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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, drawn to figures 8-17 and claims 1 and 3-20 in the reply filed on 27 April 2026 is acknowledged. As such, claim 2 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: coil spring 206 and upper rail 807. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-The disclosure refers to element 113 as both an end piece [0034] and a latching member [0035]
-The disclosure refers to the resilient material 428 as element 429 in [0043], where 429 has previously been defined as the pivotable bearing
-The disclosure in [0062] refers to strut element 936, however, the strut has been previously defined as element 932, and 936 has been previously defined as the end cap
Appropriate correction 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matthews (U.S. 11,214,934).
Regarding claim 20, Matthews teaches a gate comprising: a first post assembly (104); a second post assembly (108) having an opening (see fig 1A) and a catch disposed in the opening, the catch including a notch (in receiver stanchion 108, described in column 5, lines 33-37); a rail assembly (300) with a first end rotatably coupled to the first post assembly (104) and a second end configured to be received in the opening of the second post assembly (108 as seen in figs 1A and 1B), the second end including a pin (318) configured to be received in the notch of the catch (in receiver stanchion 108, described in column 5, lines 33-37); wherein, in the absence of a predetermined amount of force being applied to the rail assembly (300), the pin (318) is not received in the notch of the catch such that the second end of the rail (300) can freely move out of the opening of the second post (108) and, in the presence of the predetermined amount of force being applied to the rail assembly, the pin (318) is received in the notch such that the second end of the rail assembly (300) is prevented from moving out of the opening of the second post (108, described in column 5, lines 33-37).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews (U.S. 11,214,934) in view of Howard (U.S. 6,009,670).
Regarding claim 1, Matthews teaches an impact absorbing gate comprising: a first upright (104) having a first proximal end attached to a surface (106) and a first distal end (top end of 104); a second upright (108) having a second proximal end attached to a surface (106) and a second distal end (top end of 108); an arm (300) having a first end and a second end, the first end being pivotably coupled to the first distal end of the first upright at a pivot point (where arm 300 meets first upright 104).
While Matthews teaches a drive mechanism 112, including a hydraulic system, an electric actuator system, a manual actuator system, a mechanical actuator system, a gas spring actuator system, or the like, it does not teach further details as to the drive mechanism.
Howard teaches a vertical gate with a bistable mechanism (enclosed spring mechanism depicted as 68 in fig 6) disposed in a first upright and configured to cause an arm to rotate to a fully opened position when the arm is rotated to an angle in a first range of angles (described in column 10, line 7-16) and to cause the arm to rotate to a fully closed position when the arm is rotated to an angle in a second range of angles (described in column 9, line 64-column 10, line 7).
Matthews and Howard are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gates with vertical movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthews to incorporate the teachings of Howard and provide a bistable mechanism as a drive mechanism for the gate. Doing so would utilize a spring assist in opening and closing the gate to make the gate more user friendly.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 1. Matthews further teaches wherein: the second upright (108) includes an opening and a catch disposed in the opening, the catch including a notch (in receiver stanchion 108, described in column 5, lines 33-37), the second end of the arm (300) is configured to be received in the opening of the second upright (108) and includes a pin (318) configured to be received in the notch of the catch, wherein, in the absence of a predetermined amount of force being applied to the arm, the pin (318) is not received in the notch of the catch such that the second end of the arm (300) can freely move out of the opening of the second upright (108) and, in the presence of the predetermined amount of force being applied to the arm, the pin (318) is received in the notch such that the second end of the arm (300) is prevented from moving out of the opening of the second upright (108, described in column 5, lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 1. Matthews further teaches comprising a nylon strap (324, described as nylon in column 5 lines 46-57) extending through arm (300, see fig 3B).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 6. Matthews further teaches comprising pivotable coupling attaching the first end of the arm (300) to the first distal end of the first upright (top of 104), wherein the nylon strap (324) has a loop disposed at its first end and a part of the pivotable coupling extends through the loop (as described in column 5, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 7. Matthews further teaches wherein a second end of the nylon strap (324) includes a second loop (as seen in fig 3B) and the second end of the arm (300) includes a pin (318), wherein the pin (318) extends through the loop (see fig 3B).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 1. Howard further teaches wherein the bistable mechanism (68) includes a spring (126), a strut (76), and a linkage (106).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 9. Howard further teaches wherein the spring (126) and the strut (76) are arranged coaxially, with the strut (76) inside the spring (126, see fig 12).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 10. Howard further teaches wherein the first range of angles and the second range of angles are separated by a threshold angle (as described in column 9 line 64-column 10 line 16, the point at which the arm moves to the fully opened or fully closed position is the threshold angle).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 11. Howard further teaches wherein the threshold angle is adjustable (as described for example in column 9 lines 30-41 or column 10, lines 22-29).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 12. Howard further teaches wherein the threshold angle is adjustable by adjusting a tension in the spring (126, as described in column 10, lines 22-29).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 12. Howard further teaches wherein the threshold angle is adjustable by adjusting a configuration of elements of the linkage (106, as described in column 9, lines 30-41).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 12. Howard further teaches wherein the threshold angle is adjustable by adjusting the strut (76- increasing or decreasing the length of strut 76 would inherently change the threshold angle).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 12. Matthews further teaches wherein the first proximal end of the first upright (104) is attached to the surface (106) using a first impact absorbing anchoring assembly (as described in column 2 lines 21-27) and the second proximal end of the second upright (108) is attached to the surface (106) using a second impact absorbing anchoring assembly (as described in column 2 lines 21-27).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 1. Matthews and Howard further teach wherein the arm (300 Matthews) is coupled to the surface (106 Matthews) through the bistable mechanism (68 Howard, as per the combination above).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 1. Matthews further teaches wherein the opening in the second upright (108) is tapered (as can be seen in fig 1A).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews (U.S. 11,214,934) in view of Howard (U.S. 6,009,670) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCue (U.S. 9,103,163).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 1. Matthews is silent as to a rotatable bumper being on one or both of the first upright (104) and the second upright (108).
McCue teaches a similar impact absorbing structure where the upright structures are comprised of a rotatable bumper (108).
McCue is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of impactable structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Matthews and Howard to incorporate the teachings of McCue and provide a rotatable bumper on one other both uprights of the impact absorbing gate. Doing so would protect the uprights by absorbing and deflecting inadvertent impacts, as taught by column 1 lines 62-64 of McCue.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Matthews, Howard, and McCue teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 4. McCue further teaches wherein the rotatable bumper (108) includes a cylindrical body configured to rest on and rotate about a cylindrical rail attached to the upright (as described in column 3, lines 48-60).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews (U.S. 11,214,934) in view of Howard (U.S. 6,009,670) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Satrom (U.S. 10,907,314).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Matthews and Howard teaches the impact absorbing gate of claim 1. Matthews and Howard are silent as to a second arm extending between the first (104 Matthews) and second (108 Matthews) uprights and rotatably coupled to the arm (300).
Satrom teaches a similar gate with a second arm (such as 230) that extends between first and second uprights and is rotatably coupled (via pivot connections seen in fig 3) to the arm.
Matthews, Howard, and Satrom is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gates with vertical movement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Matthews and Howard to incorporate the teachings of Satrom and provide a second arm extending between the first and second uprights and rotatably coupled to the arm. Doing so would provide further restriction of the passageway by creating a larger barrier to block the passageway, to further secure the passageway.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12,571,257, US 10,227,742 (teach an impactable gate assembly), US 2024/0110347, US 2012/0011774, US 2012/0011774, US 5,146,800 (teach a spring-assist gate arm), US 9,909,271 (teach bumpers surrounding an upright).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights