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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7-9, 13-14, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WIPO Publication No. 2010084304 issued to Dale.
Regarding claim 1,
Dale discloses a crash fence assembly (Dale: FIG. 1 (10), the examiner notes that the device is capable of functioning as a crash fence) including first and second uprights (Dale: FIG. 1 (12)) spaced from each other and upstanding from the ground (Dale: FIG. 1 (12) is upstanding from the ground page 4 lines 10-15 of Dale) a first fence panel extending between the uprights (Dale: FIG. 1 (18, 16A, 16B, 16C)) comprising one or more barrier elements defining a barrier between the uprights (rear mesh (54) FIG. 8 see page 6)a first cross-panel member spanning between the uprights (Dale: FIG. 1 (16A)) and a first upstanding brace secured to the first cross-panel member a first span distance from the first upright to distribute impact load (Dale: FIGS. 1, 3, 5 (18) is riveted to cross bar 16A via rivet 36 at a location spaced from post (12) examiner notes the structure of the fence distributes impact load) the brace having greater stiffness than the barrier element (Dale: FIG. 1(18) has a solid profile i.e. stiffer than the mesh)
Regarding claim 2,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 1, wherein the barrier is a mesh panel and wherein the one or more barrier elements are mesh wires or expanded mesh elements. (Dale: FIG. 8 (54) see page 6 lines 25-26)
Regarding claim 3,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 1, configured to locate the first upstanding brace to extend vertically. (Dale: FIG. 1 (18))
Regarding claim 4,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 1, comprising a second cross-panel member configured to span between the first and second uprights, and locatable at a different vertical height than the first cross-panel member. (Dale: FIG. 1 (16B))
Regarding claim 5,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 4, wherein the first upstanding brace is configured to secure the first cross-panel member and the second cross-panel member to each other, to transfer impact load between the first and second cross-panel members. (Dale: FIGS. 1, 5-6 see pages 2 and 5 (18) is riveted to both (16A) and (16B))
Regarding claim 6,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 5, wherein the first upstanding brace is configured to be suspended above the ground by the first and second cross-panel members. (Dale: FIG. 1 (18) is suspended above ground by (16A, 16B))
Regarding claim 7,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 4 comprising a second upstanding brace configured to be secured to one of or both of the first and second cross-panel members at least a second different span distance from the first upright to distribute impact load, wherein the second upstanding brace has a greater stiffness than the or each barrier element. (Dale: FIG. 1 there are multiple post members (18) and they all have a greater stiffness than the mesh element or barrier element)
Regarding claim 8,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 7, wherein the second upstanding brace is configured to secure the first cross-panel member and the second cross-panel member to each other, to transfer impact load between the first and second cross-panel members. (Dale: FIG. 1 (18) is riveted to (16A) and (16B))
Regarding claim 9,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 6 configured to locate the first and second upstanding braces to extend parallel to each other in-use. (Dale: FIG. 1 (18))
Regarding claim 13,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 4 wherein the first and second cross-panel members and the first and second uprights together are connectable via a plug-socket system configured to support the first and second cross-panel members. (Dale: FIGS. 3 6 see also page 5, cross bars (16) are located in L-shaped openings (30) in posts (12) and lowered, slot (32) engaging the opening to prevent lateral withdrawal)
Regarding claim 14,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 13, wherein the plug-socket system is configured to permit sloping of the first and second cross-panel members relative to the first and second uprights, to follow sloping ground. (Dale: see page 5 “It is to be realised that the assembly 10 can follow the ground profile, such that the cross bars 16A, B, C will not necessarily extend horizontally and may rather follow the ground profile”)
Regarding claim 16,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 4 comprising a third cross-panel member configured to span between the first and second uprights, locatable at a different vertical height than the first and second cross-panel members. (Dale: FIG. 1 (16C))
Regarding claim 17,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 16, configured to locate the first, second, and third cross-panel members to extend parallel to each other in-use. (Dale: FIG. 1 (16A, 16B, 16C))
Regarding claim 20,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 16 wherein the first upstanding brace is configured to secure the first, second, and third cross-panel members to each other, to transfer impact load between the first, second, and third cross-panel members. (Dale: FIG. 1 (16A, 16B, 16C are riveted to (18) see FIGS. 1-2)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication No. 2010084304 issued to Dale in view of WIPO Publication No. 2013021189 issued to Sharp.
Regarding claim 19,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 16.
Dale does not appear to disclose wherein a vertical separation between the first and second cross-panel members is less than a vertical separation between the second and third cross-panel members.
However, Sharp discloses wherein a vertical separation between the first and second cross-panel members is less than a vertical separation between the second and third cross-panel members. (Sharp: page 6 “The ropes 24 may be disposed at a height of between 300 mm and 2 meters above the ground. The height position of at least some of the ropes is selected to be such that the engine of an impacting vehicle will impact them. Ropes 24 may be provided at varying heights above the ground, for absorbing energy from a range of vehicles of varying sizes.”
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the lower two cross-panel members closer together near bumper height, with the upper member spaced further to capture taller vehicles, in order to improve Dale’s security fence against breach by vehicle impact.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication No. 2010084304 issued to Dale in view of U.S. Publication No. 20080308780 issued to Sloan.
Regarding claim 21,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 1, wherein the barrier is in the form of a barrier panel (Dale: FIG. 8 (54))
Dale does not appear to disclose wherein the first upright comprises a barrier support to attach a first side of the barrier panel to the first upright, and wherein the barrier support extends over more than 50% of an above-ground height of the first upright.
However, Sloan discloses wherein the first upright (Sloan: FIGS. 5-6 (12)) comprises a barrier support (Sloan: FIGS. 5-6 (24) welded to the post (12)) to attach a first side of the barrier panel to the first upright, (Sloan: FIGS. 5-6 (24) attaches (12) to mesh (14)) and wherein the barrier support extends over more than 50% of an above-ground height of the first upright. (Sloan: FIGS. 5-6 (14) extends more than 50% of (12))
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the mesh barrier of Dale to its posts via such a continuous barrier support to resist prying or tearing of the panel away from the posts under attack or vehicle impact (Sloan: abstract, see also [0036])
Regarding claim 22,
Dale in view of Sloan discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 21, wherein the first upright comprises a further barrier support to attach a second side of a barrier panel of an adjacent fence panel to the first upright. (Sloan: FIGS. 5-6 angle (24) may be interpreted as a further barrier support since (24) has two sides that extend perpendicularly from the post (I-beam configuration) which attaches a second side of a barrier panel to an adjacent fence panel i.e. other side of post (12))
Regarding claim 23,
Dale in view of Sloan discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 21 wherein the first upright comprises a further barrier support to attach a second side of a barrier panel of an adjacent fence panel to the first upright. (Sloan: FIGS. 5-6, other side of angle (24) attaches to a second side of a barrier panel of an adjacent fence panel to the first upright)
Regarding claim 24,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 1.
Dale does not appear to disclose wherein openings are provided in the first and second uprights, and wherein adjacent fence panels are configured to be structurally interconnected, with a load path between the adjacent fence panels extending through the openings.
However, Sharp discloses wherein openings in first/second uprights (FIG. 5B apertures in post for hooks; slot 26 at post top; tab apertures 31a in end post) and wherein adjacent fence panels are configured to be structurally interconnected (Sloan: FIG. 5B pre-tensioned ropes 24 extend through/support on successive posts and tie adjacent bays/runs together) with a load path between the adjacent fence panels extending through the openings. (Sharp: the impact load is transmitted along ropes through the post apertures/slots/tabs to adjacent portions/end terminals)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interconnect the adjacent fence panels of Dale by a continuous load-path member extending through the post openings (3) as taught by Sharp, so as to spread vehicle impact load along the fence between adjacent panels and thereby improve Dale’s security fence against breach by vehicle ramming.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication No. 2010084304 issued to Dale in view of Great Brittan Patent No. 2450352 issued to Darlington.
Regarding claim 25,
Dale discloses the crash fence assembly of claim 1.
Dale does not appear to disclose wherein the crash fence assembly comprises a first energy absorbing member engageable against the first upright if the first cross-panel member moves from a rest position.
However, Darlington discloses wherein the crash fence assembly comprises a first energy absorbing member (Darlington: FIG. 7 (126)) engageable against the first upright if the first cross-panel member moves from a rest position. (Darlington: FIG. 7 (126) is positioned at the end column terminal interface and absorbs load transmitted into the column)
It would have been obvious for a PHOISTA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly of Dale with such a resilient energy absorbing member positioned to be engaged against the post by the cross-panel member upon impact movement as taught by Darlington in order to absorb vehicle-impact energy and reduce the force transmitted into the post and foundation, thereby improving Dale’s security fence against breach and damage by vehicle impact.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights