Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/527,680

SPRING-ASSIST MODULE FOR BOOM BARRIER, BOOM BARRIER SYSTEM, AND ASSOCIATED METHODS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 04, 2023
Priority
Sep 29, 2021 — continuation of PCTUS2021052533 +1 more
Examiner
HARTMANN, GARY S
Art Unit
3671
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Barrier1 Systems LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
905 granted / 1249 resolved
+20.5% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1293
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1249 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED 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. Claim s 1, 3 -15 and 17 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henfrey (GB 2 248 482 A) . Henfrey discloses a boom barrier system including a boom barrier having a boom arm (1) configured to be pivoted about an axis of rotation (2) between upper and lower positions (page 2, last sentence of first paragraph). There is a spring-assist module (Figure 2, for example) connected to the boom barrier (Figure 1, for example) and configured to apply torque as claimed (page 2, second paragraph). There is a secondary arm (3) connected to the boom barrier (Figure 1). Henfrey does not specifically teach a handle. The examiner takes Official notice that manually operated barriers having handles opposite a pivot point from the barrier are well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Henfrey with a handle as claimed in order to ease manual operation in uses either without a motorized power source or in the event of a power failure to a power source, as is well known with vertically rotating beam barrier systems. Regarding claim 3, the spring assist module is connected to the boom arm at a position (at 12) distal from the axis of rotation (2). Regarding claim 4, there is a housing (11) containing the spring (6, 7). Regarding claims 5-11, see page 2, paragraph 2. Claims 12 and 14 are deemed to be met in view of the arrangement shown and described by Henfrey. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the spring as claimed in order to bias the barrier in the closed position; thereby effecting the purpose of the barrier. Regarding claim 13, it is standard practice to “predetermine” force in applications in order to ensure operation as design. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have predetermined the torque as claimed in order to obtain a properly functioning barrier. Regarding claims 17 , 18 and 20 , the respective springs are compressed as claimed (page 2, paragraph 2 and Figure 2). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach boom barriers . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6989 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Christopher Sebesta can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT GARY S. HARTMANN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3671 /GARY S HARTMANN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 04, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12612744
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF OPERATING A VIBRATING SCREED
3y 3m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12601180
STAIRCASE WHEELCHAIR RAMP ASSEMBLY
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601127
IMPACT DISSIPATING BOLLARD
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590426
CRAWLER BRIDGE
2y 10m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590423
EDGE SLUMP CONTROL
2y 8m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+18.7%)
2y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1249 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month