DETAILED ACTION
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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “the invention provides” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roach (AU2004201403).
Regarding claim 1, Roach teaches a vehicle security barrier apparatus comprising:(i) a support structure (2) for being disposed at least partially below ground, the support structure having a below ground aspect and an above-ground aspect (Figure 4; support structure is partially below the concrete base 41); (ii) a track (47) provided at least in part within the support structure (2); (iii) at least three upright bollards (6, 7, 8, 9) being mounted to said support structure, two of the at least three bollards (8, 9) being rigidly fixed to the support structure and at least one of said bollards (6, 7) being movably coupled to the support structure; and (iv) a mounting structure anchored to the below-ground aspect of the support structure and comprising a series of coupling members (45, 46) extending outward of the below- ground aspect of the support structure (Figure 4); the two fixed bollards (8, 9) being spaced apart from one another and defining a first axis therebetween (Figure 1); said at least one moveable bollard (6, 7) being movably coupled to the track (47) such that the at least one movable bollard is moveable relative to the two fixed bollards between a closed position (Figure 1), wherein the movable bollard is disposed between said two fixed bollards for inhibiting the passage of a vehicle therebetween; and an open position (Figure 2), wherein said moveable bollard is moved along said first axis to a location along said track that is closer to one of the fixed bollards for permitting the passage of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Roach teaches the support structure (2) is a box-channel comprising a bottom wall, a first side wall a second side wall (47), first and second end closures and a top structure (55), wherein the first side wall is in opposing spaced relationship with the second side wall; wherein the below ground aspect of the support structure comprises the bottom wall (See Figure 4), and at least a portion of the first and second side walls of the box channel; and wherein said series of coupling members (45, 46) of the mounting structure extends outwardly of the first and/or second side walls.
Regarding claim 3, Roach teaches the coupling members (45, 46) of said series each comprise a plate comprising apertures (42, 43 extend through) for receiving or having received therein reinforcing bars (42, 43).
Regarding claim 15, Roach teaches at least one moveable bollard (6, 7) is affixed to a carriage (520, which carriage engages said track (47) within the box channel such that the moveable bollard is linearly moveable bi-directionally along said first axis (Page 9, Lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 16, Roach teaches the carriage (52) comprises at least two spaced carriage plates (53/54, and bottom plate wrapped around 47), the carriage plates for coupling to the track (47) provided at least in part within the box channel (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, Roach teaches the two spaced plates comprise a first carriage plate and a second carriage plate (53/54, and bottom plate wrapped around 47); and wherein the first carriage plate (53, 54) is disposed at an elevation that is above an elevation at which the second carriage plate (attachment around 47 below 53, 54) is disposed such that the first carriage plate is further from the bottom wall of the box channel than the second carriage plate (Figure 4).
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.
Claim(s) 30, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roach (AU2004201403).
Regarding claim 30, Roach teaches assembling the vehicle security barrier apparatus, the kit comprising:(i) a support structure (2) for being disposed at least partially below ground (Figure 4), the support structure having a below ground aspect and an above-ground aspect (Figure 4); (ii) a track (47) provided at least in part within the support structure; (iii) at least three upright bollards (6, 7, 8, 9) for being mounted to said support structure, two of the at least three bollards (8,9) for being rigidly fixed to the support structure and at least one of said bollards (6,7) for being movably coupled to the support structure; and (iv) a mounting structure for being anchored to the below-ground aspect of the support structure and comprising a series of coupling members (45, 46) extending outward of the below-ground aspect of the support structure; where, in an assembled state, the two fixed bollards (8, 9) are spaced apart from one another and define a first axis therebetween; said at least one moveable bollard (6, 7) is movably coupled to the track such that the at least one movable bollard is moveable relative to the two fixed bollards between a closed position (Figure 1), wherein the movable bollard is disposed between said two fixed bollards for inhibiting the passage of a vehicle therebetween; and an open position (Figure 2), wherein said moveable bollard is moved along said first axis to a location along said track that is closer to one of the fixed bollards for permitting the passage of a vehicle. Roach fails to explicitly teach a kit of parts, however, inherently the vehicle security barrier would be assembled from a kit of the parts needed to assemble the barrier and further the examiner takes official notice that kits are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a kit of the parts of the barrier of Roach as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 31, Roach teaches when installed at a site perimeter, the support structure (2) being disposed at least partially below a ground level; the mounting structure (45, 46) being anchored to the below- ground aspect of the support structure (Figure 4) and comprising a series of coupling members (45, 46) extending outward of the below-ground aspect of the support structure; a series of reinforced steel bars (42, 43) extending through said coupling members; and the mounting structure being embedded below ground by means of a concrete (41) or suitable hardening resin compound. Roach fails to explicitly teach the bars are reinforced steel, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the bars reinforced steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-10, 18-21, 25 and 27 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Heald teaches a security barrier having 2 rigid bollards and one movable bollard.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 December 5, 2025