DETAILED ACTION
Status of claims
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 17-18, 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation in line 8 of claim 14 should be corrected to read --a plurality of caps, wherein each cap is secured to each of said plurality of vertical fence posts, respectively-- in order to more clearly define that the security fence comprises a cap on each of the posts, as the present language could introduce potential ambiguity within the claim as to whether a single cap is secured to each of the posts.
Claim 17 should be corrected to read --wherein said closed lower ends of said pair of wire receiving slots is wider than said open upper ends for each of the vertical fence posts-- so as to distinguish between the lower and upper ends of the fence posts defined in line 3 of claim 14 and the closed lower ends and open upper ends of the slots, and to clarify that this is the case for each of the fence posts, not just a single one of the fence posts.
Claim 18 should be corrected to read --wherein for each of said vertical fence posts, said closed lower ends of said pair of wire receiving slots are circular-- to clearly distinguish between the lower ends of the fence posts and the closed lower ends of the slots, and to clarify that this is the case for each of the fence posts, not just a single one of the fence posts.
The limitation in lines 2-3 of claim 20 should be corrected to read --disposed within said wire trays--.
Claim 21 should be corrected to read --further comprising a plurality of fasteners, each fastener of said plurality adapted to extend through one of said plurality of caps and one of said plurality of vertical fence posts, respectively-- in order to properly refer back to the plurality of caps defined in claim 14 and in order to more clearly define that each cap and fence post as a fastener.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-15, 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergendahl (US 6,962,328).
Regarding claim 1, Bergendahl discloses of a security fence post assembly comprising:
a security fence post (30, 30a, 130, with specific focus on the embodiments in Fig. 8b, 9, 10a) having an upper end and a lower end (as seen in the figures);
a first wire receiving slot (40, 40a) formed in said upper end of said security fence post (see Fig. 8b-9), said first wire receiving slot having an open upper end and a closed lower end (see in Fig. 9 the open upper end adjacent reference characters 61a, 61b; see in Fig. 9 the closed lower end 43a);
a cap (50 Fig. 3-4), said cap adapted to be secured over said upper end of said security fence post (see Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Bergendahl discloses wherein said cap (50) is adapted for reinforcing the structural integrity of said security fence post in the vicinity of the first wire receiving slot (the cap is capable of assisting in reinforcing the structural integrity of said security fence post in the vicinity of the first wire receiving slot as it covers the open upper end of the wire receiving slot).
Regarding claim 5, Bergendahl discloses wherein said lower end of said first wire receiving slot is wider than said open, upper end of said first wire receiving slot (see Fig. 8b, 9; the lower end 63 of the slot is wider than the upper end at 61, 61b of the slot).
Regarding claim 6, Bergendahl discloses wherein said lower end of said first said wire receiving slot is circular (see the circular arc of the closed lower end in Annotated Fig. 1 below), and has a diameter wider than a width of the open, upper end of said first wire receiving slot (being that the circular arc has a width wider than the open upper end at 61a, 61b, the diameter of the circular arc is thereby wider than the width of the open upper end).
PNG
media_image1.png
651
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 7, Bergendahl discloses wherein said security fence post is tubular (see Fig. 10a showing an embodiment of the fence post 130 having a rectangular cross-section, i.e. the fence post is tubular), said security fence post having a second wire receiving slot opposite said first wire receiving slot (fence post 130 in Fig. 10a has first and second wire receiving slots 40 that oppose one another).
Regarding claim 8, Bergendahl discloses wherein said cap (50) is adapted to be secured over said upper end of said security fence post for reinforcing the structural integrity of said security fence post in the vicinity of said first and second wire receiving slots (being that the cap 50 covers the upper end of the fence post as seen in Fig. 3-4, it is thereby capable of assisting in reinforcing the structural integrity of said fence post in the vicinity of the first and second wire receiving slots as it will cover the upper ends of the wire receiving slots).
Regarding claim 9, Bergendahl discloses wherein said security fence post is rectangular in cross-section (see Fig. 10a showing an embodiment of the fence post 130 having a rectangular cross-section), said security fence post having a second wire receiving slot opposite said first wire receiving slot (fence post 130 in Fig. 10a has first and second wire receiving slots 40 that oppose one another).
Regarding claim 10, Bergendahl discloses wherein said cap (50) is adapted to be secured over said upper end of said security fence post for reinforcing the structural integrity of said security fence post in the vicinity of said first and second wire receiving slots (being that the cap 50 covers the upper end of the fence post as seen in Fig. 3-4, it is thereby capable of assisting in reinforcing the structural integrity of said fence post in the vicinity of the first and second wire receiving slots as it will cover the upper ends of the wire receiving slots).
Regarding claim 13, Bergendahl discloses a security fence assembly (20, 20a; see Fig. 1a-1c), said security fence assembly comprising a plurality of security fence post assemblies as claimed in claim 1 (see plurality of fence post assemblies 30 in the fence assembly in Fig. 1a-1c).
Regarding claim 14, Bergendahl discloses of a security fence (20, 20a) comprising:
a plurality of vertical fence posts (the fence posts 30 in Fig. 1a-1c will have the embodiment of the post seen in Fig. 8b, 9, 10a) spaced apart from one another along a perimeter (see Fig. 1a-1c), said plurality of vertical fence posts each having an upper end and a lower end (see Fig. 1a-1c);
a pair of wire receiving slots (40, 40a) formed in each of said plurality of vertical fence posts (see in Fig. 10a the fence post having opposing wire receiving slots 40), each said wire receiving slot having an open upper end and a closed lower end (see in Fig. 9 the open upper end adjacent reference characters 61a, 61b; see in Fig. 9 the closed lower end 43a);
one or more conductive wires or cables (160a-c) disposed within said wire receiving slots of said plurality of vertical fence posts (see Fig. 3-5, 8a-8b);
a cap (50) secured to each of said plurality of vertical fence posts (see Fig. 3-4), said caps adapted to reinforce the structural integrity of each of said plurality of vertical fence posts in the vicinity of the pair of wire receiving slots (being that the caps 50 cover the upper ends of the fence posts as seen in Fig. 3-4, the caps are capable of assisting in reinforcing the structural integrity of each of the fence posts in the vicinity of the pair of wire receiving slots as it will cover the upper ends of the wire receiving slots).
Regarding claim 15, Bergendahl discloses wherein each of said plurality of vertical fence posts are rectangular in cross-section (see Fig. 10a showing the embodiment of the fence posts 130 having a rectangular cross-section).
Regarding claim 17, Bergendahl discloses wherein said lower ends of said pair of wire receiving slots is wider than said upper ends (see Fig. 8b, 9; the closed lower end 63 of each slot is wider than the open upper end at 61, 61b of each slot).
Regarding claim 18, Bergendahl discloses wherein said lower ends of said pair of wire receiving slots are circular (see the circular arc of the closed lower ends of the slots in Annotated Fig. 1, i.e. the closed lower ends of the slots are circular).
Regarding claim 20, Bergendahl discloses of further comprising wire trays (146) extending between each of said plurality of vertical fence posts (wire trays 146 extend within the outer boundaries of each fence post as seen in Fig. 7, i.e. they extend between each of said plurality of vertical fence posts), said one or more conductive wires or cables being disposed within said wire trays (cables 160a-c are disposed within recesses 151, 152, 153 of the wire trays, see Col. 7 line 65 – Col. 8 line 17).
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.
Claims 3-4, 16, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergendahl in view of Stein (DE 202016101163).
Regarding claim 3, Bergendahl does not explicitly disclose of further comprising at least one fastener adapted to extend through said cap and said security fence post.
Steiner teaches of a post (8) comprising a cap (6), wherein a cable (11) extends through a wire receiving slot (7.1), and wherein a fastener (7.2) extends through the cap, the post, and the wire receiving slot, so as to secure the cable within the slot and the cap to the post (see [0024] of the translated description).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergendahl with the teachings of Steiner, such that fence post assembly further comprises a fastener that extends through the wire receiving slot and the cap, so as to secure the cap to the post and in order to secure any cables within the slot.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bergendahl and Steiner further teach wherein at least one of said at least one fastener extends through said wire receiving slot (as taught in claim 3).
Regarding claim 16, Bergendahl does not explicitly disclose of further comprising a plurality of fasteners, at least one of said plurality of fasteners adapted to secure one of said caps to each of said plurality of fence posts to reinforce the structural integrity of said plurality of security fence posts in the vicinity of the pair of wire receiving slots.
Steiner teaches of a post (8) comprising a cap (6), wherein a cable (11) extends through a wire receiving slot (7.1), and wherein a fastener (7.2) extends through cap, the post, and the wire receiving slot, so as to secure the cable within the slot and the cap to the post (see [0024] of the translated description).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergendahl with the teachings of Steiner, to have each of the caps of each of the posts be secured thereto by a fastener extending through the caps and the posts. In doing such, a plurality of fasteners would thereby be provided to the security fence and the fastening of the caps to their respective post will reinforce the structural integrity of the fence posts in the vicinity of the pair of wire receiving slots.
Regarding claim 21, Bergendahl does not explicitly disclose of further comprising a plurality of fasteners, each of said plurality adapted to extend through said a cap and one of said plurality of vertical fence posts.
Steiner teaches of a post (8) comprising a cap (6), wherein a cable (11) extends through a wire receiving slot (7.1), and wherein a fastener (7.2) extends through cap, the post, and the wire receiving slot, so as to secure the cable within the slot and the cap to the post (see [0024] of the translated description).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergendahl with the teachings of Steiner, to have each of the caps of each of the posts be secured thereto by a fastener extending through the caps and the posts. In doing such, a plurality of fasteners would thereby be provided to the security fence.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergendahl.
Regarding claim 11, while Bergendahl discloses that security fence post (30, 30’, 130) may be rectangular in cross-section (see Fig. 10a) and may be of a number of different shapes in cross-section (see Fig. 10a-10i), they do not explicitly disclose wherein the fence post is square in cross-section. However, Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, changing the shape of a prior art device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bergendahl such that the security fence post is square in cross-section.
Claims 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergendahl in view of Heald (US 2010/0061801).
Regarding claim 12, Bergendahl does not explicitly disclose of further comprising a security device attached to one of said cap or said security fence post.
Heald teaches of a similar cable barrier assembly to that of Bergendahl, wherein Heald discloses of security fence posts (14) configured to receive cables (12), and wherein a security device (26) in the form of a delineator is attached to an upper end of each of said fence post, so that vehicles can see the cable barrier system in dim light scenarios or bad weather conditions (see [0023]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergendahl with the teachings of Heald, such that each of the security fence posts of Bergendahl further comprise a security device in the form of a delineator attached to the upper ends of the fence posts, so that vehicles can see the fence assembly of Bergendahl in dim light scenarios or bad weather conditions.
Regarding claim 19, Bergendahl does not explicitly disclose of further comprising a plurality of security devices attached to at least two of said caps secured to each of said plurality of vertical fence posts.
Heald teaches of a similar cable barrier assembly to that of Bergendahl, wherein Heald discloses of security fence posts (14) configured to receive cables (12), and wherein a security device (26) in the form of a delineator is attached to an upper end of each of said fence post, so that vehicles can see the cable barrier system in dim light scenarios or bad weather conditions (see [0023]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergendahl with the teachings of Heald, such that each of the security fence posts of Bergendahl further comprise a security device in the form of a delineator attached to the upper ends of the fence posts, so that vehicles can see the fence assembly of Bergendahl in dim light scenarios or bad weather conditions. In doing such, being that the security devices are attached to the upper ends of the fence posts, they will thereby be attached to the caps of the fence posts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)270-1852. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on 571-270-5281. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/KEVIN J BAYNES/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
