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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1 and 24 contain reference numerals without any lead-line. Fig 1 shows numeral “17” without a lead-line, while fig 24 shows numeral “16” without a lead-line.
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 Objections
Claims 3, 4, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “formed as a multiple layers”, Examiner suggests removing “a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 and 9 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 8 recites the limitation "each said telescopic leg" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that claim 7 introduces telescopic legs. Examiner notes that an amendment with proper antecedent basis would be required if this claim remains dependent from claim 3, or the dependency should change to claim 7. Examiner assumes that claim 8 was meant to be dependent from claim 7, and is treated such in prosecution below.
Claim 9 recites “wherein front and rear shells are formed…”. Examiner notes that it is unclear and indefinite as to what structure these shells are part of, or associated with. It appears that this claim should be dependent from claim 2, where front and rear shells are already set forth.
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.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duncan (US 534,389).
Re Clm 13: Duncan discloses a portable security fence comprising: a plurality of support posts (1, plural posts disclosed in line 63) spaced at predetermined distances (on either end of panel), each said support post including a stabilizing apparatus (2) to maintain the support post in a vertical orientation; a vertically oriented panel (horizontal rails with vertical cross-members constitute a panel, as described) positioned between each pair of support posts (lines 61-64) , each said panel being received by (attached to) the corresponding support posts; and a securement device (bolts 3 with nuts 4) corresponding to each said support post to draw each panel into engagement with the adjacent support post (at least in line 49).
Re Clm 16: Duncan discloses wherein said stabilizing apparatus is formed as an elongated base member (bottom base) oriented with said support post being substantially in the center thereof (fig 1), said base member including a web member (diagonal support) extending upward from said base member on opposing sides of said support post and being secured to the corresponding side of said support post (fig 1).
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US 534,389).
Clm 1: Duncan discloses a bullet resistant security fence (as shown, the fence of Duncan is capable of resisting a bullet, i.e. bullet hitting a rail or post would at least resist or slow down the bullet), comprising: a plurality of support posts (1), said support posts being spaced apart a predetermined distance (on either end of panel), each said support post having a stabilizing apparatus (2) operable to keep the support post in an upright orientation; a plurality of formed panels (including horizontal and vertical members) oriented in a vertical manner between adjacent support posts to define a bullet resistant portion of said security fence, each said panel having a length dimension corresponding to said predetermined distance so that said panels can extend between said adjacent support posts (as disclosed); and a securement device (at least bolts 3 with nuts 4) corresponding to each said intermediate support post to integrate adjacent panels on each opposing side into said intermediate support post.
Duncan discloses multiple posts, but fails to explicitly disclose multiple end support posts and multiple intermediate support posts between said end support posts. Examiner notes that fences are known to have any number of posts, as would be required by the length of fence needed. Providing additional posts to have multiple end support posts and multiple intermediate support posts between said end support posts would have an obvious modification with a reasonable expectation of success to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention for the purpose of strengthening a length of a fence.
Re Clm 5: Duncan as modified above discloses wherein said stabilizing apparatus is formed as an elongated base member (bottom base) oriented with said support post being substantially in the center thereof (fig 1), said base member including a web member (diagonal support) extending upward from said base member on opposing sides of said support post and being secured to the corresponding side of said support post (fig 1).
Re Clm 6: Duncan as modified above discloses said web member and said support post are integral parts of said stabilizing apparatus (see fig).
Claims 2-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US 534,389) in view of Melin (US 2007/0028758).
Re Clms 2-4 and 14-15: Duncan fails to disclose wherein each said panel includes a front shell, a rear shell and a ballistic core in a cavity between said front and rear shells, said ballistic core is formed as a multiple layers of ballistic material, wherein said ballistic core is formed from multiple layers of ballistic material pressed into a sheet.
Melin teaches (figs 2 and 5a-5f) a bullet resistant ballistic panel (201) with a front shell and a rear shell (203 and 207) having a ballistic core (205 with 209) in a cavity between said front and rear shells and formed as multiple layers of ballistic material pressed into a sheet (inner layers 205 and 209 being compressed). This is taught for the purpose of enveloping a specific projectile striking the panel in a predetermined configuration.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the panel of Duncan to be equipped with a front shell, a rear shell and a ballistic core in a cavity between said front and rear shells, said ballistic core is formed as a multiple layers of ballistic material, wherein said ballistic core is formed from multiple layers of ballistic material pressed into a sheet, as taught by Melin with reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of enveloping a specific projectile striking the panel in a predetermined configuration.
Claims 10-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US 534,389) in view of EP 0381289, hereafter ‘389.
Re Clms 10-12 and 18: Duncan fails to disclose at least one anti-scaling device secured to an upper edge of each said panel, wherein said at least one anti-scaling device is a strip of saw-tooth blades secured to said upper edge of each said panel / wherein said at least one anti-scaling device is a formed deflector member.
‘389 teaches the well-known use of an anti-scaling device (see figs 3-6, top of rail 1) wherein said at least one anti-scaling device is a strip of saw-tooth blades secured to said upper edge of each said panel / wherein said at least one anti-scaling device is a formed deflector member. Examiner notes that the anti-scale device is both a strip of saw-tooth blades secured to said upper edge and a formed deflector member. This is taught for the purpose of preventing unwanted movement over the fence or prevent birds from landing on the top of the fence.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the system of Duncan with at least one anti-scaling device secured to an upper edge of each said panel, wherein said at least one anti-scaling device is a strip of saw-tooth blades secured to said upper edge of each said panel / wherein said at least one anti-scaling device is a formed deflector member, as taught by ‘389 with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of preventing unwanted movement over the fence or prevent birds from landing on the top of the fence.
Claims 7, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US 534,389) in view of Westfahl (US 10337205).
Re Clms 7, 8, and 17: Duncan fails to disclose wherein said stabilizing apparatus is formed with a pair of adjustable length telescopic legs pivotally connected, respectively, to opposing sides of said support post (clm 7); wherein each said telescopic leg is connected to a stabilizing arm pivotally attached to the corresponding side of said support post (clm 8); and wherein said stabilizing apparatus is formed with a pair of adjustable length telescopic legs pivotally connected, respectively, to opposing sides of said support post.
Westfahl teaches the use of a fence system with a stabilizing apparatus (fig 3) formed with a pair of adjustable length telescopic legs (top and bottom legs) pivotally connected, respectively, to opposing sides of said support post (330, 335); wherein each said telescopic leg is connected to a stabilizing arm (320)pivotally attached to the corresponding side of said support post (see fig 3). This is taught for the purpose to “accommodate grades and still provide upright posts and associated panels” (top col 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the stabilizing apparatus of Duncan to be formed with a pair of adjustable length telescopic legs pivotally connected, respectively, to opposing sides of said support post; wherein each said telescopic leg is connected to a stabilizing arm pivotally attached to the corresponding side of said support post, as taught by Westfahl with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose to “accommodate grades and still provide upright posts and associated panels”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate all the limitations of independent claim 19.
The prior art does not provide any teaching, suggestion or motivation (TSM) to modify the prior art as such other than Applicant's own disclosure.
Examiner notes that the closest prior art references disclose a similar fence having posts, panel, a stabilizing apparatus, a securement device as claimed, but fail to disclose wherein each support post is mounted on a flat base member having a central set of tangs arranged for the support post to “fit between and to wrap around said tangs”.
There is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the prior art to obtain the applicant’s invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner notes that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the front and rear shells are formed from strips of aluminum welded together at seams with aluminum lath covering said seams.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN PETER MASINICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a-5p 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, 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.
/JONATHAN P MASINICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678