DETAILED ACTION
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 11, 12 and 20 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.
The recitations in claims 11 and 20 of “the depth of the cavity is greater than the length of the lower portion of the pipe” (lines 2-3) appear to contradict the “approximately equal” recitations in parent claims 10 and 19, respectively.
Claim 12 is rejected because of its dependency on claim 11.
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, 5-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramps (U.S. Patent 11,578,468).
Kramps discloses a safety bollard system having a pipe (1) with a lower portion secured under a ground surface (Figure 2, for example). The lower portion includes an engagement section (column 9, lines 10-16, for example) positioned below a structure section (Figure 2, for example). There is a beam (8) housed inside of the pipe (Figure 1, for example), wherein the beam extends from a bottom of the structure and into the upper portion of the pipe (Figures 1-6). There are pieces of rebar (17) which are inserted through apertures (12) in the foundation structure to secure the bollard system; however, it does not appear that these rebar pieces extend through the pipe. As can be seen in Figures 5 and 6, for example, the rebar extends longitudinally such that it appears that it would be capable of extending through the pipe without repositioning. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the rebar through apertures in the pipe in order to further secure the pipe to an above ground force as desired, as is the purpose of rebar and commensurate with the purpose of Kramps.
Regarding claim 2, looking to the right side of Figure 6, there are four pieces of rebar arranged such that positioning of these pieces would naturally extend through any apertures in the bollard. Given the inclusion of apertures for receiving rebar, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the apertures and rebar as claimed in order to use the existing rebar positioning arrangement of Kramps.
Regarding claims 5-7, the pipe (1) is cylindrical and Kramps teaches using an I-beam as the beam (claim 12, for example). Because the beam as illustrated engages the internal surface of the pipe (Figure 4, for example), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the I-beam as claimed, given its use in the pipe of Kramps.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kramps discloses welding as a suitable means of connection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any welds as desired in order to form the structure.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, there is a cavity which is filled with concrete (16). The respective dimensions appear generally as claimed (Figures 4 and 5). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any relative dimensions in order to resist external forces as desired.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to position covers on the top of bollards. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Kramps as claimed in order to, for example, protect the inner portion from weathering, etc. and/or to provide a desired aesthetic appearance.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the I-beam any distance relative to the pipe deemed suitable for obtaining a desired resistance to external force.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 12 and 17-19 are 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.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach bollard systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Thomas Will can be reached at 571272-6998. 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.
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671