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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 17 July 2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-5, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woo H S, Korean Patent Application No 2022-0030489. As to Claim 1, Woo teaches a walled boundary (fence), paragraph 0018. The walled boundary may comprise a frame (112, 113, 114, 116, 131, 133, 134) comprising a base element (112, 113, 114) extending horizontally, paragraphs 0024, 0027 and 0036 and see Figure 2. A transparent wall element (10) may be mounted on the frame, paragraph 0037and see Figure 2. A wall support (140) may extend from the frame to the wall element, paragraph 0046 and see Figure 2. As to Claim 2, Woo teaches that a channel (groove 120) may be provided on the base element, with a lower end of the wall element mounted in the channel, paragraph 0028. As to Claim 3, Woo teaches a base element, as discussed above, which base element may be a first base element (113) further comprising a second base element (114) with the channel extending from the first base element to the second base element, see Figures 2 and 4. As to Claim 5, Woo teaches that the frame may comprise a riser (118) extending vertically from the base element, the wall support attached to the riser, paragraph 0049 and see Figure 2. As to Claim 8, Woo teaches a second wall element (10) vertically disposed on top of a first wall element (10), see Figure 2, noting that wall elements may be vertically aligned. As to Claim 11, Woo teaches that the wall element may be a rectangular plate, see 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo. As to Claim 4, Woo teaches that the frame may further comprise a lateral support (116) extending from the first base element to the second base element, the channel mounted on the lateral support, paragraph 0028 and see Figure 4. Woo does not specify that the channel may be arranged on top of the lateral support. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the channel on top of the lateral support since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo in view of Berglund et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0405444. Woo substantially shows the claimed limitations as discussed above. As to Claim 6, Woo is silent as to an adjustable pole. Berglund teaches a walled boundary (panels at least partially enclosing a padel court, paragraph 0045. A wall support (14, 18) may be provided, paragraph 0046. The wall support may comprise an adjustable pole (14) noting telescopic, paragraph 0049. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Woo with an adjustable wall support, as taught by Berglund, to provide adjustment to the generally vertical orientation of the wall element to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of customizing the angle of the wall to account for a slope of a support surface. As to Claim 7, Berglund teaches that the wall support may comprise a hinge element (hinge), paragraph 0039. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Woo with a hinge element on the wall support, as taught by Berglund to provide Woo with a pivoting wall support to yield the predictable result of facilitating storage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 5 August 2026
Prosecution Insights