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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 July 2026 has been entered. Amendments to claims 1, 2, 9, 12, 13, 22, and 26 have been entered. Claims 3, 8, 15, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 52-55 have been added. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 12-14, 22-23, 26, and 52-55 are currently pending
Drawings
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 first layer of fabric and the second layer of fabric are sealed together along their bottom edge from claim 52, wherein the first layer of fabric and the second layer of fabric are held apart by spacers from claim 53, wherein the spacers are positioned between the first layer of fabric and the second layer of fabric of claim 54, and wherein one or more horizontal must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claim 55 is 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 55 recites “wherein one or more horizontal ribs of stiffened fabric extend along at least a portion of a width or a height of the crowd control barrier member to retain a set spacing between the first layer of fabric and the second layer of fabric. Claim 55 depends upon claim 54 which defines spacers positioned between the first layer of fabric and the second layer of fabric. Claim 54 depends upon claim 53 which recites spacers holding the first layer of fabric and second layer of fabric apart from one another. It is therefore not clear if the horizontal ribs of stiffened fabric are the spacers that hold the first and second fabric layers apart, or if the horizontal ribs of stiffened fabric are an additional element that also holds the first and second fabric layers apart. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the horizontal ribs of stiffened fabric to be the spacers defined in claims 53 and 54, however, clarification is required.
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, 2, 5-7, 9, 12, 22, 26, and 52-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (WO98/31870) in view of Hornblad (U.S. 4,937,962) and 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) having releasable attachments for releasably attaching the crowd control barrier to the first and second crowd control barrier posts (engagement of 16.1 and 16.2 to 26, see figs 3 and 4).
Smith is silent as to the knitted fabric being folded to form a crowd control barrier having two layers of fabric.
Hornblad teaches a similar barrier device where the barrier is made from a single piece of fabric which has been folded (see fig 3) to form a crowd control barrier having a first layer of fabric (26) and a second layer of fabric (27), the fold being positioned along a top edge (as seen in fig 3 and described in column 3 lines 42-48), wherein the single piece of fabric is printed on one side with a first print and a second print (column 3 lines 13-37 describes the barrier having a printed message or printed visual background), such that the first layer of fabric of the crowd control barrier has the first print and the second layer of fabric of the crowd control barrier has the second print (as per the combination above, when the barrier is folded, the two sides would have a printed message or printed visual background).
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 Hornblad 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 Hornblad to create a barrier out of a single piece of fabric of Smith. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing predictable results renders the claim obvious.
The combination of Smith and Hornblad is silent as to the crowd control barrier forming a channel by sealing a horizontal line along a length of the crowd control barrier parallel to the fold, the channel housing an elongate member.
Russo teaches a similar crowd control barrier utilizing a single piece of folded material where a channel is formed by sealing a horizontal line (as seen in fig 5) along a length of the crowd control barrier, parallel to the fold (as seen in fig 5), the channel configured to house an elongate member.
Smith, Hornblad, and Russo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of barriers. 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 Hornblad to incorporate the teachings of Russo and provide a formed channel to house an elongate member by sealing a horizontal line along a length of the crowd control barrier parallel to the fold. Doing so would provide a secure way to incorporate the elongate member without adding additional reinforcement elements, simplifying the design of the crowd control barrier.
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 (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) having releasable attachments for releasably attaching the crowd control barrier to the first and second crowd control barrier posts (engagement of 16.1 and 16.2 to 26, see figs 3 and 4).
Smith is silent as to the knitted fabric being folded to form a crowd control barrier having two layers of fabric.
Hornblad teaches a similar barrier device where the barrier is made from a single piece of fabric which has been folded (see fig 3) to form a crowd control barrier having a first layer of fabric (26) and a second layer of fabric (27), the fold being positioned along a top edge (as seen in fig 3 and described in column 3 lines 42-48), wherein the single piece of fabric is printed on one side with a first print and a second print (column 3 lines 13-37 describes the barrier having a printed message or printed visual background), such that the first layer of fabric of the crowd control barrier has the first print and the second layer of fabric of the crowd control barrier has the second print (as per the combination above, when the barrier is folded, the two sides would have a printed message or printed visual background).
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 Hornblad 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 Hornblad to create a barrier out of a single piece of fabric of Smith. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing predictable results renders the claim obvious.
The combination of Smith and Hornblad is silent as to the crowd control barrier forming a channel by sealing a horizontal line along a length of the crowd control barrier parallel to the fold, the channel housing an elongate member.
Russo teaches a similar crowd control barrier utilizing a single piece of folded material where a channel is formed by sealing a horizontal line (as seen in fig 5) along a length of the crowd control barrier, parallel to the fold (as seen in fig 5), the channel configured to house an elongate member.
Smith, Hornblad, and Russo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of barriers. 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 Hornblad to incorporate the teachings of Russo and provide a formed channel to house an elongate member by sealing a horizontal line along a length of the crowd control barrier parallel to the fold. Doing so would provide a secure way to incorporate the elongate member without adding additional reinforcement elements, simplifying the design of the crowd control barrier.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Smith, Hornblad, 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 barrier 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, Hornblad, and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 2. Smith further teaches comprising a plurality of apertures (12.1). Smith, Hornblad, 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, Hornblad, 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 9, the combination of Smith, Hornblad, and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 2. 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, Hornblad, and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 2. Smith, Hornblad, 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 22, the combination of Smith, Hornblad, and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 2. Hornblad further teaches the first layer of fabric (26 Hornblad) and the second layer of fabric (27 Hornblad). While Hornblad teaches the layers of fabric being the same length, Russo teaches the two layers of fabric being different lengths (as seen in fig 5 of Russo).
The combination of Smith, Hornblad, and Russo disclose the claimed invention except for the first layer of fabric and the second layer of fabric 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 (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) having releasable attachments for releasably attaching the crowd control barrier to the first and second crowd control barrier posts (engagement of 16.1 and 16.2 to 26, see figs 3 and 4).
Smith is silent as to the knitted fabric being folded to form a crowd control barrier having two layers of fabric.
Hornblad teaches a similar barrier device where the barrier is made from a single piece of fabric which has been folded (see fig 3) to form a crowd control barrier having a first layer of fabric (26) and a second layer of fabric (27), the fold being positioned along a top edge (as seen in fig 3 and described in column 3 lines 42-48), wherein the single piece of fabric is printed on one side with a first print and a second print (column 3 lines 13-37 describes the barrier having a printed message or printed visual background), such that the first layer of fabric of the crowd control barrier has the first print and the second layer of fabric of the crowd control barrier has the second print (as per the combination above, when the barrier is folded, the two sides would have a printed message or printed visual background).
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 Hornblad 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 Hornblad to create a barrier out of a single piece of fabric of Smith. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing predictable results renders the claim obvious.
The combination of Smith and Hornblad is silent as to the crowd control barrier forming a channel by sealing a horizontal line along a length of the crowd control barrier parallel to the fold, the channel housing an elongate member.
Russo teaches a similar crowd control barrier utilizing a single piece of folded material where a channel is formed by sealing a horizontal line (as seen in fig 5) along a length of the crowd control barrier, parallel to the fold (as seen in fig 5), the channel configured to house an elongate member.
Smith, Hornblad, and Russo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of barriers. 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 Hornblad to incorporate the teachings of Russo and provide a formed channel to house an elongate member by sealing a horizontal line along a length of the crowd control barrier parallel to the fold. Doing so would provide a secure way to incorporate the elongate member without adding additional reinforcement elements, simplifying the design of the crowd control barrier.
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Smith, Hornblad, and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 2. Hornblad further teaches wherein the first layer of fabric (26) and the second layer of fabric (27) are sealed together along their bottom edge (via stitching 31, as seen for example in fig 3).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Smith, Hornblad, and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 22. Hornblad and Russo further teach wherein the first layer of fabric (26 Hornblad) and the second layer of fabric (27 Hornblad) are held apart by spacers (136 Russo, see fig 5). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the spacer 136 of Russo to hold apart the first and second layers of fabric of Hornblad. Doing so would provide rigidity to the barrier as taught in Russo [0040].
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Smith, Hornblad, and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 53. Hornblad and Russo further teach wherein the spacers (136 Russo) are positioned between the first layer of fabric (26 Hornblad) and the second layer of fabric (27 Hornblad, at the fold as seen in fig 5 of Russo, per the combination above).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Smith, Hornblad, and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier of claim 54. As best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, Hornblad and Russo further teach wherein one or more horizontal ribs of stiffened fabric (136 Russo, [0035] of Russo teaches 136 is to be affixed via stitching or stapling which therefore teaches 136 could be made of a material such as a fabric) extend along at least a portion of a width or a height of the crowd control barrier member ([0033] Russo states the stiffening member 136 is inserted into enclosure 116, see figs 4 and 5), to retain a set spacing between the first layer of fabric (26 Hornblad) and the second layer of fabric (27 Hornblad).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (WO98/31870) in view of Hornblad (U.S. 4,937,962) and 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, Hornblad, and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier according to claim 2. While Smith teaches a crowd control barrier (12), it is silent 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, Hornblad, 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, Hornblad, 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 Hornblad (U.S. 4,937,962) and Russo (U.S. 2004/0173785) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Huebner (U.S. 5,394,927).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Smith, Hornblad, and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier according to claim 2. While Smith teaches an elongate member (16.1), it is silent that the elongate member is elastic.
Huebner teaches a similar barrier device where the elongate member is elastic (column 4, lines 62-64).
Smith, Hornblad, 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 the combination of Smith, Hornblad, and Russo 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, Hornblad, 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 Hornblad (U.S. 4,937,962) and 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, Hornblad, and Russo teaches the crowd control barrier according to claim 2. Neither Smith or Hornblad 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, Hornblad, 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, Hornblad, 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
Applicants’ arguments filed 13 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has added additional claim limitations to independent claims 1, 2, and 26 that the crowd control barrier is made from a single piece of fabric that has been printed upon that is folded to form a crowd control barrier with two layers of fabric, where the printing is on both layers of fabric. Applicant's claim amendments prompted a further prior art search which discovered the prior art of Hornblad. Hornblad teaches a barrier made from a single piece of material that can be printed upon with a message or visual background, that is folded to form a barrier with two layers, as noted in the rejection above. The combination of prior art then teaches the amended claim set.
Applicant’s claim amendments have resolved the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection from the previous final office action and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has therefore been withdrawn. However, as described above, applicants’ new claims 52-55 lack drawing support and claim 55 further introduces issues of being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. The claims have been interpreted by the examiner as best understood, however clarification is required.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights