Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/234,669

BARRIER POST WITH SAFETY MEANS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 16, 2023
Examiner
GILBERT, WILLIAM V
Art Unit
3993
Tech Center
3900
Assignee
Ans Development Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
718 granted / 1243 resolved
-2.2% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1268
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
39.2%
-0.8% vs TC avg
§102
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
§112
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1243 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION This is a first action on the merits addressing the disclosure provided 16 August 2023. The status of all claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 2 are new, pending and examined. 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 . Priority Review of the record indicates a certified copy of the foreign patent is not provided. An attempt was made 19 January 2024 to retrieve foreign application 10-2022-0104128, from which priority is claimed. This resulted FAILED. As a result, applicant is to provide a proper copy of the foreign document Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Drawings The drawings dated 16 August 2023, are objected to because the drawings are not clear black-and-white line drawings. Many of the lines are faded, and FIG 2 as a whole is small and the features did not reproduce properly so as to clearly see the various features of the invention. Claim Interpretation Review of the claims reveal “means” language (e.g., “safety means”), which invokes 35 USC 112(f); however, as the claims further provide structure (e.g., “wherein the safety means comprises…”). As a result, 112(f) is not considered invoked. 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 1 and 2 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 examiner notes numerous issues under this heading. For general claim construction, the examiner suggests applicant reference the prior art cited along with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 608.01(i)-608.01(n) for proper claim construction. Some of the more noticeable issues include when presenting a limitation (e.g., widget) it must initially be preceded by “a” or “an” (e.g., a widget). Each time the same limitation is subsequently referenced, either in the same claim or dependent claim, it must be preceded by "the" or "said" (e.g., the widget or said widget). Further, claim limitations should be referenced the same throughout the claim language (e.g., a limitation directed to a “pipe” should be referenced as “pipe" throughout the claim for consistency.) Further, limitations that follow language such as “may” is considered optional language and not required for consideration with respect to prior art. Below is a reproduction of the claims with the examiner’s comments in bold italics. Claim 1: A barrier post with a safety means comprising a barrier post (“a barrier post” has already been provided) fixed to the stand (“the stand” lacks antecedent basis), a cylindrical head mounted on an upper end of the barrier post, a spool provided in the head, a belt wound on the spool so as to be withdrawn from the spool and inserted to the spool (lacks antecedent basis as this references a different spool/barrier post combination) provided in the head (lacks antecedent basis as this references a different head/barrier post combination) of the barrier post (indefinite as this references a different post previously provided) placed adjacent to each other, a spring compressed when the belt is drawn out from the spool is acting on the spool (indefinite as written as to what is “acting on the spool”; indefinite as to the metes and bounds of “acting” as claimed) to automatically rewind the belt on the spool after use by the restoring force (lacks antecedent basis) of the compressed spring, and safety means (this limitation has already been provided) for reducing the rotation of the spool by the spring to prevent an accident (indefinite as to the metes and bounds of what constitutes “accident) caused by the free end (“the free end” lacks antecedent basis) of the belt when the belt is rewound to the spool by the restoring force of the spring, wherein the safety means comprises two divided annular holders with multiple grooves arranged on the inner space (lacks antecedent basis) of the upper housing (lacks antecedent basis), and metal balls (lacks antecedent basis) provided in grooves (lacks antecedent basis), wherein two locking parts protruding from the upper surface (lacks antecedent basis) of the upper plate (lacks antecedent basis) of the spool are formed between the adjacent both ends (lacks antecedent basis) of the holders, so that the two holders may be rotated together with the spool by the restoring force of the spring and wherein when the spool is rotated by a restoring force (“restoring force” has already been provided) of the spring, the rewind speed (lacks antecedent basis) of the belt are adapted to be decelerated as the holders also rotate and move outward in the radial direction (indefinite as written as to a center point to define what constitutes a “radial direction”) by the centrifugal force (indefinite as written as “centrifugal force” is not a real force recognized under physics) of the balls to be in close contact (indefinite as to the metes and bounds of what constitutes “close contact”) with the inner surface (lacks antecedent basis) of the upper housing. Claim 2: The barrier post with a safety means in claim 1, wherein said upper end of a central shaft part (indefinite as written as “said upper end” lacks antecedent basis with respect to a central shaft) protrudes above the upper plate of the spool and is rotatably inserted into the boss (lacks antecedent basis) extending downward from the center of the cover (lacks antecedent basis) provided on the upper housing so that the spool may be rotated. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The claims will be subject to further consideration based on the amendments made. Relevant Art The following is cited for reference: Kay et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0157206 A1) Thenemann et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/036187 A1) Wang (U.S. Patent 8,881,787 B2) Phismall (U.S. Publication 2003/0113519 A1) Siegler et al. (U.S. Patent 6,375,164 B1) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-0430 Eastern. 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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571.272.6928. 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. /WILLIAM V GILBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent RE50825
CONCEALED SPRINKLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12503823
IMPACT ATTENUATOR SAFETY TRUCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Patent RE50592
DRAPER SEAL FOR CROP HEADER
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent RE50570
REFRIGERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 02, 2025
Patent RE50349
UNIVERSAL LANDING GEAR ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 25, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+25.8%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1243 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month