DETAILED ACTION This is a final Office action addressing the response dated 06 March 2026. The following is the status of the claims at present: Claims 1-12 are pending. Of those: Claim 1 is amended, and Claims 2-12 are unamended. Claim 13 is cancelled. 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. Response to Arguments The following addresses applicant’s remarks/arguments dated 06 March 2026. Applicant’s courtesies were appreciated. Claim rejections – 35 USC 102 (response: beginning page 5) - Applicant’s arguments are addressed to the claims as amended, which the examiner addresses below. As a result, the examiner will not repeat the position here for brevity. Claim rejections – 35 USC 103 (response: beginning page 6) - Applicant’s arguments with respect to the incorporation of the Miller reference are noted but respectfully not persuasive. As an initial matter, applicant argues a rejection of claim 7 incorporating Miller, however, the examiner rejected the claim citing Goellner (U.S. Patent 4,588,324). To expedite prosecution, the examiner interprets “Miller” is intended as “Goellner”. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s position regarding requiring extensive modification of New Green to achieve what is taught in Goellner. As shown , Goellner is similar in function to the system in New Green, and the examiner takes the position that the only difference in the shaft in New Green and the Shaft (17) in Goellner is that Goellner has a nut (41, 42) at both ends as shown. This would not require substantial modification of the system in New Green, as having a nut at both ends would permit adjustment at both ends of the shaft while functioning in holding the system together as intended. The examiner maintains the combination of the prior art is obvious and proper. Regarding the incorporation of the Hughes reference (response: page 7), the examiner maintains the rejection is proper. Hugh e s was incorporated to teach that elastomeric materials are used in such systems, and not for the other features already taught in New Green. The elastomeric material would achieve the same function as the spring in New Green by permitting resilient flexibility. As a result, the examiner maintains the combination of the prior art is obvious and proper. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2-4 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. Claim 2: “a socket” is indefinite as this limitation has already been claimed. For examination purposes the examiner interprets as though this is the same socket provided in claim 1. “ [T] he tie member” lacks antecedent basis as this limitation has not yet been provided. Claim 3: “the tie member” lacks antecedent basis; “a shaft section” is indefinite as this has already been claimed”; “a foot section” has already been claimed; the claim includes language that is redundant of language provided in amended claim 1. Claim 4: the claim includes language redundant of language provided in amended claim 1. 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. Below is a reproduction of the presented claims with the examiner’s comments in bold italics . Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by New Green (KR 101213761 B1), attached translation provided from https://patents.google.com/patent/KR101213761B1/en 1. (Currently Amended) A protector bollard having: a base member (141a) for rigid attachment to a solid flooring or footing structure (via apertures, which are not labeled but clearly shown) ; a post member (110) including a rigid body configured to provide a physical resistance to the motion of a vehicle (as per its purpose) ; a pivoting connection (individually labeled in the claim below) between the base member and the post member (as shown) , wherein the pivoting connection including (i) a shaft section (see annotated figure below below) , and (ii) a foot section (143b) joined to a lower end of the shaft section (as shown) , the foot section having a cross-sectional area greater than a cross-sectional area of the shaft section (as shown) ; the base member including a socket (141b) having a concave surface configured to receive the foot section (as shown, the foot section nests in the socket) ; one or more resilient members (spring, 145c) disposed between a bottom plate of the post member and an upper tie plate (145a) ; wherein pivoting movement of the post member relative to the base member occurs by movement of the foot section within the concave surface of the socket (as shown and as would occur based on the configuration of the system) . 1628775 2308860 shaft 0 20000 shaft 1971675 2489835 center 0 Figure from New Green Claim 2: New Green provides The protector bollard as claimed in claim 1, wherein the base member includes a socket (141b) configured to engage with the lower end of the tie member ( threaded portion of the shaft and including nut 143c ) . Claim 3: New Green provides The protector bollard as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tie member includes a shaft section (as labeled ) and a foot (143 b ) section, the foot section being joined to a lower end of the shaft section (as shown) , and the foot section having a cross sectional area that is greater than a cross sectional area of the shaft section (as shown) . Claim 4: New Green provides The protector bollard as claimed in claim 3, wherein the socket includes a concave surface (as shown) that is configured to engage with the foot section of the tie member (as shown) in a manner that allows the tie member to pivot relative to the base member (as shown, the prior art has full capability of achieving the claimed ability to pivot) . Claim 5: New Green provides The protector bollard as claimed claim 1, wherein the connection between the upper end of the tie member and the upper tie plate is adjustable (this occurs via 143c) and configured to allow the or each resilient member to be compressed between the bottom plate of the post member and the upper tie plate (as would occur via tightening the connection of the tie via the nut) . Claim 6: New Green provides The protector bollard as claimed in claim 5, wherein the adjustable connection between the upper end of the tie member and the upper tie plate includes a threaded connection (as shown 143c is a nut threaded on the shaft) . Claim 10: New Green provides The protector bollard as claimed in claim 1, wherein the or each resilient member is a spring (145c as shown and disclosed) . Claim 11: New Green provides The protector bollard as claimed in claim 1, wherein the bottom plate of the post member has a removable connection to the rigid body of the post member (as shown, the system may be assembled or disassembled) . Claim 12: New Green provides The protector bollard as claimed in claim 11, wherein the removable connection between the bottom plate and the rigid body is a bolted connection (as occurs via 143c) . 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 nonobviousness. Below is a substantial reproduction of the presented claims addressing all limitations with the examiner’s comments in bold italics . Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over New Green in view of Goellner (U.S. Patent 4,588,324) . Claim 7: New Green provides The protector bollard as claimed in claim 6, except wherein the upper end of the tie member is threaded, with the thread being configured to mate with a mating thread in the upper tie plate or in a nut situated above the upper tie plate. Goellner teaches a similar system that incorporates upper and lower threaded portions that are received by nuts (41 and 42). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of duplication of parts to have this limitation because duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza , 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP §2144.04. Further, i t would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the parts as necessary because rearrangement of parts is considered an obvious matter of design choice. (See In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)(the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.) One having ordinary skill in the art would have the tie member threaded with a nut as claimed based on the desired means for securing the assembly. To have threaded portions with nuts at the upper and lower ends would not depart from the scope of operability of the prior art as modified. Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over New Green in view of Hughes, Jr. (U.S. Patent 9,528,231 B2) . Claim 8: New Green discloses The protector bollard as claimed in claim 1, except wherein the or each resilient member is made of an elastomeric material. Hughes, Jr. teaches a similar bollard system that incorporates a resilient member (55, 56) that can be elastomeric material (1150; see description of Fig. 11, beginning at Col. 8, line 7; it is disclosed as rubber which is elastomeric). It would have been obvious at the time of filing to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an elastomeric material as a functional equivalent to the spring in New Green that would function equally as well. Rubber is known for its relative durability and resistance to corrosion. Claim 9: The obvious modification of the prior art provides The protector bollard as claimed in claim 8, wherein each resilient member comprises a cylinder of elastomeric material (as shown in Hughes, Jr., the resilient member is rubber and cylindrical in shape and the spring in New Green has an overall cylindrical shape) . 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9055 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Eileen Lillis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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