DETAILED ACTION Claim Objections Claims 12 and 18 are objected to because each includes multiple periods (“.”); for example, “ i .”. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1 2 -21 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. There are insufficient antecedent basis for numerous limitations throughout the claims . These include, but are not necessarily limited to: “the carriage frame” (claim 12, line 2) “the end face” (claim 13, lines 2-3); “the energy absorbing element” (claim 14, line 3); “the outer surface” (claim 15, line 3); “the ground” (claim 16, line 2); “the length” (claim 17, line 3) ; “the terminal barrier section” (line 3); and “the upstream hollow barrier section” (claim 21, lines 5-6). The term “thereof” in line 6 of claim 12 is indefinite due to the equivocal nature of the term. This recitation must be replaced by a positive recitation of a specific element(s). Further regarding claim 12, d ue to the lack of antecedent basis in line 2, it is unclear if the recitations in lines 2-3 are directed to the frame assembly or attenuator system, which is intended use only. If directed to the latter, this is also indefinite because it is further limiting an intended use component. Because this is the only recitation of this structure in this claim or claims which depend therefrom , and because of this lack of clarity regarding this recitation, th e recitation of “carriage frame” has n ot been further treated on the merits. The left and right side frames have been treated as part of the frame assembly of the preamble. The recitation of “X” in claim 13 does not add any scope, is undefined in the claim and, therefore, is indefinite. Further, the components recited in claim 13 are all undefined in parent claim 12, and have no clear structure or structural relationship to the positively recited components of parent claim 12. The recitation of “is attached” at the end of the claim recites a relationship between two components with no structural limitations directed thereto, apart from this simple recitation, which may or may not contradict the intended use recitation discussed with respect to claim 12. This claim is so indefinite that it precludes further treatment on the merits. The recitation of “an upstream terminal barrier section” in claim 14 appears to denote a plurality of such sections. Again, there is no antecedent basis for even one of these. While not an antecedent issue with respect to the term “an,” the lack of clarity with respect to this element presents an issue of indefiniteness. Further regarding claim 15, the lack of antecedent basis with respect to a component which appears to be intended use is indefinite. The manner in which a component is configured with respect to an unclaimed, undefined component is beyond the permissible scope of the claim. The recitations following “configure to” in claim 15 have not been further treated on the merits. The recitation of “do not contact the ground or other support surface” in claim 16 is indefinite because, given the structure of parent claim 12, there is no configuration for which this phrase positively points out and distinctly claims the invention. Any land based structure must either be supported by the ground or an “other” support surface. This claim provides no structure which enables this lack of support configuration. Claim 16 has not been further treated on the merits. The term “they” in claim 17 should be replaced by a positive recitation of specific elements, due to the equivocal nature of the term. The term “ around ” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ around ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The range denoted by “around 33%” is insufficiently defined . Further, this recitation is directed to a component (terminal barrier section) which, as discussed above, has no antecedent basis . This recitation also appears to be intended use only, since the closest recitation appears to be the impact attenuator system, which is not a positively recited component . In short, multiple instances of recitations lacking antecedent basis, combined with an indefinite ratio relating to an unclaimed component, and the use of an equivocal term, makes claim 17 unexaminable on the merits. This claim has not been further treated. The recitation of “(barrier sections)” in line 2 of claim 18 is indefinite because it is unclear why this recitation is in parentheses, particularly since it immediately follows these exact two words in the claim. The recitation of “section(s)” in claim 18 is indefinite because it is unclear how many of the barrier sections are required to correspond to this recitation. If a minimum of one is required, the examiner suggests changing the recitation to, “at least one of the barrier section s ,” for example. Claim 19 does further limit parent claim 18, since claim 18 recites the barriers are filled with water. Claim 20 recites “side frames” in line 6. This term requires a modifier, such as “the” or “said,” provided these are the same side frames as recited in line 3, in order to establish proper antecedent basis. If this recitation is meant to be different from the line 3 recitations, clarifying modifier(s) must also be added. Claim 2 1 recites “a carriage assembly, as claimed in claim 20” in line 3. The recitation of “a” should be “the,” in order to properly recite a dependent claim. Note that these may not be a comprehensive list of all indefinite issues. Thorough revision is required. 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 12, 14, 15, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (U.S. Patent 6,905,281) . The claims are examined as best understood in scope in view of the extensive issues of indefiniteness discussed above. Kang discloses an impact extension frame assembly including a top plate ( 36 ), side frames (15) and cross member ( any/all of 12, 31, 34 and fasteners which connect components, for example, see Figure 6 ) . There is a shearing member ( 40 ) connecting the side frames . Because these members (40) are positioned all along the length of the frames (15), they are deemed to meet the recitation of “at a downstream end.” Again, note the 112 rejections. Because there are a plurality of barrier sections in Kang, and because there are a plurality of shearing members (40), claim 14 recitations are deemed to be met. Again, note the 112 rejections. Regarding claim 15, the side frames (15) have horizontal and vertical members (Figure 6, for example). Again, note the 112 rejections. Regarding claim 21, there are a plurality of hollow barrier sections (33, Figure 4, for example). A hollow section could naturally be filled with water. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 18 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach impact frame assemblies and/or attenuator systems . 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