DETAILED ACTION
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 16, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maba Fertigteilindustrie (EP 1 441 073).
As to claim 16, Maba Fertigteilindustrie discloses a vehicle restraint system comprising:
a concrete barrier wall 4 having at least one through hole 5, a blind hole associated with the at least one through hole being arranged in a supporting surface 8 beneath the at least one through hole; and
a pin 7 arranged both within the at least one through hole and within the blind hole associated with the at least one through hole;
wherein the pin has a specifiable amount of play relative to the blind hole; and
wherein the specifiable amount of play of the pin relative to the blind hole corresponds to at least 5% of the diameter of the pin (dimples 26,27 and notches 30 comprise a depth and corresponding play of at least 5% of the diameter of pin 7; Figures 1-9; paragraphs [0031,0036]).
As to claim 21, Maba Fertigteilindustrie discloses a vehicle restraint system wherein the pin 7 is headless (Figures 1-9; paragraphs [0031,0036]).
As to claim 22, Maba Fertigteilindustrie discloses a vehicle restraint system wherein the upper end of the pin 7 is arranged within the at least one through hole 5 (Figures 1-9; paragraphs [0031,0036]).
As to claim 24, Maba Fertigteilindustrie discloses a vehicle restraint system wherein the pin 7 has a fluting 26,27,30 (Figures 1-9; paragraphs [0031,0036]).
As to claim 27, Maba Fertigteilindustrie discloses a vehicle restraint system wherein the at least one through hole 5 and the blind hole that is associated with the at least one through hole are arranged on only a first side of the concrete barrier wall 4 (Figures 1-9; paragraphs [0031,0036]).
As to claim 28, Maba Fertigteilindustrie discloses a vehicle restraint system wherein the first side of the concrete barrier wall 4 is arranged so as to face away from a roadway when the concrete barrier wall is in an installed state (Figures 1-9; paragraphs [0031,0036]).
As to claim 31, Maba Fertigteilindustrie discloses a vehicle restraint system wherein, in response to an impact causing the concrete barrier wall 4 to tilt, a frictional force between the pin 7 and the at least one through hole 5 and the blind hole associated with the at least one through hole is increased (Figures 1-9; paragraphs [0031,0036]).
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 20, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maba Fertigteilindustrie.
As to claim 20, Maba Fertigteilindustrie fails to explicitly disclose a vehicle restraint system wherein the pin has a diameter of at least 1.5 cm. Maba Fertigteilindustrie does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific diameter of the pin.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle restraint system disclosed by Maba Fertigteilindustrie wherein the pin has a diameter of at least 1.5 cm, as Maba Fertigteilindustrie does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific diameter of the pin, and as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
As to claim 23, Maba Fertigteilindustrie fails to explicitly discloses a vehicle restraint system wherein the pin has a depth in the supporting surface of no more than 60 cm. Maba Fertigteilindustrie does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length of the pin.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle restraint system disclosed by Maba Fertigteilindustrie wherein the pin has a depth in the supporting surface of no more than 60 cm, as Maba Fertigteilindustrie does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length of the pin, and as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
As to claim 25, Maba Fertigteilindustrie fails to explicitly disclose a vehicle restraint system wherein the pin is made of a reinforcing steel. Maba Fertigteilindustrie does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific material of the pin.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific material of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle restraint system disclosed by Maba Fertigteilindustrie wherein the pin is made of a reinforcing steel, as Maba Fertigteilindustrie does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific material of the pin, and as such selection of material is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
Claims 18, 26, 29, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maba Fertigteilindustrie in view of Nihon Samicon (JP H07-8425).
As to claim 18, Maba Fertigteilindustrie fails to disclose a vehicle restraint system wherein the supporting surface has a bonded base layer beneath the at least one through hole.
Nihon Samicon teaches a vehicle restraint system wherein a supporting surface has a bonded base layer 3 beneath at least one through hole 5 in a concrete barrier wall 2; the bonded base layer providing for more secure seating and attachment of the barrier wall to the support surface (Figures 1,10; paragraph [0012]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Maha Fertigteilindustrie wherein the supporting surface comprises a bonded base layer, as taught by Nihon Samicon, in order to provide for more secure seating and attachment of the barrier wall to the support surface.
As to claim 19, Maba Fertigteilindustrie as modified by Nihon Samicon discloses a vehicle restraint system wherein the blind hole that is associated with at least one through hole (5 Maba Fertigteilindustrie Figure 2) penetrates the bonded base layer (3 Nihon Samicon Figure 10).
As to claim 26, Maba Fertigteilindustrie fails to disclose a vehicle restraint system wherein at least one of the at least one through hole and the blind hole has a seal.
