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 Objections
Claims 5, 8 & 9 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Regarding claim 17: Pavey teaches in Figs. 1, 5, 11 & 13, a Bollard/Post assembly for a parking barrier system comprising of a post (12) integrally to a base plate (14) using welding (see Fig. 4, note seams that can only be construed as welding seams are shown but not labeled as such). The base plate (14) is elongate in shape and is shown as rectangular shaped in foot print. The base plate is clearly shown with the post (12) affixed on end of the long side and a plurality of anchor apertures (16) positioned on the opposite end of the long side. The positioning of the post (12) and mounting holes (16) on opposite ends of the base plate (14) create two distinct regions and wherein the base plate can be installed with the post end/side closer or further away from a platform edge.
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 13 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter Pavey U.S. 10,570,641 herein referred to as Pavey in view of Ball US 2014/0010591 herein referred to as Ball.
Regarding claim 1: Regarding claim 1: Pavey discloses an apparatus comprising:
A post (12) having a first end and a second end (respective bottom and top ends), the post having a flange disposed at the first end (base 12.1; Col 3, Lines 30-43);
At least one anchor assembly (anchoring bolts which are fitted into openings 16)
A base assembly (14) including an opening for receiving the first end of the post, and at least one anchoring region including at least one aperture for receiving the at anchor assembly (fastening elements which are deployed through openings 16 to connect the base and post to the ground; Col 3, Lines 49-43), the base assembly having a shape that is bisectable by a line segment into a first region and a second region (as seen in the figure below, the post is attached in the upper half of the plate, and the anchoring apertures 16 are located in the lower half of the plate);
Wherein the opening has a first centroid disposed in the first region and the anchoring region has a second centroid disposed in the second region (as a result of the areas defined above). Pavey does teach an opening in the base plate (14) to accept one end of post (12).
However, Ball teaches a bollard assembly wherein an opening (703) in the base plate (401 Foot Part) is arranged to accept one end of the bollard post (15A), wherein the bollard post (15A) is affixed to the base plate (401 Foot Part) by welding or cementing, adhesion or by the use of fixing members (e.g. rivets, screws, bolts etc), between collar (15B) and bollard (15A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the base plate (14) of Pavey by incorporating the base plate opening (703) of Ball as doing so helps minimize the application of welds to the outer tubular and reduce unwanted stress (Paragraph 0156).
Regarding claim 2: Pavey further teaches an anchoring region (Fig. 13) that includes a plurality of apertures (16) and is defined by an arrangement of the plurality of apertures (see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10: Pavey further discloses in Fig. 13 a post (12) with an axis that extends through the first centroid (not implicitly identified) from a first end of the post to a second end of the post and a second axis extending parallel to and offset from the first axis and through the second centroid (not implicitly identified) (see figure above).
Regarding claim 13: Pavey further discloses in Figs. 1, 3 & 11 anchor plate (14) that is elongate in shape wherein one set of the parallel sides is longer in length that the second set of parallel sides and the longer side is considered the length and the shorter side is the width. Examiner notes that the definition of the word "elongated" is taken to mean "to make longer."
Regarding claim 15: Pavey further teaches in Fig. 11 a base (14 Anchor Plate) wherein the shape is that of a rectangle with opposite sides that are equal and parallel to each other.
Claims 3, 4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter Pavey U.S. 10,570,641 in view of Ball US 2014/0010591 as applied to Claim 1, in further view of David S. McCue et al. US 2012/0301219 herein referred to as McCue.
Regarding claim 3: Pavey in view of Ball teaches a base assembly in Fig. 11 that comprises post (12), that is integrally attached to base plate (14) at one end, wherein the anchoring region comprises of base plate (14) and a plurality of apertures for anchoring bolts to pass through to attach the base plate to the substrate.
Pavey does not teach a dampener or that the flange (612c) is disposed between the base cover and a dampener.
McCue discloses a bollard assembly (Fig. 3) comprising of a flange (58 – Load Transfer Member Base), a dampener (80 – Shock Absorber) and a base cover (20 – Bollard) wherein, the bollard (20) is also the base cover. McCue teaches in Fig. 3 the disposition of the flange (58) is between the dampener (80) and cover/bollard (20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bollard base of Pavey (see Fig. 11) to include a shock absorber like that of McCue so as to allow better transfer of force without damaging the anchor or the ground around it (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4: Pavey teaches (see Figs. 1 & 11) at least one aperture (16) which allows for an anchor bolt to pass through in order to securely affix base plate (14) to the substrate.
Pavey does not teach the at least one aperture having a corresponding opening in a dampener or base cover since the apparatus in Pavey does not comprise a cover or dampener.
However, McCue teaches in Figs. 2 & 3 at least one aperture (88 & 72) opening that extends on the longitudinal axis (38) through the dampener (80) and flange (58). The bollard (20) acts as the cover for the base assembly and as such does not have or require an opening to allow passage of an anchor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bollard base of Pavey (see Fig. 11) to include a shock absorber like that of McCue so as to allow better transfer of force without damaging the anchor or the ground around it.
Regarding claim 6: Pavey teaches a base assembly in Fig. 11 that comprises post (12), that is integrally attached to base plate (14) at one end, wherein the anchoring region comprises of base plate (14) and a plurality of apertures for anchoring bolts to pass through to attach the base plate to the substrate.
Pavey does not teach the at least one aperture having a corresponding opening in a dampener or base cover since the apparatus in Pavey does not comprise a cover or dampener.
However, McCue teaches in Figs. 2 & 3 a dampener (80) that is comprised of a resilient material (Paragraph 0024) such as rubber, poly urethane, or ethylene propylene diene Monomer (M-class) synthetic rubber (EPDM).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bollard base of Pavey (see Fig. 11) to include a shock absorber like that of McCue so as to allow better transfer of force without damaging the anchor or the ground around it.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Peter Pavey U.S. 10,570,641 herein referred to as Pavey in view of Paolo Desiderioscioli US 2017/0233962 herein referred to as Desiderioscioli.
Regarding claim 7: Pavey teaches a base assembly in Fig. 11 that comprises post (12), that is integrally attached to base plate (14) at one end, wherein the anchoring region comprises of base plate (14) and a plurality of apertures for anchoring bolts to pass through to attach the base plate to the substrate.
Pavey does not teach a bollard/post anchoring assembly that comprises a washer which the anchor fastener extends through.
However, Desiderioscioli teaches (Paragraphs 0041, 0049 & 0060 and Figs. 1, 2 & 3) a washer (R) that anchoring/fastening rod (22) extends through and where the rod (22) terminates into the ground.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bollard base of Pavey (see Fig. 11) to include a washer like that of Desideriosciolo so as to provide protection to the aperture shaft from possible damage when the anchor bolt(s) are inserted and tightened by better distributing the tightening force (Paragraph 0041)..
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Peter Pavey U.S. 10,570,641 herein referred to as Pavey in view of James M. Miller et al. U. S. 5,018,902 herein referred to as Miller.
Regarding claim 11: Pavey discloses in Figs. 3, 4, 11 & 13 a post (12), that is integrally attached to base plate (14) at one end. Pavey does not teach wherein the post (12) is configured to pivot about the point where it is attached to the base plate (14).
However, Miller teaches a bollard (Figs. 7 & 8, Column 3=>Lines 61-68 and Column 4=>Lines 1-2) that pivots about the anchoring region to be parallel to the ground and perpendicular to its deployed position using hinge (40) to allow access by authorized vehicular traffic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the connection point of post (12) and base plate (14) of Pavey to include a pivoting type connection to allow the post (12) to pivot parallel to the ground to allow access by authorized vehicular traffic.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Peter Pavey U.S. 10,570,641 herein referred to as Pavey in view of Thomas Ustach US 2014/0154007 herein referred to as Ustach.
Regarding claim 12: Pavey discloses in Figs. 3, 4, 11 & 13 a post (12), that is integrally attached to base plate (14) at one end and wherein the base plate (14) can be anchored to the ground. However, Pavey does not teach a cover configured to enshroud the second the end of the post that affixes to the base plate (14).
Ustach discloses a full-length outer cover (Figs. 1 & 2 (12)) for a bollard that is a circular cross-section elongate tube that is closed at one end. It is constructed of a robust plastic material that will not dent or easily be deformed. The cover (12) is configured to cover the inner post (14) from the first (top) end to the second (bottom) end.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the post assembly (10) to include a cover to be place over the base plate (14) to provide protection from damage (Paragraph 0038).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Peter Pavey U.S. 10,570,641 herein referred to as Pavey in view of J. Brent Burton US 2013/0183090 herein referred to as Burton.
Regarding claim 14: Pavey teaches in Fig. 11 a base (14 Anchor Plate) wherein the shape is that of a rectangle with opposite sides that are equal and parallel to each other. Pavey, fails to teach a base that may be oval in shape
However, Burton discloses in paragraph 0047 and Figs, 1, 2, 3 & 6 wherein the base (36) may be generally round, oval or rectangular with essentially straight or tapered side walls.
It would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the base of Pavey to be oval as taught by Burton. Doing so merely constitutes the use of a known shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed base was significant (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection IV, A).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Peter Pavey U.S. 10,570,641 herein referred to as Pavey in view of Harry D. Dickinson U.S. 10,407,852 herein referred to as Dickinson.
Regarding claim 16: Pavey teaches in Fig. 11 a post (12) that is integrally connected to base plate (14) by welding (see figure below). Pavey does not teach a plurality of reinforcing ribs coupled between the base plate (14) and post (12).
However, Dickinson teaches (Column 6=>Lines 12-16 and Fig. 1A) a plurality of reinforcing ribs (117 Gusset Plates) coupled between the flange (102 Base Plate) and post (101).
PNG
media_image2.png
485
309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the base of the post element of Pavey to include ribs/gusset plates to attach to the base structure as taught by Dickinson. Doing so would help reinforce and strengthen the connection between the base plate and post (Col 6, Lines 12-21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. U.S. Pat. No. 12,410,568 to Owens relates to a shallow foundation bollard that has the post mounted in the frontal area of the mounting base.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT C. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3053. The examiner can normally be reached 7.30am to 5pm.
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.
/KALPIT C. PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671