continuous ballast compartment (cavity 11, after the concrete cures becomes ballast block 15 shown in Figure 3) along the full length of the bottom of that barrier element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the separate ballast compartments of the resulting combination to be a continuous elongated ballast compartment casing along the full length of the bottom of that barrier element in view of Hotchkin’s disclosure as discussed above based on obvious design choice as an alternate type of elongated ballast compartment casing for a barrier element. The resulting combination includes each of the plurality of supports (NL ‘140’s plurality of supports 8 as shown in Figure 1) extending across the elongated ballast compartment casing since the elongated ballast compartment casing is continuous along the full length of the bottom of the barrier element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 8-12, and 14-18 have been considered but are moot because Applicant is arguing the previous rejection against newly-added limitations. The rejection above has been modified to meet the newly-added limitations. Specifically, Krage has been added to address the limitation of at least one casing support structure, and the resulting combination from claim 1 as detailed above meets the limitations “of disposed within the interior of the elongated casing between the two opposing longitudinal side walls and connected to each of the two opposing longitudinal side walls and the closed top of the ballast compartment.”
Applicant argues (at the bottom of the page numbered “6”) that Chinni does not teach the casing support structures being connected to the ballast compartment, however this argument is not persuasive since again, Applicant is arguing the previous rejection against newly-added limitations. Chinni was not used to teach this limitation in the rejection above. In the same portion of the arguments, Applicant further argues that Chinni also suggests that the ballast can be added after the barrier elements are connected, which would appear to teach away from the ballast compartment connected to each of the two longitudinal side walls and the closed top of the ballast compartment. This argument is not persuasive since this appears to be an argument of bodily incorporation and the resulting combination does not require Chinni’s method of forming a barrier element. Chinni was only relied on in the rejection above for the teaching that ballast can be contained within a compartment or not.
Applicant’s arguments against Daniluk are moot since Daniluk is no longer relied on.
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