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 .
Amendments to claims 1-5, 7, 14, 20, 22, 23, and 26, filed 17 October 2025 have been entered into the above-identified application. Claims 19, 28, and 29 have been canceled. Claims 9 and 10 have been added. Claims 1-9, 12-15, 20, 22, 23, and 26 are currently pending.
Specification
The amendment filed 17 October 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Amended paragraph [0149] states the crowd control barrier comprises a channel 604 extending along its upper or bottom edge. However, the original specification and drawings do not support the addition of channel 604 being located along the bottom edge of the crowd control barrier.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 12, 15, 20, 22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (WO98/31870) in view of Russo (U.S. 2004/0173785).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a crowd control barrier system comprising a crowd control barrier (12), first and second crowd control barrier posts (both 26), the crowd control barrier (12) comprising a first side edge and a second side edge (both seen in fig 3), the first side edge and second side edge (see fig 3) being affixed (via 16.1 and 16.2 engaged with 26, see fig 4), in use, to the first and second crowd control barrier posts (both 26) respectively, the crowd control barrier (12) comprising a single piece of knitted fabric (page 2, lines 5-6 describes a knitted material), and having releasable attachment means (engagement of 16.1 and 16.2 to 26, see figs 3 and 4) for releasably attaching the crowd control barrier (12) to the first and second crowd control barrier posts (both 26).
Smith is silent as to the knitted fabric being folded to form a crowd control barrier having two layers of fabric.
Russo teaches a similar barrier device where the fabric is folded in order to form a barrier with two layers of fabric ([0033], and seen in figs 5 and 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the noted features of Russo with the teachings of Smith, since the combination of the two references is merely a simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rational B). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the folded fabric of Russo to create a barrier out of a single piece of fabric of Smith. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable results renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Smith teaches a crowd control barrier (12) comprising a first side edge and a second side edge (both seen in fig 3), the first side edge and second side edge being affixed (via 16.1 and 16.2 engaged with 26, see fig 4), in use, to first and second crowd control barrier posts (26) respectively, the crowd control barrier (12) comprising a single piece of knitted fabric (page 2, lines 5-6 describes a knitted material), and having releasable attachment means (engagement of 16.1 and 16.2 to 26, see figs 3 and 4) for releasably attaching the crowd control barrier (12) to the first and second crowd control barrier posts (both 26).
Smith is silent as to the knitted fabric being folded to form a crowd control barrier having two layers of fabric.
Russo teaches a similar barrier device where the fabric is folded in order to form a barrier with two layers of fabric ([0033], and seen in figs 5 and 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the noted features of Russo with the teachings of Smith, since the combination of the two references is merely a simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rational B). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the folded fabric of Russo to create a barrier out of a single piece of fabric of Smith. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable results renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 2. Smith and Russo further teach comprising a channel extending along its top edge (as taught by the combination of Smith and Russo above), the channel, in use, housing supporting means (cord 16.1 of Smith).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 2. Smith, though not specifically described as a material that is stretchable, the barrier 12 is made from a flexible knitted material (page 2, lines 5-6), of which 60-75% of which is comprised with apertures (page 8, lines 11-13), all of which would allow the elastic-type of flexibility in the fabric of the barrier 12. Smith and Russo therefore disclose the claimed invention except for the direction of greatest stretch in the fabric runs from the top edge of the battier to the bottom edge of the barrier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to orient the fabric in a direction that is most desirable for the application, including with the greatest stretch in a direction between the top edge and the bottom edge of the barrier, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 2. Smith and Russo further teach comprising a plurality of apertures (12.1 Smith). Smith and Russo disclose the claimed invention except for the diameter of the apertures being between 1mm and 5mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize apertures to a size as desired for the application, including between 1mm and 5mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 6. Smith further teaches wherein the plurality of apertures (12.1) is located about at least a portion of a circumference (page 8, lines 11-13) of the crowd control barrier (12).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 3. Smith and Russo further teach wherein the channel (as defined by the combination of Smith and Russo) houses supporting means (as seen in figs 1 and 6 Smith), the supporting means (16.1 Smith) being an elongate member (16.1 is described as a cord page 8, lines 16-17 of Smith).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 8. Smith and Russo further teach wherein the elongate member (16.1 Smith) protrudes from each end of the channel (as seen in figs 1 and 2 Smith).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 8. Smith and Russo further teach wherein the elongate member (16.1 Smith) is secured to the channel (cord 16.1 of Smith can be knitted into the fabric and therefore secured, page 8 lines 16-17). Smith and Russo disclose the claimed invention except for the elongate member is secured to the channel at a point within 20 cm of each end of the channel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to secure the elongate member to the channel at a point within 20 cm of each end of the channel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 3. Smith and Russo further teach wherein the channel (as taught by the combination of Smith and Russo) is formed by a fold ([0033] as seen in fig 6 of Russo) in the fabric forming the crowd control barrier (12 Smith).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 15. Smith and Russo further teach wherein the fold (as seen in fig 5 of Russo) is positioned along the top edge of the crowd control barrier (12 Smith, as per the combination above), and a channel is formed by sealing a horizontal line (via stitches 140 Russo) along a length of the crowd control barrier (12 Smith), parallel to the fold (see fig 5 Russo).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 2. Russo further teaches wherein the two layers of fabric comprise a first side and a second side (both sides as shown in fig 5, on either side of the fold), and wherein the first side and the second side are spaced from each other along at least a portion of their height (as seen in fig 5 of Russo). Smith and Russo disclose the claimed invention except for the first side and second side are spaced apart from each other along at least a portion of their height by a distance of between 2 and 10 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sides of the barrier be spaced apart along the height by a distance of between 2 and 10cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 26, Smith teaches a kit of parts comprising a crowd control barrier (12) and first and second crowd control barrier posts ( both 26), the crowd control barrier (12) comprising a first side edge and a second side edge (both seen in fig 3), the first side edge and second side edge (see fig 3) being affixed (via 16.1 and 16.2 engaged with 26, see fig 4), in use, to the first and second crowd control barrier posts (both 26) respectively, the crowd control barrier (12) comprising a single piece of knitted fabric (page 2, lines 5-6 describes a knitted material) and having releasable attachment means (engagement of 16.1 and 16.2 to 26, see figs 3 and 4) for releasably attaching the crowd control barrier (12) to the first and second crowd control barrier posts (both 26).
Smith is silent as to the knitted fabric being folded to form a crowd control barrier having two layers of fabric.
Russo teaches a similar barrier device where the fabric is folded in order to form a barrier with two layers of fabric ([0033], and seen in figs 5 and 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the noted features of Russo with the teachings of Smith, since the combination of the two references is merely a simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rational B). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the folded fabric of Russo to create a barrier out of a single piece of fabric of Smith. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable results renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (WO98/31870) in view of Russo (U.S. 2004/0173785) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of McNeill (U.S. 2018/0020781).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier according to claim 2. While Smith teaches a crowd control barrier (12), it does not teach that the crowd control barrier is elasticated along its bottom edge.
McNeill teaches a similar crowd control barrier where the barrier is elasticated throughout, including its bottom edge (base 12 is described as elastic in [0036]).
Smith, Russo, and McNeill are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of barrier devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Smith and Russo to incorporate the teachings of McNeill and provide a crowd control barrier that is elasticated along its bottom edge. Doing so would ensure the barrier would be held taught during installation to reduce the instances of sagging.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (WO98/31870) in view of Russo (U.S. 2004/0173785) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Huebner (U.S. 5,394,927).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier according to claim 8. While Smith teaches an elongate member (16.1), it does not teach that the elongate member is elastic.
Huebner teaches a similar barrier device where the elongate member is elastic (column 4, lines 62-64).
Smith, Russo, and Huebner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of barrier devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Huebner and provide an elongate member that is elastic. Doing so would ensure the barrier would be held taught during installation to reduce the instances of sagging.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Smith, Russo, and Huebner teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 13. Huebner further teaches wherein the length of the portion of the elastic (as taught above) elongate member which is housed within the channel is up to 10% shorter than the length of the channel (Huebner teaches the elastic elongate member being shorter than the length of the net, column 5, lines 42-47).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (WO98/31870) in view of Russo (U.S. 2004/0173785) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mohn (U.S. 2018/0142495).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Smith and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier according to claim 2. Neither Smith nor Russo teaches that the lowered edge of the crowd control barrier (12) is angled outwardly at an angle of up to 50°.
Mohn teaches a similar barrier device where the lower edge of the crowd control barrier is angled outwardly at an angle of up to 50° (as seen in fig 6, VELCRO strips 31 of screen 15 are attached to corresponding strip 31 on ground strip 32, seen in fig 7 [0054], and therefore the lower edge of the screen is angled outwardly. While the specific angle is not defined in the prior art of Mohn, the pillars 14 are arranged at an angle between 25° and 40° [0040], and the angle of the barrier would be in that range as well).
Smith, Russo, and Mohn are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of barrier devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Smith and Russo to incorporate the teachings of Mohn and provide a crowd control barrier where the lower edge is angled outwardly at an angle of up to 50°. Doing so would allow the barrier to better resist the effects of wind.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the independent claims to bring in the limitation from canceled claim 19 that the crowd control barrier is comprised from a single piece of fabric that is folded, forming a barrier having two layers of fabric. Applicant argues that the combination of the prior art of Smith and Russo does not teach the amended independent claims and instead only teaches the material of the barrier folded over itself to receive a stiffening member. However, the barrier fabric being folded over itself creates a barrier with two layers of fabric. Applicant, in figure 3, for example, also shows the barrier fabric folded over itself creating a barrier with two layers of fabric. In applicant’s figure 3, the barrier material does not create a barrier with two layers of fabric over the entire width of the barrier, and the combination of Smith and Russo would create the same type of folded barrier, and therefore the combination of prior art teaches the claimed invention.
Applicant’s replacement drawing and claim amendments have resolved the drawing objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the non-final office action.
As noted above in this rejection, applicant’s specification amendments have introduced new matter which must be addressed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631