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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-13 and 15-18 are pending in the application.
In the Preliminary Amendment filed 25 May 2023, claims 1-13 were amended; claim 14 was cancelled; and claims 15-18 were newly added. These amendments have been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figs. 1-3 are objected to because the weight of the lines of the drawings as well as the ref. nos. and their lead lines is insufficient, such that they cannot be clearly reproduced (see US Patent Application Publication 2024/0035241).
Figs. 1-3 are further objected to because the hand-drawn nature of the ref. no. as well as the figure labels makes them difficult to decipher.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following element(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (no new matter should be entered):
“a grid or a net”, as set forth in claim 5;
“at least one shackle and/or at least one cable and/or at least one bolt connection”, as set forth in claim 9;
“a trapping net or a trapping rope”, as set forth in claim 17; and
“at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted exclusively in the rear half of the respective wall element on the wall element”, as set forth in claim 18.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
In line 5 of the second full paragraph on page 9 of the Specification (as amended in the Preliminary Amendment filed 26 May 2023), “wall elements 20” should be replaced with --wall elements 2--.
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 1-13 and 15-18 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.
Re Claims 1 and 13: The phrase "namely" in the preamble of each of these claims renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as though the limitation(s) following this phrase are NOT required, but are merely optional.
Clarification and correction are required.
Re Claims 2-12 and 15-18: These claims are considered indefinite because of their dependency from indefinite claim 1.
Examiner notes that any prior art rejections made in this Office Action are made in view of the claims, as best understood by the Examiner, in view of the above indefiniteness rejections.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Language
From the outset, it should be noted that some of the language in the claims is functional in nature. For example, the language related to a “protection against moving masses, namely avalanches, rockfalls, or loggings” is functional in nature and limited patentable weight is given to this section of the claim. Additionally, Examiner notes that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does and thus, a prior art device must only be capable of performing the stated function in order to read on the functional limitation. In this instance, the prior art discloses every structural limitation of the claim and thus this limitation fails to distinguish the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. Please see MPEP 2114.
[Examiner notes that this section of the Office Action does not constitute a rejection or objection, but is merely meant to indicate the manner in which the claims have been interpreted by the Examiner.]
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schussler (WO 2019/091508, a copy of which was provided by Applicant, along with an English translation, with the IDS filed 09/12/2023).
Re Claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner: Schussler discloses a protective structure (15; see Frigs. 6a-6b) for protection against moving masses (for example, as shown for vehicle 50 in Fig. 6b), namely avalanches, rockfalls, mudslides, or loggings (see note above related to this functional language; further, Examiner notes that, even though Schussler does not explicitly discuss these specific uses, the barrier of Schussler would be capable of being used for such a purpose, as demonstrated by its capacity to protect against a moving vehicle, as shown in Figs. 6a-6b), the structure comprising:
a plurality of ballast-filled wall elements (mesh lattice boxes 1; see mesh boxes 48a-48f in Figs. 6a-6b) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other and spaced apart (see Fig. 6A) on a bearing surface (i.e., the ground surface); and
a connection arrangement (45; see Figs. 4A and 6a-6b) between each two adjacent wall elements (1), which connects the two adjacent wall elements and allows relative movement between the two wall elements (see Fig. 6b);
wherein the wall elements (1) are movable in relation to the bearing surface and in relation to each other by the movable mass for dissipative energy conversion (for example, as shown for the impact of vehicle 50 in Fig. 6b).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
427
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2: Schussler discloses a protective structure (15), having at least three of the ballast-filled wall elements (1; see Figs. 6a-6b).
Re Claim 3: Schussler discloses a protective structure (15), wherein the ballast of the ballast-filled wall elements (1) comprises stones (“filling material, in particular stone”; see Abstract) and/or soil and/or gravel.
Re Claim 5: Schussler discloses a protective structure (15), wherein at least one wall of at least one of the wall elements (1) comprises a grid (see Fig. 1) or a net or a closed surface.
Re Claim 6: Schussler discloses a protective structure (15), wherein the connection arrangement (45) between at least two wall elements (mesh lattice boxes 1; see mesh boxes 48a-48f in Figs. 6a-6b) is configured to allow relative rotational movement (see Fig. 6b) of the two wall elements.
Re Claim 9: Schussler discloses a protective structure (15), wherein the connection arrangement (45) between at least two wall elements comprises at least one chain link and/or at least one shackle (see shackles 49 attached to connecting eyes 44; Fig. 4a) and/or at least one cable (45) and/or at least one bolt connection.
Re Claim 10: Schussler discloses a protective structure (15), wherein the connection arrangement (45) between at least two wall elements (mesh lattice boxes 1; see mesh boxes 48a-48f in Figs. 6a-6b) comprises a plurality of connection devices (at upper and lower connecting eyes 44; Fig. 4a; see parag. [0032] of the translation of Schussler) arranged on top of each other, each connection device being connected to both wall elements.
Re Claim 16: Schussler discloses a protective structure (15), wherein the relative rotational movement (see Fig. 6b) is about the vertical axis.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lifton (US Patent 8,622,650).
Re Claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner: Lifton discloses a protective structure (see Fig. 18) for protection against moving masses, namely avalanches, rockfalls, mudslides, or loggings (see note above related to this functional language), the structure comprising:
a plurality of ballast-filled wall elements (10; “the multi-purpose rotational barrier unit 10 is constructed to house a material therein. While the preferred material is a liquid such as water, the device may also accommodate solid materials such as sand or salt.”; see Col. 8 lines 3-7) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other and spaced apart (see Fig. 18) on a bearing surface (i.e., the surface of the water in aquatic environments or the ground in land-based environments; see abstract); and
a connection arrangement (94; see Fig. 9A) between each two adjacent wall elements (10a, 10b), which connects the two adjacent wall elements and allows relative movement between the two wall elements (see Fig. 6b);
wherein the wall elements (10) are movable in relation to the bearing surface and in relation to each other by the movable mass for dissipative energy conversion.
PNG
media_image3.png
460
1046
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2: Lifton discloses a protective structure, having at least three of the ballast-filled wall elements (10; see Fig. 18).
Re Claim 5: Lifton discloses a protective structure, wherein at least one wall of at least one of the wall elements (10) comprises a grid or a net (for example, see netting 103 in Fig. 10A and/or net 120 in Figs. 11A-11C) or a closed surface (for example, see surface 246 in Fig. 13).
Re Claim 6: Lifton discloses a protective structure, wherein the connection arrangement (94; Fig. 9A) between at least two wall elements (10a, 10b) is configured to allow relative rotational movement of the two wall elements.
Re Claim 7: Lifton discloses a protective structure, wherein the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements (10a, 10b) comprises a trapping structure (103; Fig. 10A).
Re Claim 9: Lifton discloses a protective structure, wherein the connection arrangement (94; Fig. 9A) between at least two wall elements (10a, 10b) comprises at least one chain link (chain 94) and/or at least one shackle (shackle 84) and/or at least one cable and/or at least one bolt connection (bolts 86; see Fig,. 9B).
Re Claim 16: Lifton discloses a protective structure, wherein the relative rotational movement is about the vertical axis.
Re Claim 17: Lifton discloses a protective structure, wherein the trapping structure (103; Fig. 10A) comprises a trapping net (103) or a trapping rope.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Czinki (EP 0562154, a copy of which was provided by Applicant, along with an English translation, with the IDS filed 05/26/2023).
Re Claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner: Czinki discloses a protective structure (47; see Figs. 18-19) for protection against moving masses (for example, as shown for earth material 51), namely avalanches, rockfalls, mudslides, or loggings (see note above related to this functional language), the structure comprising:
a plurality of ballast-filled wall elements (2) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other and spaced apart on a bearing surface (i.e., the ground); and
a connection arrangement (24; see Figs. 12-14) between each two adjacent wall elements (2), which connects the two adjacent wall elements and allows relative movement between the two wall elements (at least a small amount of relative movement would be possible due to the “articulated manner” of the wire mesh mats 2; see parag. [0001] of the translation of Czinki);
wherein the wall elements (2) are movable in relation to the bearing surface and in relation to each other by the movable mass for dissipative energy conversion (see note above related to this functional language; Examiner notes that at least a small amount of movement would be allowed based on the deformable nature of the wire mesh mats 2).
Re Claim 2: Czinki discloses a protective structure, having at least three of the ballast-filled wall elements (2; see Figs. 18-19).
Re Claim 3: Czinki discloses a protective structure, wherein the ballast of the ballast-filled wall elements (2) comprises stones and/or soil and/or gravel (“into which earth or stone material is filled”; see parag. [0001] of the translation).
Re Claim 5: Czinki discloses a protective structure, wherein at least one wall (3, 4, 5) of at least one of the wall elements comprises a grid (see Figs. 5-8 and 18) or a net or a closed surface.
Re Claim 6: Czinki discloses a protective structure, wherein the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements (2) is configured to allow relative rotational movement of the two wall elements (for example, due to the “articulated manner” of the wire mesh mats 2; see parag. [0001]).
Re Claim 9: Czinki discloses a protective structure, wherein the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements (2) comprises at least one chain link (see chain link 81; Fig. 23) and/or at least one shackle and/or at least one cable and/or at least one bolt connection.
Re Claim 13: Czinki discloses a method of protection against moving masses, namely avalanches, rockfalls, mudslides and loggings, the method comprising:
erecting a protective structure (47; Figs. 18-19) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) on an incline or on a bottom of an incline (51; see Fig. 18), such that the wall elements (2) are movable in relation to each other and across the bearing surface by a mass moving down the incline (Examiner notes that at least a small amount of movement would be allowed based on the deformable nature of the wire mesh mats 2).
Re Claim 16: Czinki discloses a protective structure, wherein the relative rotational movement is about the vertical axis (for example, due to the “articulated manner” of the wire mesh mats 2; see parag. [0001]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schussler (WO 2019/091508).
Re Claim 4: Schussler, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except it does not explicitly disclose wherein a ballast volume of the wall elements comprises at least 0.5 cubic meters.
Examiner notes that it has been held that a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)[discussed in MPEP 2144.04].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schussler, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that a ballast volume of the wall elements comprises at least 0.5 cubic meters, for the purpose of ensuring an adequate mass for the protective structure, and since such a modification would involve a mere change in in the size of a component.
Re Claim 15: Schussler, as discussed for claim 5 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except it does not explicitly disclose wherein the grid, net, or closed surface comprises sheet metal.
Examiner notes that it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) [discussed in MPEP 2144.07].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schussler, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the grid, net, or closed surface comprises sheet metal, for the purpose of ensuring adequate strength, and since such a modification would involve a mere selection of a known material.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifton (US Patent 8,622,650).
Re Claim 4: Lifton, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except it does not explicitly disclose wherein a ballast volume of the wall elements comprises at least 0.5 cubic meters.
Examiner notes that it has been held that a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)[discussed in MPEP 2144.04].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lifton, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that a ballast volume of the wall elements comprises at least 0.5 cubic meters, for the purpose of ensuring an adequate mass for the protective structure, and since such a modification would involve a mere change in in the size of a component.
Re Claim 15: Lifton, as discussed for claim 5 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except it does not explicitly disclose wherein the grid, net, or closed surface comprises sheet metal.
Examiner notes that it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) [discussed in MPEP 2144.07].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lifton, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the grid, net, or closed surface comprises sheet metal, for the purpose of ensuring adequate strength, and since such a modification would involve a mere selection of a known material.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinki (EP 0562154).
Re Claim 4: Czinki, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except it does not explicitly disclose wherein a ballast volume of the wall elements comprises at least 0.5 cubic meters.
Examiner notes that it has been held that a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)[discussed in MPEP 2144.04].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Czinki, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that a ballast volume of the wall elements comprises at least 0.5 cubic meters, for the purpose of ensuring an adequate mass for the protective structure, and since such a modification would involve a mere change in in the size of a component.
Re Claim 15: Czinki, as discussed for claim 5 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except it does not explicitly disclose wherein the grid, net, or closed surface comprises sheet metal.
Examiner notes that it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) [discussed in MPEP 2144.07].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Czinki, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the grid, net, or closed surface comprises sheet metal, for the purpose of ensuring adequate strength, and since such a modification would involve a mere selection of a known material.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schussler (WO 2019/091508) in view of Tullis (US Patent 7,654,768).
Re Claim 8: Schussler, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except wherein the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements comprises a braking element.
Tullis teaches the use of a protective structure comprising a plurality of wall elements (113A-113D; see Fig. 4) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other and spaced apart on a bearing surface; a connection arrangement (tie bars 161A, 161B, 163A, 163B; see Fig. 9) between each two adjacent wall elements, which connects the two adjacent wall elements and allows relative movement between the two wall elements; wherein the wall elements are movable in relation to the bearing surface and in relation to each other; and further wherein the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements comprises a braking element (“frictional braking means”; see Col. 17 lines 14-16), for the purpose of providing a controlled relative movement.
PNG
media_image4.png
298
925
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 to modify the device of Schussler, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements comprises a braking element, as taught by Tullis, for the purpose of providing a controlled relative movement.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifton (US Patent 8,622,650) in view of Tullis (US Patent 7,654,768).
Re Claim 8: Lifton, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except wherein the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements comprises a braking element.
Tullis teaches the use of a protective structure comprising a plurality of wall elements (113A-113D; see Fig. 4) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other and spaced apart on a bearing surface; a connection arrangement (tie bars 161A, 161B, 163A, 163B; see Fig. 9) between each two adjacent wall elements, which connects the two adjacent wall elements and allows relative movement between the two wall elements; wherein the wall elements are movable in relation to the bearing surface and in relation to each other; and further wherein the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements comprises a braking element (“frictional braking means”; see Col. 17 lines 14-16), for the purpose of providing a controlled relative movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lifton, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements comprises a braking element, as taught by Tullis, for the purpose of providing a controlled relative movement.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinki (EP 0562154) in view of Tullis (US Patent 7,654,768).
Re Claim 8: Czinki, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except wherein the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements comprises a braking element.
Tullis teaches the use of a protective structure comprising a plurality of wall elements (113A-113D; see Fig. 4) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other and spaced apart on a bearing surface; a connection arrangement (tie bars 161A, 161B, 163A, 163B; see Fig. 9) between each two adjacent wall elements, which connects the two adjacent wall elements and allows relative movement between the two wall elements; wherein the wall elements are movable in relation to the bearing surface and in relation to each other; and further wherein the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements comprises a braking element (“frictional braking means”; see Col. 17 lines 14-16), for the purpose of providing a controlled relative movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Czinki, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the connection arrangement between at least two wall elements comprises a braking element, as taught by Tullis, for the purpose of providing a controlled relative movement.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schussler (WO 2019/091508) in view of Welch (US Patent 9,677,233).
Re Claim 8: Schussler, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed, wherein the wall elements have a front face facing the movable mass and a rear face opposite the front face.
Schussler fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted to the wall element exclusively in the front half of the respective wall element (as is required by claim 11); and wherein at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted exclusively in the rear half of the respective wall element on the wall element (as is required by claim 18).
Welch teaches the use of a protective structure comprising a plurality of ballast-filled wall elements (1; see Fig. 3) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other on a bearing surface; a connection arrangement (3, 4) between each two adjacent wall elements, which connects the two adjacent wall elements and allows relative movement between the two wall elements; wherein the wall elements (1) are movable in relation to the bearing surface and in relation to each other; and further wherein at least one connection arrangement (3, 4) between at least two wall elements (1) is mounted to the wall element exclusively in a front/rear half of the respective wall element (see Figs. 3-6), for the purpose of allowing for a specified relative movement in a frontward/rearward direction (see Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image5.png
385
1016
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schussler, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted to the wall element exclusively in the front half of the respective wall element (as is required by claim 11); and/or wherein at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted exclusively in the rear half of the respective wall element on the wall element (as is required by claim 18), as taught by Welch, for the purpose of allowing for a specified relative movement in a frontward/rearward direction, depending on the needs of a particular use of the protective structure.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifton (US Patent 8,622,650) in view of Welch (US Patent 9,677,233).
Re Claim 8: Lifton, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed, wherein the wall elements have a front face facing the movable mass and a rear face opposite the front face.
Lifton fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted to the wall element exclusively in the front half of the respective wall element (as is required by claim 11); and wherein at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted exclusively in the rear half of the respective wall element on the wall element (as is required by claim 18).
