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
Claims 4-6 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 8, 2026
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the information disclosure statements filed on March 10, 2025 has been considered as to the merits.
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) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bucarizza (11,454,043) in view of Kawasaki (JP 2003328599). With respect to claim 1, Bucarizza discloses a fence panel (10) comprising a rectangular sheet of mesh material (column 1, lines 59 and 66-67), the sheet including first and second opposed horizontal edges (18) and (20), and third and fourth opposed vertical edges (22) and (24), wherein the sheet is formed from a horizontally extending array of spaced apart wire rods (34) and a vertically extending array of spaced apart wire rods (36) which are welded together at points of contact (column 2, line 14), and a plurality of deterrent components (14) which are fixed at least to one side of the sheet of mesh material, wherein each deterrent component comprises and an elongate metallic member (44) and a plurality of protruding metallic spikes (46) which are fixed to the elongate member.
Bucarizza fails to disclose each spike formed from strip material with a thickness T which are fixed to the elongate member which has a thickness D, wherein D>=3T.
Kawasaki teaches an elongate substrate (1) with spikes (2) mounted thereto, wherein the elongate substrate and spikes are for attaching to a barrier (see Figures 7-9). Figure 2 shows the relative thickness of the elongate substrate (1) and the spikes (2), wherein the elongate substrate is at least 3 times thicker than the thickness of the spikes. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the relative sizes of the spikes and the elongate member disclosed by Bucarizza as taught by Kawasaki, since the use of a thicker elongate member would provide increased reinforcement to the fence as a whole.
With respect to claim 2, Bucarizza discloses the elongate member is a “metallic strip” which constitutes a flat bar.
With respect to claim 3, Bucarizza discloses a plurality of elongate members (44) attached to the mesh sheet (12) and which are spaced from one another so that the deterrent spikes on the elongate member extend generally in the same direction away from the sheet (see Figure 3B).
With respect to claim 7, Bucarizza discloses how each elongate member is a respective flat bar and wherein a plurality of said lengths of flat bar are attached spaced apart from one another to one or both sides of the sheet (see Figure 3B showing attachment on one side and see Figure 3D showing attachment on both sides) so that the respective rows of metallic spikes on the respective lengths of flat bar extend vertically, or horizontally or vertically and horizontally.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mincher (5,062,612); Donoho (7,802,405); Xiao (D1127125) and Abrahams (WO 2004048720).
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