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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the information disclosure statements filed on November 5, 2024 has been considered as to the merits.
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, 3-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chamoux (8,689,501).
With respect to claim 1, Chamoux discloses a barrier structure in Figure 4 which comprises a parallelepiped body with a first side (see Figure 4) (1)(1)(1)(1)(1) which is made from a first mesh material, a second side (1)(1)(1)(1)(1) which is made from a second mesh material and which is spaced from and which is opposite the first side, an interior between the first side and the second side and a plurality of deterrent sections formed by four pairs of two panels (1) extending perpendicular the first side to the second side, wherein each deterrent section is made from a third mesh material and is positioned in the interior and extends between the first side and the second side, and wherein said plurality of deterrent sections are configured to form a plurality of passaged which extend horizontally between the first side and the second side and wherein each passage is bounded, at least partly, by said third mesh material of at least one of said deterrent sections. See the Figure annotated by the Examiner below. The passages are generally rectangular with both horizontal and vertical components. The passages are bisected by a perpendicular deterrent section.
With respect to claim 3, wherein each of at least some of said deterrent sections comprises a respective sheet of said third mesh material which is transverse (and in Figure 4 generally perpendicular to) the first side and the second side.
With respect to claim 4, said sheet of third mesh material is a planar sheet of third mesh material as shown in Figure 4.
With respect to claim 6, each of the first mesh material, the second mesh material and the third mesh material is selected from welded wire mesh and expanded mesh.
With respect to claim 7-8, said plurality of deterrent sections comprises a first array (1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) of a first plurality of planar sheets of the third mesh material (and perpendicular to the first and second sides), and a second array of a second plurality of planar sheets, comprised of five panels (1) (each of which is parallel to the first and second sides), wherein the first array is transverse to the and is engaged with the second array to form said plurality of passages which extend horizontally between the first side and the second side.
PNG
media_image1.png
401
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamoux (8,689,501).
With respect to claim 10, Figure 8 discloses a barrier which comprises a plurality of barrier structures each barrier structure comprising a parallelepiped body formed from mesh material. The figure does not show the interior third mesh pattern as shown in Figure 4. It would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine the body disclosed in Figure 4 in overlying horizontal rows as shown in Figure 8, based upon the location and purpose of the barrier. The mere duplication of the essential parts of a system requires only routine experimentation to provide the expect result of a larger area bounded by the barrier.
With respect to claims 12-13, vertically extending supports (5) are spaced apart and located at a barrier line (i.e. along sides 1 or 2) wherein some of the barrier structures are engaged with or secured to the supports. Each support extends through a number of barrier structures (see Figure 13) and used to attached barrier structures in overlying rows.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamoux (8,689,501) in view of Douthwaite (4,003,178). Chamoux discloses all claimed elements with the exception of a third mesh material having a succession of valley formations with intervening peak formations. Douthwaite discloses open mesh metal panels for use in a fence. The panels comprise valleys and peaks. Such a configuration of mesh enables the attachment of rigid members through the peaks and valleys to stiffen the mesh. It would have been obvious to modify the third mesh material to include peaks and valley as taught by Douthwaite for the attachment of rigid elements (3) thereby further strengthening the barrier member.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed on August 12, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Chamoux fails to disclose a plurality of passages which extend horizontally. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the annotated Figure 4 of Chamoux above. Chamoux discloses passages that have both horizontal and vertical components. The passages are generally shaped as a rectangular prism having both vertical and horizontal extensions and therefore extend “horizontally” between the first and second sides as claimed. In the broadest sense these passages “extend horizontally between the first side and the second side.” Applicant’s claim does not require a passage to be bound on one end by the first side and ah opposite end by the second side. Even if this was a requirement of the claim, the Examiner contends that Chamoux discloses such a passage that is bisected by a section of third mesh. Applicant further argues that the compartments formed by Chamoux extend and open upwardly. However, Applicant provides no point of reference in their claim for “vertical” or “horizontal” extensions and why such an upwardly open passage fails to meet the limitations of the claim. Chamoux’s structure could easily be rotated on its side such that the compartments are not opening upwardly. See below.
PNG
media_image2.png
559
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., see-through visibility) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that Douthwaite fails to remedy the deficient of Chamoux, however as set forth above the Examiner contends that Chamoux is not deficient. The Examiner maintains that the teachings of Douthwaite are applicable to Chamoux, providing deterrent structures that can be stiffened thereby improving the strength of the barrier member.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B. MCPARTLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
Prosecution Insights