DETAILED ACTION
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 1- 16 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.
Claims 1 and 9 recites the limitation "the thickness" in lines 9-10 and 12-13, respectively. There are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected because of their dependency on claims 1 and 9, respectively.
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 1, 2, 6, 9, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leahy et al. (U.S. Patent 9,441,336).
Leahy discloses a bollard system having an elongated portion (28) and an interface plate (26) position proximate one end of the elongated portion (Figure 1). The elongated portion is configured to extend below a grade level (81) to maintain the plate above the grade level (Figure 2). A bollard structure (16) having an elongated portion (40) and an interface plate (38) is configured to be coupled with the base structure interface plate (Figures 1 and 2). Looking to Figure 2, it can be seen that the bollard structure interface plate (38) has a thickness that is less than the thickness of the base structure interface plate (26). Because the structure is identical to that claimed, the device meets the functional recitations.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the relative dimensions appear to be as claimed.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Leahy discloses welding as a connection means.
Regarding claim 9, Leahy discusses using a plurality of systems along a roadway. This meets claim recitations.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leahy et al. (U.S. Patent 9,441,336).
Leahy discloses the system discussed above. The relative dimensions appear as claimed. Further regarding claims 1-3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the relative dimensions to be any as desired in order to suit a particular application, since one skilled in the art is familiar with material strengths and the particular application in which a bollard was to be used would be considered as design input regarding impact resistance.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 10 and 11, Leahy is silent regarding the measured thickness; thereby leaving the decision to one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any dimension best suited to achieving a proper support. Dimensions are not patentably distinguishing features in this instance.
Regarding claim, 7 and 15, the examiner takes Official notice that it is known to provide covers on bollards. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a cover element in order to, for example, obtain a desired appearance or provide a location for advertisement, for example.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned an anti-corrosion collar as desired since the bollard is configured for outdoor use and subject to conditions that promote corrosion.
Further regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a plurality of systems in order to convey information as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach bollard systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571 272-0547. 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671