DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stephens et al. (U.S. Patent 6,461,076).
Stephens discloses a crash attenuator having a guide rail (30), frame assembly (Figure 1, for example) and guide bracket (38) configured as claimed. The guide bracket includes surfaces (not labeled, Figure 4a) to contact the rail (30) in an oblique orientation (Figure 5). Stephens teaches the surfaces may be curved (column 3, lines 31-34).
Stephens is configured in the manner of claims 2-4 (Figures 4a and 5).
Regarding claim 5, there are two guide brackets (Figure 5). The second bracket meets the recitations of claims 6-8.
Given the modification to a curved surface, claims 9 and 10 would be met.
Regarding claim 11, the axes are offset (Figure 5).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, there is a frame bracket attached to the frame body (Figures 2 and 3, for example).
Regarding claim 14, there are a plurality of frame assemblies as claimed (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Stephens discloses a plurality of frame assemblies and does not teach not differing these assemblies; therefore, claim recitations are met.
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 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens et al. (U.S. Patent 6,461,076), as applied above.
Stephens discloses only a single rail; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a second rail in order to, for example, increase the useful width of the attenuator. Given this second rail, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a second guide bracket configured in the manner of the first guide bracket in order to utilize both rails for energy absorption. The second rail and guide bracket are duplications of existing parts which cannot patentably distinguish an apparatus.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindorf et al. (U.S. Patent 12,404,644) in view of Stephens et al. (U.S. Patent 6,461,076).
Sindorf discloses a crash attenuator having two guide rails (30). Stephens teaches the guide bracket discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the guide bracket with Stephens with the attenuator of Sindorf in order to absorb crash energy as desired, in accordance with the purpose of both Sindorf and Stephens. Given the addition of a second rail, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a second guide bracket in order to utilize both rails for energy absorption.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach crash assemblies having rails.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights