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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-16, 18-20, 22-23, 25, 27, 36, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification discloses that the first shock absorbing body is 204 and the second shock absorbing body is 208 in paragraph [0019] and explicitly discloses that 204 is the upper shock absorbing body and 208 is the lower shock absorbing body and that the mounting surface is the ground. Applicant’s paragraph [0023] discloses that the second/lower shock absorbing member 208 separates the flange 212 from the mounting surface, e. g. the ground. However, claim 1 requires the first shock absorbing body to be positioned between a first face of the flange and a mounting surface on which the bollard is to be mounted, which means the first shock absorbing body is the lower one. Claim 1 claims “first shock absorbing body”, but based on Applicant’s specification and drawings, it should be the second shock absorbing body. The claims are objected to because the nomenclature is not consistent with what is used in the specification, and is confusing with Applicant’s disclosure in the specification.
Claims 18-19 claim a second shock absorbing body, which is different from the second shock absorbing body in claim 9, and different from the second shock absorbing body in claim 11. While they are in different branches of claims, Applicant uses “second shock absorbing body” to claim three different elements throughout the claims and can be confusing.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-15, 25, 27, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE 201 20 311 U1 (hereinafter will be referred to as “DE ‘311”).
Regarding claim 1, DE ‘311 teaches a bollard (“road traffic barrier”; first paragraph under Description of English translation) comprising:
a shaft (10) having a flange (26) positioned on an outer surface of the shaft, the flange extending away from the outer surface, a first portion of the shaft extending in a first direction away from the flange and a second portion of the shaft extending in a second direction away from the flange, the second direction different from the first direction;
an anchor (housing 12+screws) to be positioned at an end of the shaft; and
a first shock absorbing body (22) to be positioned between a first face of the flange (lower face of 26) and a mounting surface (ground) on which the bollard is to be mounted, the first shock absorbing body to contact at least a portion of the first portion of the shaft (shown in the figure).
Regarding claim 2, since the first shock absorbing body (22) is disclosed to be a ring (middle of page 2 of English translation), it at least partially surrounds the outer surface of the shaft.
Regarding claim 3, the first shock absorbing body (22) is to be at least partially positioned between the first face of the flange and the end of the shaft, in the same way as Applicant’s.
Regarding claim 8, since DE ‘311 discloses that the first shock absorbing body (22) is a rubber-elastic ring (within bottom half of page 2 of the English translation), the first shock absorbing body is a compressible ring.
Regarding claim 11, as shown in DE ‘311’s figure, there is a second shock absorbing body (24), the second shock absorbing body being positioned between a second face of the flange (upper face of flange 26) opposite the first face and a surface of the anchor (lower face of wall 20).
Regarding claim 12, the flange (26) is positioned between the first shock absorbing body (22) and the second shock absorbing body (24).
Regarding claim 13, the outer surface of the first and second shock absorbing bodies (22, 24) are to contact a side wall (28+30) of the anchor based on the tilt angle of the shaft (“in the event of a strong tilting movement of the rod 10…this presses both rubber-elastic rings 22, 24 radially against the associated stop ring 28 or 30.”; disclosed within the bottom half of page 2 of the English translation).
Regarding claim 14, since the first shock absorbing body (22) is disclosed to be a ring (middle of page 2 of English translation), it is an annular ring.
Regarding claim 15, as shown in the figure, at least one of the first shock absorbing body or the second shock absorbing body is coaxially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the shaft.
Regarding claim 25, DE ‘311 teaches an apparatus comprising:
a shaft (10) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end;
a flange (26) protruding from the shaft, the flange including a first surface (lower surface) and a second surface (upper surface) opposite the first surface;
a first shock absorbing body (22) to be positioned directly adjacent an outer side wall of the shaft, the first shock absorbing body to be in contact with the first surface of the flange;
a second shock absorbing body (24) to be positioned directly adjacent the outer side wall of the shaft, the second shock absorbing body to be in contact with the second surface of the flange; and
a housing (12) to enclose the first and second shock absorbing bodies.
Regarding claim 27, the housing (12) is to anchor (via screws through screw holes 14) to a ground surface.
Regarding claim 36, DE ‘311 teaches a bollard (“road traffic barrier”; first paragraph under Description of English translation) comprising:
a bollard shaft (10) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the shaft including a flange (26) positioned between and spaced apart from the first and second ends of the shaft, the flange protruding from the shaft in a direction transverse to an elongate length of the shaft;
a collar (18) to enclose a first portion of the shaft including the flange and the first end, the collar having a cavity to receive the flange and the first end of the shaft and an opening to enable a second portion of the shaft, including the second end, to protrude from the collar; and
a shock absorbing body (22) to be positioned within the cavity adjacent the shaft, the shock absorbing body to be closer to the first end of the shaft than the flange is to the first end of the shaft (as shown in the figure).
Regarding claim 38, the collar further includes a mounting flange (16) to be adjacent the first end of the shaft, the mounting flange couplable to a ground surface (via screws through screw holes 14).
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 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘311 as applied above to claim 8 in view of Keats, US 3,478,714.
Regarding claim 9, while DE ‘311 fails to disclose the limitations of the claim, Keats teaches a shock absorbing bollard with rings (shown as 259) and discloses that they can be annular (Figure 3) or alternatively can be made into half segments each having a lap flange (Figure 4) so that when two such segments are stacked with the flanges overlapped they form a continuous ring (column 5 lines 28-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE ‘311’s ring to be two half segments each having a lap flange so that when two such segments are stacked with the flanges overlapping they form a continuous ring in view of Keats’s disclosure of an alternative way to form a ring. The resulting combination yields a second shock absorbing member (half with the upper lap flange), the second shock absorbing member being positioned between the first shock absorbing member (half with the lower lap flange) and the first face of the flange.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘311 in view of Keats as applied above to claim 16, further in view of Strandberg, WO 2019/030295 A1.
Regarding claim 18, while the resulting combination fails to disclose a second shock absorbing body to be positioned between the shaft and the bollard casing, Strandberg discloses a resilient support module and discloses providing an upper attachment member within a hollow casing having an interior shaft to help distribute stress forces and protect the interior shaft (Figure 4; second paragraph on page 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to include a second shock absorbing body to be positioned between the shaft and the bollard casing in view of Strandberg’s disclosure to help distribute stress forces and protect the interior shaft as discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, Strandberg further discloses an alternative embodiment in which a longitudinal axis of an upper attachment member is to be offset from a center axis of the shaft (Figure 10a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second shock absorbing body to have a longitudinal axis that is offset from a center axis of the shaft in view of Strandberg’s further disclosure to be able to control the way the shaft tilts (middle paragraph on page 16).
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘311 in view of Keats and Strandberg as applied to claim 18, further in view of CN 109024376 A (hereinafter will be referred to as “CN ‘376”).
Regarding claim 20, the resulting combination includes the second shock absorbing body to be positioned to surround a perimeter of the shaft. While the resulting combination fails to disclose multiple ones of the second shock absorbing body, CN ‘376 teaches a shock absorbing bollard and discloses that a shock absorbing member (4) surrounding an interior shaft can be one member (as shown in Figure 3) or can be a plurality of shorter members stacked (as shown in Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one second shock absorbing member of the resulting combination to be multiple ones of shorter shock absorbing members stacked in view of CN ‘376’s disclosure of an alternate shock absorbing component as discussed above.
Regarding claim 22, the resulting combination includes an outer surface of a first one of the multiple ones of the second shock absorbing body is to engage with an outer surface of a second one of the multiple ones of the second shock absorbing body since they are stacked.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘311 in view of Keats as applied to claim 16, further in view of KR 101303080 B1 (hereinafter will be referred to as “KR ‘080”) and CN 109024376 A (hereinafter will be referred to as “CN ‘376”).
Regarding claim 23, while the resulting combination from claim 16 fails to disclose a plurality of annular shock absorbing bodies to be positioned around the second portion of the shaft within the bollard casing, KR ‘080 teaches a resilient bollard and discloses a spring positioned within a bollard casing around an interior shaft as a compressible component for absorbing the shock from an impact (as shown in Figure 4), and CN ‘376 discloses that a spring (Figure 4) and a plurality of annular rings (Figure 5) are alternative shock absorbing bodies (“energy absorbing component”; last two lines on page 4 through the first six lines on page 5 of the English translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bollard casing from the resulting combination from claim 16 to include a component within the bollard casing to be able to absorb the shock from an impact in view of KR ‘080, and for the component to be a plurality of annular bodies in view of CN ‘376’s disclosure that a spring and a plurality of annular rings are alternative shock absorbing bodies as discussed above. The resulting combination yields a plurality of annular shock absorbing bodies to be positioned around the second portion of the shaft within the bollard casing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. KR 2004 25204 is cited for teaching a resilient bollard with an interior shaft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights