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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract is objected to for referring to purported merits of the invention throughout the abstract in lines 1-9. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 1-6 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AU 2016216660 (Bloom).
Regarding claim 1, Bloom discloses a modular free-standing ballasted guardrail system (80; see Figures 74-91) comprising:
a support foot (14);
a guardrail stanchion (86) attachable to the support foot;
a leverage bar (600) attachable to the support foot;
a counterweight base (602), wherein the guardrail system is configurable in:
a first configuration wherein the counterweight base is attached directly to the support foot without the leverage bar (see Figures 82 and 83); and
a second configuration wherein the counterweight base is attached directly to the leverage bar, the leverage bar is attached to the support foot, and the counterweight base is spaced away from the support foot (see Figures 84-91).
Regarding claim 2, Bloom discloses the guardrail system (80) is further configurable in a further configuration wherein the counterweight base (602) is attached directly to the support foot without the leverage bar (see Figures 82 and 83) and an additional counterweight base is stacked on top of the counterweight base (see Figures 77, 79, 81, and 87).
Regarding claim 3, Bloom discloses the guardrail system (80) is further configurable in a further configuration wherein the counterweight base (602) is attached directly to the leverage bar (600), the leverage bar is attached to the support foot (14), the counterweight base is spaced away from the support foot and an additional counterweight base is stacked on top of the counterweight base (see Figures 86, 87, 90, and 91).
Regarding claim 4, Bloom discloses the guardrail system (80) is further configurable in a further configuration wherein the counterweight base (602) is attached directly to the support foot (14), the leverage bar (600) is attached to the support foot and an additional counterweight base attached directly to the leverage bar (see Figures 86, 87, 90, and 91).
Regarding claim 5, Bloom discloses the counterweight base (602) defines interlocking formations on upper and lower surfaces thereof for interlocking with corresponding formations of adjacently stacked additional counterweight bases (see protrusions and undulations which allow for stacking in Figures 80 and 81).
Regarding claim 6, Bloom discloses the support foot (14) defines a stanchion engaging channel (provided between 18 and 608 in Figure 76) for slidable receipt of the stanchion (86) therein (see Figures 76, 78, and 79).
Regarding claim 21, Bloom discloses the counterweight base (602) has a domed undersurface cross-section which allows a space on either side of the support foot (14), when the counterweight base is attached thereto (see Figures 76 and 79, wherein a domed undersurface provides a space on either side of the support foot).
Regarding claim 22, Bloom discloses the support foot (14) defines a stanchion engaging channel (provided between 18 and 608 in Figure 76) for slidable receipt of the stanchion (86) therein, and wherein the counterweight base (602) defines a notch configured to accommodate the stanchion engaging channel (see Figures 76, 78, and 79).
Regarding claim 23, Bloom discloses the side edges of the counterweight base (602) are interspersed with sockets (see slots/undulations adjacent reference character “602” in Figure 81) for inserting friction enhancing rubber grommets therein (the slots/undulations being capable of holding inserted friction enhancing rubber grommets).
Regarding claim 24, Bloom discloses the side edges of the counterweight base (602) further define grab handle recesses (see slots/undulations adjacent reference character “602” in Figure 81, which provide a “handle” for grabbing the counterweight base).
Claims 1, 3-6, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0170411 (Ribak).
Regarding claim 1, Ribak discloses a modular free-standing ballasted guardrail system (see Figures 1-9) comprising:
a support foot (bottom one of base 3 which receives stanchion 2 in Figure 1);
a guardrail stanchion (2) attachable to the support foot;
a leverage bar (24) attachable to the support foot;
a counterweight base (3), wherein the guardrail system is configurable in:
a first configuration wherein the counterweight base is attached directly to the support foot without the leverage bar (see middle two stanchions in Figure 1); and
a second configuration wherein the counterweight base is attached directly to the leverage bar, the leverage bar is attached to the support foot, and the counterweight base is spaced away from the support foot (see outer two stanchions in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Ribak discloses the guardrail system (see Figures 1-9) is further configurable in a further configuration wherein the counterweight base (3) is attached directly to the leverage bar (24), the leverage bar is attached to the support foot (bottom one of base 3 which receives stanchion 2 in Figure 1), the counterweight base is spaced away from the support foot and an additional counterweight base (3) is stacked on top of the counterweight base (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Ribak discloses the guardrail system (see Figures 1-9) is further configurable in a further configuration wherein the counterweight base (3) is attached directly to the support foot (bottom one of base 3 which receives stanchion 2 in Figure 1), the leverage bar (24) is attached to the support foot and an additional counterweight base (3) attached directly to the leverage bar (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Ribak discloses the counterweight base (3) defines interlocking formations (36; see paragraph [0057]) on upper and lower surfaces thereof for interlocking with corresponding formations of adjacently stacked additional counterweight bases (see Figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Ribak discloses the support foot (bottom one of base 3 which receives stanchion 2 in Figure 1) defines a stanchion engaging channel (32) for slidable receipt of the stanchion (2) therein (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 21, Ribak discloses the counterweight base (3) has a domed undersurface cross-section (see paragraph [0057]) which allows a space on either side of the support foot, when the counterweight base is attached thereto (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 22, Ribak discloses the support foot (bottom one of base 3 which receives stanchion 2 in Figure 1) defines a stanchion engaging channel (33) for slidable receipt of the stanchion (2) therein, and wherein the counterweight base defines a notch (see paragraph [0057]) configured to accommodate the stanchion engaging channel (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 23, Ribak discloses the side edges of the counterweight base (3) are interspersed with sockets for inserting friction enhancing rubber grommets therein (see left and right side of Figure 5, where “sockets” are provided inside of elements 35 which are capable of holding inserted friction enhancing rubber grommets).
Regarding claim 24, Ribak discloses the side edges of the counterweight base (3) further define grab handle (35) recesses (see Figure 5).
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2525019 (Laffay; the citations of which are taken from the attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Laffay discloses a modular free-standing ballasted guardrail system (see Figures 1-8) comprising:
a support foot (8a, 8b, 70);
a guardrail stanchion (5, 90) attachable to the support foot (see Figures 6 and 7);
a leverage bar (60) attachable to the support foot;
a counterweight base (1), wherein the guardrail system is configurable in:
a first configuration wherein the counterweight base is attached directly to the support foot without the leverage bar (see Figures 5-7, and paragraph [0042], where the base may be directed attached to the support foot); and
a second configuration wherein the counterweight base is attached directly to the leverage bar, the leverage bar is attached to the support foot, and the counterweight base is spaced away from the support foot (see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 5, Laffay discloses the counterweight base (1) defines interlocking formations (2, 21) on upper and lower surfaces thereof for interlocking with corresponding formations of adjacently stacked additional counterweight bases (see Figure 2; the bases being stackable in a storage configuration as set forth in paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, Laffay discloses the support foot (8a, 8b, 70) defines a stanchion engaging channel (see semi-circular notches provided in each of 8a, 8b in Figure 6) for slidable receipt of the stanchion (5) therein.
Regarding claim 9, Laffay discloses the support foot (8a, 8b, 70) defines a stanchion engaging channel (see semi-circular notches provided in each of 8a, 8b in Figure 6) for slidable receipt of the stanchion (5) therein, and a leverage bar (70b) engaging channel for slidable receipt of the leverage bar (60) therein, and wherein the stanchion and leverage bar engaging channels are orientated at an angle of less than 90° with respect to each other (each channel having both radial and axial dimensions, and, as such, the channels can be said to extend at 0° to each other, as the respective segments can be said to be parallel).
Regarding claim 10, Laffay discloses the support foot (8a, 8b, 70) defines a leverage bar engaging channel (70b) for slidable receipt of the leverage bar (60) therein (see Figures 5-7).
Regarding claim 21, Laffay discloses the counterweight base (1) has a domed undersurface cross-section (at 6a, 6b) which allows a space on either side of the support foot (8a, 8b, 70), when the counterweight base is attached thereto (see Figures 5-7).
Regarding claim 22, Laffay discloses the support foot (8a, 8b, 70) defines a stanchion engaging channel (see semi-circular notches provided in each of 8a, 8b in Figure 6) for slidable receipt of the stanchion (5) therein, and wherein the counterweight base (1) defines a notch (formed on 10) configured to accommodate the stanchion engaging channel (see Figures 5-7).
Regarding claim 23, Laffay discloses the side edges of the counterweight base (1) are interspersed with sockets (see, e.g., 6a, 6b) for inserting friction enhancing rubber grommets therein (portions 6a, 6b being capable of holding inserted friction enhancing rubber grommets).
Regarding claim 24, Laffay discloses the side edges of the counterweight base (1) further define grab handle recesses (portions 6a, 6b providing cut-out portions which may function as handles).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay, in view of US 10,458,133 (Davis).
Each of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay disclose the guardrail system as claimed in claim 1, wherein, in the first configuration, the counterweight base (602 of Bloom; 3 of Ribak; 1 of Laffay) presses down on the foot (12 of Bloom; bottom 3 in Figure 1 of Ribak, 8a, 8b; and 70 of Laffay), but each does not expressly disclose the support foot has a friction enhancing pad attached to the proximal end thereof, and operable at an undersurface thereof.
Davis teaches a support foot (26) has a friction enhancing pad (34) attached to the proximal end thereof, and operable at an undersurface thereof (see Figure 6) in order to provide non-slip means to the support foot (see column 6, lines 45-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support foot of any one of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay to have a friction enhancing pad attached to the proximal end thereof, and operable at an undersurface thereof, as taught in Davis, in order to provide non-slip means to the support foot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 11-19, and 25-28 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, each of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay discloses the guardrail system as claimed in claim 6, but each fails to disclose the stanchion (86 of Bloom; 2 of Ribak; 5, 90 of Laffay) defines a longitudinal attachment channel engageable by means of a T-head bolt, and wherein the stanchion engaging channel of the support foot (14 of Bloom; 3 of Ribak; 8a, 8b, 70 of Laffay) has a proximal notch to accommodate a stem of the T-head bolt, and wherein a nut on the stem tightens against the proximal notch to lock the stanchion into the stanchion engaging channel.
Each of FR 3012487 (Conivet) teaches a ballasted system (see Figures 1-5c), where T-head bolts (9a) and associated nuts (9b) are utilized to connect support feet (3) to leverage bars (13), and leverage bars to counterbase weights (14). FR 3032737 (Laffay ‘737) teaches a ballasted system (see Figures 1-8), where T-head bolts (9) and associated nuts (10) are utilized to connect counterbase weights (1) to leverage bars (5). However, there is no motivation provided in either of Conivet and Laffay ‘737 to modify any one of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay, such that the stanchion defines a longitudinal attachment channel engageable by means of a T-head bolt, and wherein the stanchion engaging channel of the support foot has a proximal notch to accommodate a stem of the T-head bolt, and wherein a nut on the stem tightens against the proximal notch to lock the stanchion into the stanchion engaging channel, absent improper hindsight reasoning utilizing Applicant’s own disclosure. In fact, Bloom expressly teaches away from the use of T-head bolts, in utilizing simply cylindrical fence poles as stanchions (2; see, e.g., Figure 1). Ribak also teaches away from the use of T-head bolts, in utilizing in utilizing simply cylindrical fence poles (86) as stanchions (see, e.g., Figure 82). Laffay also teaches away from the use of T-head bolts, in utilizing a clamping-style means of connection between the respective parts (see the connection of 10 to 70 in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 11, Laffay discloses the guardrail system as claimed in claim 10, but fails to disclose the leverage bar (60) defines a longitudinal attachment channel engageable by means of a T-head bolt, and wherein the leverage bar engaging channel has a notch to accommodate a stem of the T-head bolt, and wherein a nut on the stem tightens around the notch to lock the leverage bar into the leverage bar engaging channel. Claim 11 would be allowable for the same reasons noted above regarding claim 6 regarding the incompatibility of the system type of Laffay with a system utilizing T-head bolts.
Regarding claims 12-15, each of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay discloses the guardrail system as claimed in claim 1, but each fails to disclose the leverage bar (600 of Bloom; 24 of Ribak; 60 of Laffay) defines a longitudinal attachment channel engageable by a T-head bolt, and wherein the counterweight base (1 of Bloom; 3 of Ribak; 602 of Laffay) has an aperture for a stem of the T-head bolt, and wherein a nut on the stem tightens around the aperture to lock the counterweight base against the leverage bar. Claims 12-15 would be allowable for the same reasons noted above regarding claim 6 regarding the incompatibility of the system type of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay with a system utilizing T-head bolts.
Regarding claims 16-19, each of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay discloses the guardrail system as claimed in claim 1, but each fails to disclose the support foot (14 of Bloom; 3 of Ribak; 8a, 8b, 70 of Laffay) defines a leverage bar engaging channel for slidable receipt of the leverage bar (600 of Bloom; 24 of Ribak; 60 of Laffay) therein, and wherein the leverage bar engaging channel defines an aperture engageable by means of a T-head bolt, and wherein the counterweight base has an aperture for a stem of the T-head bolt therethrough, and wherein a nut on the stem tightens around the aperture to lock the counterweight base (1 of Bloom; 3 of Ribak; 602 of Laffay) against the leverage bar engaging channel. Claims 16-19 would be allowable for the same reasons noted above regarding claim 6 regarding the incompatibility of the system type of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay with a system utilizing T-head bolts.
Regarding claims 25-28, each of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay discloses the guardrail system as claimed in claim 1, but each fails to disclose a toe board is attachable to the support foot (14 of Bloom; 3 of Ribak; 8a, 8b, 70 of Laffay) by means of an attachment bracket, the attachment bracket comprising a web, a toe board engaging flange and a support foot engaging flange.
GB 2392198 (Smith) teaches a system including a toe board (40) being attachable to a support foot (16) by means of an attachment bracket comprising a web (20), a toe board engaging flange (44) and a support foot engaging flange (27; see Figures 1 and 2). However, there is no motivation to modify any one of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay such that a toe board is attachable to the support foot by means of an attachment bracket, the attachment bracket comprising a web, a toe board engaging flange and a support foot engaging flange, absent improper hindsight reasoning utilizing Applicant’s own disclosure. Further, given the inherent fence-like nature of the systems of each of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay, none of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay exhibit a need for such a toe board and associated attachment system, as the stability of the systems of each of Bloom, Ribak, and Laffay is provided by the counterbalance weights.
Conclusion
The prior art set forth in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM ET.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on (571)270-5281. 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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
February 3, 2026