DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 8-9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The terms “stronger”, “thicker”, and “larger” in claim 8 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “stronger”, “thicker”, and “larger” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no reference point from which the walls are “strengthened” by making components “stronger”, “thicker”, and “larger”.
Regarding claim 9, the terms "preferably" and “preferred” render the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not distinctly claimed (those encompassed by "preferably" and “preferred”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Groeneweg (US 2009/0166998) in view of Holroyd (US 2010/0101156).
In re claims 1-3 and 6, Groeneweg discloses a mobile barrier (200) comprising first and second platforms (104a,b), each of said first and second platforms having at least one set of wheels (as shown in Figure 1A); a plurality of interconnected wall sections (108a-c) positioned between and connected to the first and second platforms, the plurality of wall sections defining a protected work area on a side of the trailer; wherein each of the wall sections has a hollow interior defined by opposing left and right wall skins (300) respectively (as shown in Figures 3A-C), but does not disclose wherein each wall section has an upper wall extension that increases a height of the well [sic. consider correcting into “wall”] section and a lower wall extension that occupies at least part of a gap between a bottom of the wall section and a travel surface.
Holroyd discloses a mobile barrier (104) comprising a plurality of interconnected wall sections (114a, 114b, 114c) defining a protected work area on a side of the trailer, wherein each wall section has an upper wall extension (middle guard panels 132 as shown in Figure 2) that increases a height of the wall section; and a lower wall extension (135) that occupies at least part of a gap between a bottom of the wall section and a travel surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the walls of Groeneweg such that they comprised the upper and lower wall extensions of Holroyd to further increase protection behind the walls.
In re claims 4, 5, and 7, Groeneweg further discloses telescoping walls that extend horizontally (see [0125]; as shown in Figures 15A-15C), but does not disclose wherein the upper and lower wall extensions slide into position from the hollow interior defined by the opposing left and right wall skins. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wall extensions of Groeneweg and Holroyd such that they telescopingly slide up and down into position as taught by Groeneweg to advantageously provide a more easily deployable wall extension.
In re claim 8, Groeneweg further discloses wherein the wall sections are strengthened by means selected from the group comprising: making end plates of stronger material, making the end plates of thicker material, making the end plates larger for use with more and/or larger dowels and/or bolts, gusseting the end plates to a main beam structure of the wall sections (as shown in Figure 3C).
In re claim 9, Groeneweg further discloses wherein the wall sections are a preferred height of at least about 4.1 feet, more preferably of at least about 4.25 feet, and even more preferably at least about 4.5 feet (see [0097]).
In re claim 10, Holroyd further discloses wherein the first or second platforms includes one or more features selected from the group comprising: stationary turrets, rotating turrets, bullet/blast proofed enclosures, large caliber guns, small caliber guns, attachments for cameras (see [0059]), mine clearing devices, mine detecting devices, and other on-site and remotely viewable and/or controllable equipment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the barrier of Groeneweg such that it comprised the cameras of Holroyd for monitoring the situation on the other side of the barrier.
In re claim 11, Groeneweg further discloses wherein the barrier further comprises trailer stands (352) that automatically raise and/or lower via air, hydraulics, electrical or other mechanical means (as shown in Figure 4A).
In re claim 13, Groeneweg further discloses wherein the barrier further comprises a first caboose engaged with the king pin on one of the first or second platforms (via caboose king pin receiver channel 524 as shown in Figure 5A).
In re claim 14, Groeneweg further discloses wherein the barrier further comprises king pins on both of the first and second platforms, and first and second cabooses (116, 120) are provided and engaged with the king pins on both of the first and second platforms (see [0078]).
In re claim 15, Groeneweg further discloses wherein at least one of the first and second cabooses (116) is self-propelled.
In re claim 16, Groeneweg further discloses wherein the first and second cabooses are each provided with two axles with corresponding wheels (as shown in Figures 1B and 16-18).
In re claim 17, Groeneweg further discloses wherein one of the two axles provided on each of the first and second cabooses is a steering axle and the other axle is a fixed axle (as shown in Figure 18).
In re claim 18, Groeneweg further discloses wherein the steering axle does not pivot (as shown in Figure 18).
In re claim 19, Groeneweg further discloses wherein the wheels on the steering axle pivot (as shown in Figure 18).
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Groeneweg and Holroyd in view of Groeneweg* (US 7,572,022).
In re claim 12, Groeneweg and Holroyd disclose the mobile barrier of claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the barrier has protective wall sections deployed on both sides of the first and second platforms with a fully enclosed protected work area being positioned in the center. Groeneweg*, however, does disclose wherein the barrier has protective wall sections deployed on both sides of the first and second platforms with a fully enclosed protected work area (33) being positioned in the center as shown in Figure 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the barrier of Groeneweg and Holroyd such it comprised the full enclosure of Groeneweg* to advantageously provide additional protection.
Claim 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Groeneweg and Holroyd in view of Groeneweg** (US 2011/0163517).
In re claim 20, Groeneweg and Holroyd disclose the mobile barrier of claim 17, but do not disclose wherein the steerable axle may be locked in a fixed position and unlocked in a steerable position. Groeneweg**, however, does disclose wherein the steerable axle may be locked in a fixed position and unlocked in a steerable position (see [0171]-[0172]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steerable axle Groeneweg and Holroyd such it comprised the steering lock of Groeneweg** to advantageously be able to prevent steering when not required or desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure. The references cited on the attached PTO-892 teach barriers/trailers of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Stabley whose telephone number is (571)270-3249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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 would like assistance 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.
/Michael Stabley/
Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
