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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
With regard to limitations in the preamble of the claim(s), this language is not believed to limit the claim. Specifically, the claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it. In this case, the body of the claim makes no mention to any specific features that a “public transit vehicle” would possess (such as “structures”) and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Therefore, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-481 and MPEP 2111.02.
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 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "a curbside stanchion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 22 previously recites “a curbside stanchion”. For the purposes of examination on the merits, this instance will be assumed to refer back to the recitation in claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, US Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clelland in view of Starnes.
For claim 22, Clelland (5069497) discloses a barrier between a driver cockpit and a passenger seating area (120) of a public transit vehicle (110), the barrier comprising:
a driver side barrier (202) and a curbside barrier (204); and
a sliding door (100) disposed between the driver side barrier and the curbside barrier;
wherein the driver side barrier includes a fixed driver side barrier that is fastened to driver side stanchions (206, 212; see also Col 3, lines 38-40 which discloses “side posts”) mounted between a floor and a ceiling of the vehicle;
wherein the curbside barrier (204) includes a fixed barrier that is fastened to and between a curbside stanchion (208) and a curbside wall (FIG.2) of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
449
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Clelland discloses both the driver side and curbside barriers each being a single structure which fails to include an opaque barrier, respectively.
These features are taught by Starnes (4848832) which includes driver side and curbside barriers with fixed portions and opaque portions (FIGS.1-2).
PNG
media_image2.png
309
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have provided the driver and curb side barriers of Clelland with both fixed and opaque barriers as taught by Starnes as an obvious design expedient to allow a driver visibility through the barriers.
For claim 24, the driver side stanchions (206, 212; “posts”) are configured to directly or indirectly support the driver side barrier and the sliding door.
For claim 25, the curbside stanchion (208) is mounted between the floor and the ceiling of the vehicle and is configured to directly or indirectly support the curbside barrier.
Claims 28, 32-34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clelland, as modified, and further in view of Starnes (FIG.2).
For claim 28, the sliding door of Clelland, as modified, includes a panel mounted to the driver side stanchions by way of sliders and mounts but lacks a transparent panel.
Starnes further teaches providing the sliding door with a transparent panel (claims 28,37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have provided Clelland, as modified, with a transparent panel for the sliding door as taught by Starnes as an obvious design expedient to allow a driver visibility through the door.
For claim 32, Clelland, as modified, discloses the sliding door is configured to facilitate changing the barrier between a closed configuration and an open configuration (in so much as the sliding door is capable of being moved between the two configurations). This claim adds no additional structural limitations.
For claim 33, Clelland, as modified, discloses the sliding door in the closed configuration is configured to prevent passengers from accessing the driver cockpit; and the sliding door in the open configuration is configured to allow passengers to enter and exit the passenger seating area. This claim adds no additional structural limitations.
For claim 34, Clelland, as modified, discloses the sliding door is configured to be moved by an operator disposed in the driver cockpit (in so much as it is capable of being moved by an operator). This claim adds no additional structural limitations.
Claims 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clelland, as modified, and further in view of FR 2599319 or EP 0027483 or Schmidt et al. (2017/0327070).
For claims 39-41, Clelland, as modified, provides the one of the barriers and sidling door comprises a glass panel but fails to disclose a polycarbonate or acrylic panel or metal/hard plastic.
FR 2599319 (FR 319) teaches a protective device (partitioning a vehicle space) where the device is made of transparent plastic, for example of polycarbonate six millimeters thick (where 6 mm is approximately 0.236 inches).
EP 0027483 (EP 483) teaches a partition of acrylic material of sufficient thickness to dissuade a possible aggression.
Schmidt et al. teach a barrier with a lower portion (lower section 19) being a rigid opaque material, such as steel or similar metal ([0059]).
It should be noted that it is well known in the art for polycarbonate and acrylic transparent panels to be used as alternatives to glass.
For claim 41, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have substituted the material of the barrier or door of Clelland, as modified, with metal as taught by Schmidt et al. as an obvious material alternative to the rigid material provided.
For claims 39-40, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have substituted the glass of Clelland, as modified, with either one of an acrylic and polycarbonate panel as taught by FR 319 or EP 483 as an obvious material alternative in order to allow the barrier to be stronger, lighter in weight, or have other desirable physical properties. It should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination since the court has held that the use of a different material is obvious over that of the prior art if it performs the same function. See MPEP 2144.07 and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have provided the thickness of the acrylic panel of Clelland, as modifieid, to be ¼ inch or the thickness of the polycarbonate panel of Clelland, as modified, to be 3/8 inch since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the barrier of Clelland, as modified, would not operate differently if further modified with the claimed thickness. Applicant places no criticality on the thickness claimed.
Claims 22, 28, 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 929 in view of KR 863 and further in view of either of EP 411 or DE 051.
For claim 22, KR 929 (KR 200352929) discloses a barrier between a driver cockpit and a passenger seating area of a public transit vehicle, the barrier comprising:
a driver side barrier (FIG.1, below LEFT); and
wherein the driver side barrier includes a fixed driver side barrier and a first barrier that are fastened to driver side stanchions mounted between a floor and a ceiling of the vehicle.
KR 929 fails to provide a curbside barrier as disclosed.
KR 10-2010-0053863 (KR 863) teaches this element as seen in FIG.2 (below, RIGHT) where a curbside barrier is provided and includes a fixed barrier that is fastened to and between a curbside stanchion and a curbside wall (implicit) of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image3.png
330
217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
394
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have provided a curbside barrier as shown in KR 863 for use with the barrier of KR 929 in order to further protect curbside occupants.
Although the curbside barrier, as taught by KR 863, includes only a fixed barrier (lower barrier) fastened to the stanchion, KR 929 teaches the use of an additional upper barrier (FIG.1) as a second barrier and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have applies the same to the curbside barrier as an additional protective measure.
KR 929, as modified above, discloses a door (a transparent door 5) disposed between the driver side barrier and the curbside barrier. The door is coupled to stanchion 6 (FIG.1) by hinges.
KR 929, as modified, lacks the door being slidable (as the recited “sliding door”).
EP 2428411 (EP 411), and alternatively DE 202011101051 (DE 051), both teach such a door capable of sliding and hinging.
EP 411 (below, LEFT) teaches specifically a barrier between a driver cockpit and a passenger seating area of a public transit vehicle, the barrier comprising:
a driver side barrier (10) and a curbside of the vehicle; and
a sliding door (20) (a sliding and hinging door, see hinges (12), FIG.5a) disposed between the driver side barrier and the curbside;
wherein the driver side barrier includes a fixed driver side barrier that is fastened to driver side stanchions (not numbered but seen at either side of reference numeral “10” in FIGS.1-2b) mounted between a floor and a ceiling of the vehicle.
Alternatively, DE 051 (below, RIGHT) provides a barrier is disclosed having both a driver side barrier (2) and a curbside barrier (2a) as seen in FIG.6. Between the driver side and curbside barriers, a sliding door (10) is hingedly mounted (via element 4). The door pivots and slides between different positions (compare FIGS. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6) allowing for different space configurations.
PNG
media_image5.png
440
527
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
484
471
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with reasonable success to have substituted the door of KR 929, as modified, with one taught by either EP 411 or DE 051 in order to allow for more and varied space configurations.
For claim 42, the sliding door of KR 929, as modified above, is coupled to the driver side stanchions (6 in FIG.1 of KR 929) by way of sliders as seen at 30 and extension 40 in EP 411 (FIG.5a, below) and indirectly by way of sliders at 13,14 in DE 051 (FIG.6).
PNG
media_image7.png
428
386
media_image7.png
Greyscale
For claim 28, the sliding door of KR 929, as modified, includes a transparent panel (see KR 929 which discloses the door 5 being transparent) that is mounted to the driver side stanchions (6) by sliders (as seen with 30 in EP 411; and 13,14 in DE 051) and mounts (hinges).
For claim 32, the sliding door is configured to facilitate changing the barrier between a closed configuration and an open configuration in so much as the sliding door is capable of being moved between multiple configurations. This claim adds no additional structural limitations.
For claim 33, the sliding door in the closed configuration is configured to prevent passengers from accessing the driver cockpit; and the sliding door in the open configuration is configured to allow passengers to enter and exit the passenger seating area. This claim adds no additional structural limitations.
For claim 34, the sliding door is configured to be moved by an operator disposed in the driver cockpit (in so much as it is capable of being moved by an operator). This claim adds no additional structural limitations.
For claim 37, KR 929 discloses the barrier being transparent (composed of an optically transparent material).
For claim 35, the sliding door includes hinges that enable the operator to rotate the sliding door from the closed configuration (EP 411 at FIG.1; DE 051 at FIGS.3 and 4) to an aisle configuration (EP 411 at FIG.2a; and DE 051 at FIG.6).
For claim 36, the sliding door in the aisle configuration cooperates with the driver side barrier to isolate the operator from the passenger seating area during loading and unloading of passengers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but are moot with regard to the rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 224 discloses a barrier between a driver cockpit and a passenger seating area of a public transit vehicle, the barrier comprising: a driver side barrier and a curbside barrier; and wherein the driver side barrier includes a fixed driver side barrier that is fastened to driver side stanchions mounted between a floor and a ceiling of the vehicle; wherein the curbside barrier includes a fixed barrier that is fastened to and between a curbside stanchion and a curbside wall of the vehicle (FIG.1).
PNG
media_image8.png
327
404
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights