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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/28/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0074] states that at lip 148 the radius of the flange interior surface 140 increases. As the lip projects inward from the interior surface the radius decreases at the lip as shown in figure 16.
Examiner notes this objection was present in the non-final action.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 17-18 recite “the turnstile arm receiving member includes an open first end having fastener openings”. On its face the language reads that the fastener openings are on the free end of the arm receiving member. As noted in paragraph [0064] of applicant’s disclosure, attachment member 118 secures arm receiving member 100 to arm A. The fastener openings 152 are in fact on attachment member 118 as shown in figure 14 so applicant’s disclosure would indicate the fastener openings are not on the arm receiving member. For purposes of examination limitation will be read broadly as the fastener openings are on a structure at the free end of the receiving member/sleeve, similar to applicant’s disclosed member 118 having the openings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-7 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 1 lines 14-16 recite “the turnstile arm receiving member and the jump-deterrent section are integral parts of a unitary, rigid body when assembled”. On its face the limitation requires that the receiving member and jump-deterrent section be integral upon assembly, i.e. form a single assembled rigid structure. This is in keeping with what is shown in applicant’s figures where the receiving member includes sleeve 108 and jump deterrent 106 connected together and fixed to the arm via separate attachment means 118. However, applicant’s arguments on page 15 of the response filed 10/28/2025 state that the separate collar of Holzapfel is different than applicant’s integral construction. As such it is unclear what is meant by integral as applicant’s arguments (integral requires single piece without collars) are not in line with what is disclosed (sleeve with separate attachment member and collar)
Dependent claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 539044 to Simonin (hereinafter Simonin) in view of US patent 7845104 to Holzapfel (hereinafter Holzapfel).
Regarding claim 1, the jump-deterrent apparatus is shown in Simonin in the figure with
a jump-deterrent section (7) that extends radially outward with respect to an axis of the turnstile arm (arms 4, 5, and 6) and defines a physical barrier extending above the turnstile arm (4, 5, 6).
While Simonin teaches the jump-deterrent section (7) being attached to the conventional arm of a turnstile (column 2 lines 47-50 as numbered in the published patent, lines 50-53 as counted), and thus being retrofit, Simonin is silent as to how the jump-deterrent is attached.
An arm receiving attachment means is shown in Holzapfel in figures 1-1-10C with arm receiving member (10) having a tubular section (sleeve 38) defining a hollow interior through which a turnstile arm (14) can extend along a common axis and having an open end (end with collar 36) having fastener openings (94) and configured to secure to the turnstile arm (14) in a manner that prevents rotation (column 4 lines 43-67 collar 36 friction fit to arm). When provided with the arm receiving attachment means of Holzapfel, the jump-deterrent section and arm receiving member would be integral parts of a unitary rigid body when assembled and the friction fit would prevent rotation when torque is applied to the jump deterrent.
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 jump-deterrent apparatus of Simonin with the arm receiving attachment means of Holzapfel because the arm receiving attachment means provided an easy and secure attachment of retrofit members (i.e. the jump-deterrent of Simonin) to existing turnstile arms.
Regarding claim 2, when provided with the arm receiving attachment means of Holzapfel, the jump-deterrent section (7) would be integral with the arm receiving section (i.e. integral with sleeve 38) in Simonin. Molding is a product-by-process limitation and the patentability of a product is determined by the product not the process of making (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claims 3 and 5 (duplicate claims), the tubular section (38) includes an open first end (end with member 36) through which the turnstile arm (14) can extend (see figure 1), the open first end having screw threads (threaded connection 118 figure 6) in Holzapfel, and, when provided with the arm receiving attachment means of Holzapfel, the jump-deterrent section (7) would be integral with the arm-receiving section (i.e. integral with sleeve 38) in Simonin. Molding is a product-by-process limitation and the patentability of a product is determined by the product not the process of making (see MPEP 2113). Although Holzapfel (and Simonin to which Holzapfel is applied) does not disclose specific threads per inch/pitch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the thread spacing to be useful- i.e. too large a thread spacing (too few threads per inch) would result in overly large threads with limited engagement range (i.e. only one or two threads) and too small a thread spacing (too many threads per inch) would result in overly thin and short threads causing difficulties in thread engagement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the thread pitch claimed as there are a finite number of thread pitches such a threaded connection can usefully be made in.
