DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to the claims filed on October 13, 2025.
Status of claims: claim 4 is cancelled; claims 1-3 and 5-12 are hereby examined below.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0030] – “the pivot shaft 20” must be amended to “the pivot shaft 10”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 3 – “second horizontal axis” should be amended to “first horizontal axis”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5-12 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.
Claims 1 and 6 - the term “rigid” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rigid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, it is suggested “rigid” be deleted from the claims.
Further, claims dependent upon a rejected claim are rejected for at least being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2024/0110347 to Lamore.
Lamore discloses a boom gate including:
a pedestal 30 locatable on a surface 37 and a rigid elongate arm 34 to extend across an area to be temporarily blocked; (see annotated FIG. 1 below) (Note: “locatable on a surface” and “to extend across an area to be temporarily blocked” constitute intended use recitations.)
the rigid arm elongate arm having a free end and a fixed end, the fixed being pivotably attached to the pedestal (see FIGS. 1 and 2) and driven by a drive mechanism 24 to permit the rigid elongate arm to move between a generally horizontal position and a generally vertical position, preventing or allowing access past the gate, respectively, the rigid elongate arm including:
a first elongate portion defining a first horizontal axis; (see annotated FIG. 1 below)
a second elongate portion defining a second horizontal axis;
a first angled portion extending between the first horizontal axis and the second horizontal axis to connect the first elongate portion to the second elongate portion;
a second angled portion extending between the first horizontal axis and the second horizontal axis to connect the second elongate portion to a pivot shaft of the pedestal,
(Note: “to connect the first elongate portion to the second elongate portion” and “to connect the second elongate portion to a pivot shaft of the pedestal” constitute intended use recitations.)
the first and second axes being spaced away from each other to permit the gate to be used in combination with a traffic management barrier; (Note: “to permit the gate to be used in combination with a traffic management barrier” constitutes an intended use recitation) and
wherein the first elongate portion, the second elongate portion, the first angled portion, and the second angled portion remain fixed to each other and rotate about the fixed end. (claim 1)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd angled portion)][AltContent: textbox (1st angled portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second elongate portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
178
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First elongate portion)]
Lamore further discloses wherein the first and second axes are parallel to each other (see figure above) (claim 2), wherein said first elongate portion is located adjacent said free end of said second elongate portion is located adjacent said fixed end (see figure above) (claim 3), wherein said second elongate portion is located further away from said surface than said first elongate portion to permit said rigid elongate arm to be extended across the area (see figure above) (Note: “to permit said rigid elongate arm to be extended across the area” constitutes intended use.) (claim 6), wherein said pedestal is locatable adjacent said barrier (see figure above) (Note: “locatable adjacent said barrier” constitutes an intended use recitation), (claim 7) wherein sad pedestal is adapted to be attached to said barrier. (see figure above) (Note: “adapted to be attached to said barrier” constitutes an intended use recitation.) (claim 8)
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 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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamore, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 2015003628 to Barwick et al. (hereinafter “Barwick”).
Reinitz fails to disclose wherein the first elongate portion is manufactured from a carbon fiber composite.
Barwick discloses an arm formed from a carbon fiber composite. (see [0034])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first elongate portion disclosed in Lamore with a carbon fiber composite as taught in Barwick with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form the first elongate portion out of a strong and light material as well as since it has been held that choosing a specific material constitutes a simple matter of design choice. (claim 9)
Lamore fails to disclose wherein the second elongate portion in manufactured from a material other than carbon fiber composite.
Barwick teaches of forming an arm of material other than carbon fiber composite, such as aluminum. (see [0034])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the second elongate portion disclosed in Lamore with a material other than carbon fiber composite, such as aluminum, as taught by Barwick, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to form the second elongate portion out of an inexpensive, light weight, and durable material as well as since it has been held that choosing a specific material constitutes a simple matter of design choice. (claim 10)
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamore, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 4219969 to Reinitz et al. (hereinafter “Reinitz”).
Lamore fails to disclose wherein the second elongate portion includes a coupling to receive the first elongate portion.
Reinitz discloses wherein the second elongate portion includes a coupling 20 to receive the first elongate portion. (see FIG. 3 below)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second elongate portion disclosed in Lamore with the coupling as taught in Reinitz with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for pivoting between the first and second elongate portions.
Lamore, as applied above, further discloses wherein the coupling includes fasteners 38 for removably receiving the first elongate portion. (claim 12)
PNG
media_image2.png
340
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5720132 to Renner et al. (hereinafter “Renner”).
Renner discloses a boom gate including:
a pedestal 26 locatable on a surface and a rigid elongate arm to extend across an area to be temporarily blocked; (see annotated FIG. 2 below) (Note: “locatable on a surface” and “to extend across an area to be temporarily blocked” constitute intended use recitations.)
the rigid arm elongate arm 32 having a free end and a fixed end, the fixed being pivotably attached to the pedestal (see FIGS. 1 and 2) and driven by a drive mechanism 28,30 to permit the rigid elongate arm to move between a generally horizontal position and a generally vertical position, preventing or allowing access past the gate, respectively, the rigid elongate arm including:
a first elongate portion defining a first horizontal axis; (see annotated FIG. 2 below)
a second elongate portion defining a second horizontal axis;
a first angled portion 42 extending between the first horizontal axis and the second horizontal axis to connect the first elongate portion to the second elongate portion;
a second angled portion 44 extending between the first horizontal axis and the second horizontal axis to connect the second elongate portion to a pivot shaft of the pedestal, (see annotated FIG. 2 below)
(Note: “to connect the first elongate portion to the second elongate portion” and “to connect the second elongate portion to a pivot shaft of the pedestal” constitute intended use recitations.)
the first and second axes being spaced away from each other to permit the gate to be used in combination with a traffic management barrier; (Note: “to permit the gate to be used in combination with a traffic management barrier” constitutes an intended use recitation) and
wherein the first elongate portion, the second elongate portion, the first angled portion, and the second angled portion remain fixed to each other and rotate about the fixed end. (claim 1)
[AltContent: textbox (First elongate portion)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second elongate portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
330
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Renner further discloses wherein the second elongate portion is connected to the drive mechanism by a second angled portion extending back towards the second horizontal axis. (claim 5)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 13, 2025 are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS MENEZES whose telephone number is (571)272-5225. The examiner can normally be reached on M - F 8-5 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached on 571-270-5616. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/Marcus Menezes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634