Welch teaches the use of a protective structure comprising a plurality of ballast-filled wall elements (1; see Fig. 3) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other on a bearing surface; a connection arrangement (3, 4) between each two adjacent wall elements, which connects the two adjacent wall elements and allows relative movement between the two wall elements; wherein the wall elements (1) are movable in relation to the bearing surface and in relation to each other; and further wherein at least one connection arrangement (3, 4) between at least two wall elements (1) is mounted to the wall element exclusively in a front/rear half of the respective wall element (see Figs. 3-6), for the purpose of allowing for a specified relative movement in a frontward/rearward direction (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lifton, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted to the wall element exclusively in the front half of the respective wall element (as is required by claim 11); and/or wherein at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted exclusively in the rear half of the respective wall element on the wall element (as is required by claim 18), as taught by Welch, for the purpose of allowing for a specified relative movement in a frontward/rearward direction, depending on the needs of a particular use of the protective structure.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinki (EP 0562154) in view of Welch (US Patent 9,677,233).
Re Claim 8: Czinki, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed, wherein the wall elements have a front face facing the movable mass and a rear face opposite the front face.
Czinki fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted to the wall element exclusively in the front half of the respective wall element (as is required by claim 11); and wherein at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted exclusively in the rear half of the respective wall element on the wall element (as is required by claim 18).
Welch teaches the use of a protective structure comprising a plurality of ballast-filled wall elements (1; see Fig. 3) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other on a bearing surface; a connection arrangement (3, 4) between each two adjacent wall elements, which connects the two adjacent wall elements and allows relative movement between the two wall elements; wherein the wall elements (1) are movable in relation to the bearing surface and in relation to each other; and further wherein at least one connection arrangement (3, 4) between at least two wall elements (1) is mounted to the wall element exclusively in a front/rear half of the respective wall element (see Figs. 3-6), for the purpose of allowing for a specified relative movement in a frontward/rearward direction (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Czinki, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted to the wall element exclusively in the front half of the respective wall element (as is required by claim 11); and/or wherein at least one connection arrangement between at least two wall elements is mounted exclusively in the rear half of the respective wall element on the wall element (as is required by claim 18), as taught by Welch, for the purpose of allowing for a specified relative movement in a frontward/rearward direction, depending on the needs of a particular use of the protective structure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schussler (WO 2019/091508) in view of Liu (CN 107905130, a copy if which was provided, along with an English translation, with the IDS filed 09/12/2023).
Re Claim 12: Schussler, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except wherein one or more wall elements of the protective structure comprise a shipping container.
Liu teaches the use of a protective structure comprising a plurality of ballast-filled wall elements (1) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other on a bearing surface; and further wherein one or more wall elements of the protective structure comprise a shipping container (1), for the purpose of reducing costs by using recycled/reused materials.
PNG
media_image6.png
359
679
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 to modify the device of Schussler, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that one or more wall elements of the protective structure comprise a shipping container, as taught by Liu, for the purpose of reducing costs by using recycled/reused materials.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifton (US Patent 8,622,650) in view of Liu (CN 107905130).
Re Claim 12: Lifton, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except wherein one or more wall elements of the protective structure comprise a shipping container.
Liu teaches the use of a protective structure comprising a plurality of ballast-filled wall elements (1) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other on a bearing surface; and further wherein one or more wall elements of the protective structure comprise a shipping container (1), for the purpose of reducing costs by using recycled/reused materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lifton, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that one or more wall elements of the protective structure comprise a shipping container, as taught by Liu, for the purpose of reducing costs by using recycled/reused materials.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinki (EP 0562154) in view of Liu (CN 107905130).
Re Claim 12: Czinki, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses a protective structure significantly as claimed except wherein one or more wall elements of the protective structure comprise a shipping container.
Liu teaches the use of a protective structure comprising a plurality of ballast-filled wall elements (1) arranged in a manner adjacent to each other on a bearing surface; and further wherein one or more wall elements of the protective structure comprise a shipping container (1), for the purpose of reducing costs by using recycled/reused materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Czinki, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that one or more wall elements of the protective structure comprise a shipping container, as taught by Liu, for the purpose of reducing costs by using recycled/reused materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MCMAHON whose telephone number is (571)270-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571) 270-5281. 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.
/MATTHEW R MCMAHON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678