Nihon Samicon teaches a vehicle restraint system wherein at least one of at least one through hole 6 in a concrete barrier wall 2 and a blind hole 3A in a support surface 3 has a seal 7,G; the sealing materials within the through hole and the blind hole providing for secure seating of pin 8 therein (Figures 1,10; paragraph [0012]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Maba Fertigteilindustrie to comprise sealing materials within the through hole and the blind hole, as taught by Nihon Samicon, in order to provide for secure seating of pin 8 therein
As to claim 29, Maba Fertigteilindustrie discloses a method for constructing a vehicle restraint system, comprising:
forming a blind hole in a supporting surface 8 beneath at least one through hole 5, the at least one through hole being in a concrete barrier wall 4 of the vehicle restraint system, the blind hole being associated with the at least one through hole;
arranging a pin 7 being both within the at least one through hole and within the blind hole associated with the at least one through hole; and
selecting a diameter of the blind hole so that the pin has a specifiable amount of play relative to the blind hole;
wherein the specifiable amount of play of the pin relative to the blind hole corresponds to at least 5% of the diameter of the pin (dimples 26,27 and notches 30 comprise a depth and corresponding play of at least 5% of the diameter of pin 7; Figures 1-9; paragraphs [0031,0036]).
Maba Fertigteilindustrie fails to disclose a method comprising drilling a blind hole in a supporting surface beneath at least one through hole.
Nihon Samicon teaches a vehicle restraint system wherein a supporting surface has a bonded base layer 3 beneath at least one through hole 5 in a concrete barrier wall 2; wherein a blind hole in the supporting surface beneath the at least one through hole is drilled; the bonded base layer providing for more secure seating and attachment of the barrier wall to the support surface (Figures 1,10; paragraph [0012]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Maha Fertigteilindustrie wherein the supporting surface comprises a bonded base layer, as taught by Nihon Samicon, such that the blind hole is drilled in the supporting surface, in order to provide for more secure seating and attachment of the barrier wall to the support surface.
As to claim 30, Maba Fertigteilindustrie as modified by Nihon Samicon discloses a method wherein the blind hole associated with at least one through hole (5 Maba Fertigteilindustrie Figure 2) is drilled through the at least one through hole into the supporting surface (3 Nihon Samicon Figure 10).
As to claim 32, Maba Fertigteilindustrie, discloses a method wherein, in response to an impact causing the concrete barrier wall 4 to tilt, a frictional force between the pin 7 and the at least one through hole 5 and the blind hole associated with the at least one through hole is increased (Figures 1-9; paragraphs [0031,0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claims 16 and 29, Attorney argues that:
Maba Fertigteilindustrie fails to disclose a vehicle restraint system wherein the specifiable amount of play of the pin relative to the blind hole corresponds to at least 5% of the diameter of the pin, as profile rod 7 of the Maba Fertigteilindustrie reference is driven into the ground and thus dimples 26,27 and notches 30 do not provide play but actually secure the pin in a friction fit.
Examiner disagrees. As to claims 16 and 29, Maba Fertigteilindustrie discloses a vehicle restraint system wherein the specifiable amount of play of the pin 7 relative to the blind hole corresponds to at least 5% of the diameter of the pin (dimples 26,27 and notches 30 comprise a depth and corresponding play of at least 5% of the diameter of pin 7; Figures 1-9; paragraphs [0031,0036]).
Examiner notes that while indeed pin 7 is driven into the ground, dimples 26,27 and notches 30 nonetheless comprise a depth and corresponding “play” of at least 5% of the diameter of the pin; such depth and corresponding “play” existing between the dimples and notches and the outer diameter of the pin which is driven into and initially frictionally engages the compacted ground.
As to claims 31 and 32, Attorney argues that:
Maba Fertigteilindustrie fails to disclose a vehicle restraint system wherein, in response to an impact causing the concrete barrier wall to tilt, a frictional force between the pin and the at least one through hole and the blind hole associated with the at least one through hole is increased.
Examiner disagrees. As to claims 31 and 32, Maba Fertigteilindustrie discloses a vehicle restraint system wherein, in response to an impact causing the concrete barrier wall 4 to tilt, a frictional force between the pin 7 and the at least one through hole 5 and the blind hole associated with the at least one through hole is increased (Figures 1-9; paragraphs [0031,0036]).
Examiner notes that clearly as concrete barrier wall 4 tilts, pin 7 likewise tilts; applying torsion pressure the pin and the through and blind holes, thus increasing a frictional force therebetween.
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 MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm EST).
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
05/04/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights