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 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) 1, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butler et al. US 2014/0270940. Butler et al. disclose a vehicle impact-absorbing post (13) comprising:
A base member (21) having bottom plate shape and a hollow connection profile top surface (33, 35) configured to vertically receive:
A plastic, short, inner impact sleeve (27) and a plastic, tall, primary impact post (23).
Wherein the inner impact sleeve and outer primary impact member (23) are received
within connection profile (33, 35). See [0017-0025], Fig. 5.
With respect to claim 11 Butler et al. disclose a method of installing an impact absorbing barrier (13) to a concrete surface comprising the steps of:
Installing a base member (21) to said surface by attaching said base member to the
surface via concrete anchor (31) and threaded bolt (29) depending from the
bottom plate of the base member (21), see Figs. 3-6.
Placing said primary and inner impact members (27, 23) into the connection profiles
extending upwardly from said base member (21). [0004-0007, 0016-0023].
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) 2, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al. US 2014/0270940 in view of Venegas, Jr US 2002/0056251.
Butler et al. discloses an impact absorbing post comprising inner and outer plastic posts (23, 27) received in a profiled base (21) but does not disclose additional impact absorbing posts. However Venegas, Jr. teaches an impact absorbing bollard and method of use comprising:
Providing a short hollow inner impact member (40) disposed within an intermediate
length, hollow plastic outer impact post (12’”), which is disposed within a taller,
hollow plastic primary impact sleeve (14), all of which are disposed on a base
plate (42).
Wherein the impact members cooperate during a vehicle impact to provide staged impact attenuation, and upright restoration after impact with a vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the impact absorbing post assembly of Butler et al. with multiple interior impact members as taught by Venegas, Jr. et al. in order to reduce damage and provide a self-righting function to the post.
With respect to claim 15 Butler et al. disclose the plastic posts (23, 27) are confi65 == made of plastic, welded together have a wall thickness of 0.125” a diameter of 3.15” an are UV stabilized. [0017-0023]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the impact absorbing post assembly of Butler et al. would resiliently withstand an impact of 12kJ or more.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al. US 2014/0270940 in view of Schmanski et al. US 4,958,954.
Butler et al. discloses an impact absorbing post comprising inner and outer plastic posts (23, 27) received in a profiled base (21) but do not disclose through pins for connecting the impact posts to the base. However, Schmanski et al. teach a traffic delineator comprising a base (30) having a bottom plate (32) and a profiled top surface (33, 34).
Wherein a delineator post (13) is bolted to the base (30) using at least 2 locking pins (53) passing through openings (57) in the base. See Fig. 4; Col. 4. Although Schmanski et al. does not teach perpendicularly aligned locking pins such would be a matter of design choice well within the skill of one in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the impact absorbing post assembly of Butler et al. with locking pins, as reasonably suggested by Schmanski et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9, 10, 13, 14 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need help from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights