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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “Various aspects of the subject technology” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites “a section of a side wall of the plurality of side walls is angled with respect to the top and bottom wall.” However, the originally filed disclosure does not appear to provide support for a section of a side wall being angled with respect to the top wall and the bottom wall. Rather, paragraph [0031] described angled region 136 of side wall 134 as being angled with respect to the front wall 111 and rear wall 113, as illustrated by angle B in figure 4A. Thus, the disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the presently claimed relationship between the side wall section and the top and bottom walls. This rejection would be overcome by amending “top and bottom wall” to front and rear wall”. The claim has been examined as the side wall being angled with respect to the front and rear wall.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-8, 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daniluk (2021/0363716).
Regarding claim 1, Daniluk teaches a barricade device (20) comprising a body defined by a front wall (24), rear wall (opposite 24), top wall, bottom wall (94), and a plurality of side walls (48, 58): an engagement member (36) that extends from a lower portion of a rear wall, wherein the engagement member comprises an engagement member surface that extends from the rear wall of the body at an angle, wherein an engagement between a first barricade device and a second barricade device is configured to generate a mated pair of barricade devices (Figure 7), wherein the engagement between the first barricade device and the second barricade device restricts motion of the mated pair along a first engagement member surface associated with the first barricade device and a second engagement member surface associated with the second barricade device (paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claim 2, Daniluk teaches the engagement member defines a trough (38) configured to hold weighted materials (paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 3, Daniluk teaches a section of a side wall of the plurality of side walls is angled with respect to the top wall and bottom wall (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 4, Daniluk teaches the plurality of side walls each define an engagement joint (50) such that the engagement joint is configured to couple the barricade device to another barricade device (60).
Regarding claim 5, Daniluk teaches the engagement joint defines an aperture (60) such that the aperture is sized to receive an alignment pin (50) to secure the engagement joint.
Regarding claim 6, Daniluk teaches the front wall, rear wall, side wall, top wall, bottom wall or side walls define an alignment pin groove (40) capable of holding an alignment pin.
Regarding claim 7, Daniluk teaches the body defines an interior cavity, and the interior cavity is hollow (paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Daniluk teaches the front wall or the rear wall comprises: an alignment protrusion (42) that extends from the front wall or the rear wall, and an alignment notch (34) defined by the front wall or the rear wall, the alignment notch being configured to engage an alignment protrusion of another barricade device (paragraph [0100]).
Regarding claim 10, Daniluk teaches a cross-section with respect to the sidewall is asymmetrical along a vertical symmetry line.
Regarding claim 11, Daniluk teaches a method of transporting a plurality of barricade devices, the method comprising: coupling at least two barricade devices of the plurality of barricade devices (Figure 7), wherein the barricade device comprises a body defined by a front wall (24), rear wall (opposite 24), top wall, bottom wall (94), and a plurality of side walls (48, 58), and an engagement member (36) that extends from a lower portion of a rear wall, wherein the engagement member comprises an engagement member surface that extends from the rear wall of the body at an angle, wherein the front wall or wear wall comprises alignment notches (34) and alignment protrusions (42), wherein coupling comprises: inverting a first barricade device of the at least two barricade devices with respect to a second barricade device of the at least two barricade devices such that a first engagement member surface associated with the first barricade device mates with a second engagement member surface associated with the second barricade device (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 12, Daniluk teaches an engagement between the first barricade device and the second barricade device generates a mated pair of barricade devices (Figure 7), wherein the mated pair comprises a height dimension and a width dimension, such that the engagement between the first barricade device and the second barricade device along the first engagement member surface and the second engagement member surface reduces the height dimension and the width dimension.
Regarding claim 13, Daniluk teaches aligning a first barricade device alignment protrusion with a second barricade device alignment notch (60) and a first barricade device alignment notch with a second barricade device alignment protrusion (50); and engaging the first barricade device alignment protrusion with the second barricade device alignment notch and the first barricade device alignment notch with the second barricade device alignment protrusion (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 14, Daniluk teaches a barricade apparatus comprising a body (20) defined by a bottom region, middle region and top region, such that at least one of the bottom region, the middle region and the top region comprises an engagement surface (36) that extends from the body at an angle, wherein a mating between the barricade apparatus and a second barricade apparatus along the engagement surface and a second engagement surface associated with the second apparatus stabilizes a mated pair of the barricade apparatus and the second barricade apparatus (Figure 7) .
Regarding claim 15, Daniluk teaches stabilizing the mated pair along the engagement surfaces restricts motion of the barricade apparatus with respect to the second barricade apparatus.
Regarding claim 16, Daniluk teaches interlocking features including: at least one alignment protrusion (40) and at least one alignment notch (34), wherein the interlocking features are configured to engage reciprocal interlocking features of another barricade apparatus.
Regarding claim 17, Daniluk teaches the engagement surface defines a trough (38) capable of holding weighted materials.
Regarding claim 18, Daniluk teaches the bottom region, middle region, and top region vary in width along a side surface of the body (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Daniluk teaches a side-view cross-section of the body is
asymmetrical along a vertical symmetry line (Figure 2).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniluk (2021/0363716) in view of Christensen et al. (7,275,888) (“Christensen”).
Regarding claim 9, Daniluk teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the front wall or rear wall defines a lighting notch oriented in an upper region of the front wall or rear wall and is configured to engage a barricade light. Christensen teaches a barricade having a body with a front wall and a rear wall wherein the front wall (50) defines a lighting notch (48) oriented in an upper region of the front wall or rear wall and is configured to engage a barricade light (144). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a barrier light and notch on the barrier of Daniluk as taught by Christensen to make the barrier more visible to motorists in low light situations.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniluk (2021/0363716) in view of Friere (US 2021/0230823) and Kilroy (3,756,396).
Regarding claim 20, Daniluk teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a transportation pallet. Freire teaches a barrier system comprising a transportation pallet (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pallets to transport the barriers of Daniluk as taught by Freire as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Kilroy teaches a transportation pallet comprising at least one channel wherein the at least one channel (32) is configured to receive the at least one alignment protrusion (18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pallet interlocking mechanism on the pallet of Freire to transport the barriers of Daniluk as taught by Kilroy, to reduce the relative movement of the barrier during transportation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Taylor teaches interlocking water barricades that stack with a mating pair for easier transportation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 August 22, 2026