Regarding claim 4, the jump-deterrent section (7) is an arc-shaped rigid flap in Simonin.
Regarding claim 6, the arm receiving member (10) includes a clamp (84) configured to attach the arm receiving member (10) to the turnstile arm (14) in such a way that the arm receiving member (10) is prevented from turning about the arm (14) when torque is applied in Holzapfel. While Holzapfel shows only one clamp, it would be design choice to use two clamps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to provide the jump-deterrent apparatus of Simonin, having the arm receiving attachment means of Holzapfel, with a second clamp because a second clamp would provide the benefit of additional attachment points and it was known in the art that redundant (i.e. second) attachment members could provide the benefit of attaching in case of failure of the first/primary attachment (see also MPEP 2144.04 VI Section B duplication of parts obvious).
Regarding claim 7, the tubular section (38) includes an open first end (end with member 36) through which the turnstile arm (14) can extend (see figure 1), the open first end having screw threads (threaded connection 118 figure 6) in Holzapfel, and, when provided with the arm receiving attachment means of Holzapfel, the jump-deterrent section (7) would extend from the first open end to a second open end (end with collar 34) , the jump-deterrent section (7) is a semicircular rigid flap with a largest radius at a center of the jump-deterrent section (7), and the jump-deterrent section (7) would integral with the arm-receiving section (i.e. integral with sleeve 38) in Simonin. Molding is a product-by-process limitation and the patentability of a product is determined by the product not the process of making (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 8, the jump-deterrent apparatus is shown in Simonin in the figure with
a rigid jump-deterrent flap (7) that extends radially outward with respect to an axis of the turnstile arm (arms 4, 5, and 6) and when the jump-deterrent flap extends vertically and provides a physical barrier above (horizontal arm jump-deterrent forms vertical barrier above) the turnstile arm (4, 5, 6).
While Simonin teaches the jump-deterrent flap (7) being attached to the conventional arm of a turnstile (column 2 lines 47-50), Simonin is silent as to how the jump-deterrent is attached.
An arm receiving attachment means is shown in Holzapfel in figures 1-1-10C with a tubular sleeve (38) having an interior surface defining a hollow interior configured to receive a turnstile arm (14) along an axis therethrough and a first attachment member (36) for attaching the tubular sleeve (38) in such a way that the sleeve (38) is prevented from turning about the axis when torque is applied (further taught attachment member 36 friction fit column 4 lines 43-67).
Molding is a product-by-process limitation and the patentability of a product is determined by the product not the process of making (see MPEP 2113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to provide the jump-deterrent apparatus of Simonin with the arm receiving attachment means of Holzapfel because the arm receiving attachment means provided an easy and secure attachment of retrofit members (i.e. the jump-deterrent of Simonin) to existing turnstile arms.
Regarding claim 9, the exterior surface of the tubular sleeve (38) defines a first open end (end with 36) and a second open end (end with 34); the interior surface extends from the first open end to the second open end; the first attachment member (36) and the exterior surface around the first open end have mating screw threads (threaded connection 118) for screwing the first attachment member (36) to the first open end; and the first attachment member (36) clamps (via clamp 84) to the turnstile arm (14) in Holzapfel. When provided with the arm receiving attachment means of Holzapfel, the friction fit provided by the clamps (column 4 lines 43-67) would prevent rotation when torque is applied to the jump deterrent.
Regarding claim 10, when provided with the arm receiving attachment means of Holzapfel, the jump-deterrent flap (7) would be integral with the sleeve (38) in Simonin. Molding is a product-by-process limitation and the patentability of a product is determined by the product not the process of making (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 11, the tubular sleeve (38) includes an open first end (end with member 36) through which the turnstile arm (14) can extend (see figure 1), the open first end having screw threads (threaded connection 118 figure 6) in Holzapfel, and, when provided with the arm receiving attachment means of Holzapfel, the jump-deterrent flap (7) would be integral with the sleeve (38) in Simonin. Molding is a product-by-process limitation and the patentability of a product is determined by the product not the process of making (see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 12, the jump-deterrent flap (7) is arc-shaped in Simonin.
Regarding claim 13, the tubular sleeve (38) includes an open first end (end with attachment member 36) through which the turnstile arm (14) can extend (see figure 1), the open first end having screw threads (threaded connection 118 figure 6) in Holzapfel. Molding is a product-by-process limitation and the patentability of a product is determined by the product not the process of making (see MPEP 2113). Although Holzapfel (and Simonin to which Holzapfel is applied) does not disclose specific thread pitch per inch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the thread pitch to be useful- i.e. too few threads per inch would result in overly large threads with limited engagement range (i.e. only one or two threads) and too many threads per inch would result in overly thin and short threads causing difficulties in thread engagement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select or at least try the thread pitch claimed as there are a finite number of thread pitches such a threaded connection can usefully be made in.
Regarding claim 14, the attachment member (36) includes a clamp (84) configured to attach the sleeve (38) to the turnstile arm (14) in such a way that the arm receiving member (10) is prevented from turning about the arm (14) when torque is applied in Holzapfel. While Holzapfel shows only one clamp, it would be design choice to use two clamps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to provide the jump-deterrent apparatus of Simonin, having the arm receiving attachment means of Holzapfel, with a second clamp because a second clamp would provide the benefit of additional attachment points and it was known in the art that redundant (i.e. second) attachment members could provide the benefit of attaching in case of failure of the first/primary attachment (see also MPEP 2144.04 VI Section B duplication of parts obvious).
Regarding claims 15-20, the method steps would inevitably follow the structural combination set forth above with respect to claims 1-14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to claim 1, examiner disagrees and maintains the combination of Simonin and Holzapfel read over the present invention as currently claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Examiner notes the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Examiner disagrees with applicant’s interpretation that the jump-deterrent section of Simonin is integral with the turnstile arm. This assertion is contradicted by Simonin column 2 lines 47-50 (examiner notes line numbering in Simonin appears off, lines 50-53 are the lines as counted) reciting that “each leg may be constituted by a conventional leg comprising a cylindrical rod and that has a bow-shaped member fitted thereto”. As such Simonin teaches a conventional cylindrical turnstile arm with the jump deterrent (bow shaped member) fitted, i.e. attached as a separate piece, thereto.
Examiner disagrees with applicant’s interpretation that the friction clamp of Holzapfel is released by loosening two small fasteners and cannot prevent rotation. The attachment collar 36 is held by two bolts 98 and 100 and is described as frictionally securing that collar to the arm. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret such frictionally securing as fixed in place, i.e. not rotating.
Examiner is unclear what is meant by applicant’s argument that the jump-deterrent portion (7) of Simonin is part of a leg extending at 45 degrees. The jump deterrent section in Simonin clearly extends upwards from the turnstile arm as detailed in column 2 lines 13-21 (the middle portion having an increased height relative to a conventional height). The argument may be related to applicant’s assertion that the jump-deterrent is integral with the arm but even if that was true (see above, examiner disagrees), the jump deterrent portion still extends vertically upward from the leg extending horizontally to block passage.
Examiner notes applicant appears to be arguing integral to require a single unitary piece with no separate parts. This is contradicted by applicant’s disclosure showing a sleeve 108 with separate attachment means/collar 118 and separate collar 110. See above 112(b) rejection.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to claim 8, examiner notes the arguments are similar to those already addressed above with respect to claim 1.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to claim 15, examiner maintains that the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus and the arguments directed to the apparatus claims are not found persuasive as detailed above. Examiner notes that applicant’s arguments appear to hinge on the interpretation that the jump-deterrent in Simonin is integral with the turnstile arm, an interpretation with which, as detailed above, examiner disagrees.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619