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
Claims 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/6/26.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“coupling device” in claim 11, the corresponding structure is discussed in Para 0032, “a frictional coupling, a form-fitting coupling, or also as a converter coupling”
“blocking device” in claim 21, the corresponding structure is discussed in .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-31 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.
Claim limitation “operating device” in claim 11 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the term “operating device” appears to be non-structural with a function of “operating” and additionally uses generic placeholder “device” . However, if 112(f) were invoked, the corresponding structure is discussed in Para 0033. While some named structural elements are named e.g. “a lever”, “a threaded connection”, the description is also so expansive to encompass any “mechanical device” capable of performing the function or “a connection for a special securing tool”—the particulars of this “special” tool are undefined. Thus, the boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “drive element” in claim 11 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the term “drive element” appears to be non-structural with a function of “drive” and additionally uses generic placeholder “element” . However, if 112(f) were invoked, the corresponding structure is discussed in Para 0031 While some named structural elements are named e.g. “a drive rod”, the description is also so expansive to encompass any “moveable element” capable of performing the function or “another mechanical component”—the particulars of this mechanical component are undefined. Thus, the boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims 12-31 are rejected for their dependence from an indefinite claim.
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) 11 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinmann (WO-8002576-A1).
Claim 11 (New): A bollard drive for a blocking bollard for moving a blocking member (Fig 1, 9) between a blocking position and an opening position along a movement direction relative to a base body (Fig 1, base body 2) which is connected to a substrate (Fig 1, ground), the bollard drive comprising:
a base element which is connected to the base body (Fig 1, angles 5/frame 6);
a drive unit which is arranged on the base element (see following elements), the drive unit comprising an electric motor (Fig 1, motor 13), a transmission (Abstract, “autoblocking transmission”), and a drive element which is connected to the blocking member (Abstract, “rack drive (15)”), the electric motor and the transmission being configured to electromechanically drive the blocking member along the movement direction relative to the base body via the drive element being driven by the transmission (Abstract “lifts or lowers the post (9)”);
a coupling device comprising a first coupling part and a second coupling part (Corresponding contacting parts of the rack/pinion arrangement, i.e. pinion and rack. See top of page 4 of translation), the coupling device being associated with the transmission and being configured to establish a driving connection in the transmission upon an engagement of the first coupling part with the second coupling part (Corresponding contacting parts of the rack/pinion arrangement, i.e. the engaged teeth. See top of page 4 of translation); and
an operating device (Fig 1, 23),
wherein,
the first coupling part and the second coupling part are configured to be disengaged via an operation of the operating device so as to interrupt the driving connection and to release a movement of the blocking member relative to the base body (bottom 3 paragraphs of page 3 of translation, wrench 23 can be used to disengage and allow retraction).
Claim 31 (New): A blocking bollard comprising the bollard drive as recited in claim 11 (see Fig 1, and claim 11).
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) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinmann (WO-8002576-A1), in view of Ryu (KR 101056888 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Steinmann is silent on wherein at least one of the first coupling part and the second coupling part is a gearwheel.
Ryu teaches at least one of the first coupling part and the second coupling part is a gearwheel (Fig on page 9, wheel 39).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Steinmann by having the coupling and movement arrangement i.e. gear wheel and rack as disclosed by Ryu because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the movement arrangement of Steinmann) for another (the movement arrangement of Ryu) to obtain predictable results (to allow movement of a bollard).
Regarding claim 19, Steinmann is silent on wherein the first coupling part is a coupling wheel, and the second coupling part is a coupling rod.
Ryu teaches the first coupling part is a coupling wheel (Fig on page 9, wheel 39), and the second coupling part is a coupling rod (Fig on page 9, rod with rack 53).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Steinmann by having the coupling and movement arrangement i.e. gear wheel and rack as disclosed by Ryu because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the movement arrangement of Steinmann) for another (the movement arrangement of Ryu) to obtain predictable results (to allow movement of a bollard).
Regarding claim 20, Steinmann as modified teaches wherein the coupling wheel is a gearwheel (Fig on page 9, wheel 39), and the coupling rod is a gear rack (Fig on page 9, gear rack 53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 21-30 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 12, it defines additional particulars of the coupling parts. While details of such coupling parts are suggested by Ryu, as discussed in the rejections of claims 18-20, the claim additionally recites “the coupling wheel of the at least one of the first coupling part and the second coupling part is disengageable from the respective other first coupling part or second coupling part via a displacement via a mechanical action on the coupling wheel”.
This missing feature is not taught or rendered obvious, individually or in combination, with the references known to the examiner, discussed below. Claims 13-14 depend from claim 12.
Claim 21 recites additional particulars reciting the “the coupling device further comprises a blocking device”. Please additionally see the examiners’ analysis of the limitation under 112(f).
This missing feature is not taught or rendered obvious, individually or in combination, with the references known to the examiner, discussed below. Claims 22-30 depend from claim 21.
Alberts (US 5476338 A) teaches a toggle 90, see Fig 10, which selectively is engage-able to lock/unable movement by manual actuation. However, it lacks the particulars of the coupling wheel/rod/lock bar engaged with those structure.
Kim (KR 20120103224 A) teaches a locking means 70 in order to prevent a situation in which the movable body 30 is naturally buried inside the case 10 or separated to the outside by an impact of a passerby or a surrounding, but similarly lacks the engagement of specific structures in the manner recited.
Plavada (US 20180209108 A1) teaches a bollard security system or apparatus with manual override and method for selectively shutting and opening the vehicle entrance or exit or passage ways. The manual override occurs via a control panel and lacks the engagement of specific structures in the manner recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See discussion under reasons for allowance of relevant art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm 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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights