DETAILED ACTION
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Maher (US 10,718,133 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Maher discloses a bollard fence section adapted for engagement with a base member (see Fig. 9), the base member (600 in Fig. 9) including a plurality of openings (510, 512, and 560) extending downwardly from a top surface (502 in Fig. 9) of the base member, one of the openings being a square opening (560), and the remaining openings being larger than the square opening (see Fig. 9), the bollard fence section comprising:
a plurality of bollard fence sections (see Fig. 19 and Abstract for example), each bollard fence section including a plurality of bollards (104, 105, and 260 in Fig. 9), at least one (260) of the plurality of bollards being a match bollard having a square shape adapted for engagement with the square opening in the base member (see Fig. 9), each of the plurality of bollards having approximately the same size square cross section (see Fig. 9), the number of openings in the base member corresponding to the number of bollards (see Fig. 9), and the plurality of bollards being adapted for positioning in the openings in the base member (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 20, Maher discloses wherein the openings (510, 512, and 560 in Fig. 9) in the base member (600 in Fig. 9) extend downwardly from the top surface (502 in Fig. 9) of the base member and partially into the base member (see Fig. 9), each opening has a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 9), and each longitudinal axis of each opening is generally disposed in parallel relationship to one another (see Fig. 9).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 12-15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maher (US 10,718,133 B1) in view of Adler (US 2011/0033232 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maher discloses a border wall (see Fig. 8) comprising:
a plurality of base members (600 in Fig. 9, see Fig. 19 and Abstract for example), each base member including a plurality of openings (510, 512, and 560) extending downwardly from a top surface of the base member (see Fig. 9), one of the openings being a square opening (560), and the remaining openings being larger than the square opening (see Fig. 9); and
a plurality of bollard fence sections (see Fig. 19 and Abstract for example), each bollard fence section including a plurality of bollards (104, 105, and 260 in Fig. 9), at least one (260) of the plurality of bollards being a match bollard having a square shape adapted for engagement with the square opening in a corresponding base member (see Figs. 9-10), each of the plurality of bollards having approximately the same size square cross section (see Fig. 9), the number of openings in the base members corresponding to the number of bollards (see Fig. 9), and the plurality of bollards being adapted for positioning in the openings in the base member (see Fig. 10).
Maher fails to disclose as claimed that the plurality of base members are precast concrete.
However, Adler teaches a border wall (see Fig. 4) comprising base members (144) filled with a ballast comprising concrete (see paragraph [0025]) that further accept bollards therein (see Fig. 4), in order to provide an anchor ballast that will not expand and damage the border wall structure during below freezing temperatures.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, 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 border wall of Maher, with Adler, such that it comprises concrete as the ballast in the base member, in order to provide an anchor ballast that will not expand and damage the border wall structure during below freezing temperatures.
NOTE: The concrete provided in the base member as a ballast is considered precast as it is cast to the shape of the base member of Maher.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Maher and Adler teaches wherein each of the openings (510, 512, and 560 of Maher) in each base member (600 of Maher) are aligned with and equidistantly spaced from each other (see Fig. 9 of Maher).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Maher and Adler teaches wherein the openings (510, 512, and 560 of Maher) extend downwardly from the top surface (502 in Fig. 9 of Maher) of the base member (600 of Maher) and partially into the base member (see Fig. 9 of Maher), each opening has a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 9 of Maher), and each longitudinal axis of each opening is generally disposed in parallel relationship to one another (see Fig. 9 of Maher).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Maher and Adler teaches wherein the number of bollards (104, 105, and 260 in Fig. 9 of Maher) in a bollard fence section (see Fig. 9 of Maher) corresponds to the number of openings in a precast base member (510, 512, and 560 of Maher), and the spacing and alignment of the bollards correspond to the spacing and alignment of the openings (see Fig. 9 of Maher).
Regarding claim 8, Maher discloses a base member (600 in Fig. 9) adapted for engagement with a bollard fence section (see Fig. 9), the bollard fence section including a plurality of bollards (104, 105, and 260 in Fig. 9), each of the plurality of bollards having approximately the same size square cross section (see Fig. 9), the base member comprising:
a base (600 in Fig. 9) in the form of a rectangular prism (see Fig. 9) and having a top surface (502 in Fig. 9), a front side surface (509 in Fig. 9), a back side surface (511) opposite the front side surface, a left end surface (506 in Fig. 9), and a right end surface (508 in Fig. 9) opposite the left end surface (see Fig. 9); and
a plurality of openings (510, 512, and 560) extending downwardly from the top surface of the base member, one of the openings being a square opening (560), and the remaining openings being larger than the square opening (see Fig. 9),
at least one of the plurality of bollards (104, 105, and 260 in Fig. 9) being a match bollard (260) having a square shape adapted for engagement with the square opening in the base member (see Fig. 9), the number of openings in the base member corresponding to the number of bollards (see Fig. 9), and the plurality of bollards being adapted for positioning in the openings in the base member (see Fig. 9).
Maher fails to disclose as claimed that the base members is precast concrete.
However, Adler teaches a border wall (see Fig. 4) comprising base members (144) filled with a ballast comprising concrete (see paragraph [0025]) that further accept bollards therein (see Fig. 4), in order to provide an anchor ballast that will not expand and damage the border wall structure during below freezing temperatures.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, 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 border wall of Maher, with Adler, such that it comprises concrete as the ballast in the base member, in order to provide an anchor ballast that will not expand and damage the border wall structure during below freezing temperatures.
NOTE: The concrete provided in the base member as a ballast is considered precast as it is cast to the shape of the base member of Maher.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Maher and Adler teaches wherein the square opening (560 of Maher) in the base (600 in Fig. 19 of Maher) is defined by a section of square tubing (see NOTE below).
NOTE: See in Column 10 lines 18-25 of Maher that the base provides a tubular pocket formed during plastic molding operation. Accordingly, the square opening is defined by a section of square molded tubing.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Maher and Adler teaches wherein each of the openings (510, 512, and 560 of Maher) in the base are aligned with and equidistantly spaced from each other (see Fig. 9 of Maher).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Maher and Adler teaches wherein the openings (510, 512, and 560 of Maher) extend downwardly from the top surface (502 in Fig. 9 of Maher) of the base (600 in Fig. 9 of Maher) and partially into the base (see Fig. 9 of Maher), each opening has a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 9 of Maher), and each longitudinal axis of each opening is generally disposed in parallel relationship to one another (see Fig. 9 of Maher).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Maher and Adler teaches wherein the number of bollards (104, 105, and 260 in Fig. 9 of Maher) in the bollard fence section corresponds to the number of openings (510, 512, and 560 in Fig. 9 of Maher) in the base member, and the spacing and alignment of the bollards correspond to the spacing and alignment of the openings (see Fig. 9 of Maher).
Regarding claim 17, Maher discloses the base member (600 in Fig. 9), but fails to disclose as claimed that the base member includes an alignment notch in the first end of the base member and an alignment protrusion in the second end of the base member.
However, Nolte teaches each base member includes an alignment notch (73) in a first end of the base member and an alignment protrusion (23, 25 in Fig. 2) in a second end of the base member (see Figs. 1-2), in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Therefore, 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 base member of Maher, with Adler, such that it comprises the alignment notches and protrusions of Nolte, in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Regarding claim 18, Maher discloses the base member (600 in Fig. 9), but fails to disclose as claimed that the base member includes a first connector at the first end of the base member and a second connector at the second end of the base member, each connector including an aperture.
However, Nolte teaches each base member includes a first connector (23, 24 in Fig. 2) at a first end of the base member and a second connector (23, 25 in Fig. 2) at a second end of the base member (see Fig. 2), each connector including an aperture (31, 33), in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Therefore, 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 base member of Maher, with Adler, such that it comprises the first and second connectors of Nolte, in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maher (US 10,718,133 B1) and Adler (US 2011/0033232 A1), as applied in claims 1 and 8, and further in view of Nolte (US 7,144,186 B1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Maher and Adler teaches base members (600 of Maher), but fails to teach as claimed wherein each base member includes an alignment notch in a first end of the base member and an alignment protrusion in a second end of the base member.
However, Nolte teaches each base member includes an alignment notch (73) in a first end of the base member and an alignment protrusion (23, 25 in Fig. 2) in a second end of the base member (see Figs. 1-2), in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Therefore, 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 combination of Maher and Adler, with Nolte, such that it comprises the alignment notches and protrusions of Nolte, in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Maher and Adler teaches base members (600 of Maher), but fails to teach as claimed wherein each base member includes a first connector at a first end of the base member and a second connector at a second end of the base member, each connector including an aperture.
However, Nolte teaches each base member includes a first connector (23, 24 in Fig. 2) at a first end of the base member and a second connector (23, 25 in Fig. 2) at a second end of the base member (see Fig. 2), each connector including an aperture (31, 33), in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Therefore, 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 combination of Maher and Adler, with Nolte, such that it comprises the first and second connectors of Nolte, in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Maher and Adler teaches base members (600 of Maher), but fails to teach as claimed wherein each base includes an alignment notch in the first end of the base and an alignment protrusion in the second end of the base.
However, Nolte teaches each base member includes an alignment notch (73) in a first end of the base member and an alignment protrusion (23, 25 in Fig. 2) in a second end of the base member (see Figs. 1-2), in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Therefore, 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 combination of Maher and Adler, with Nolte, such that it comprises the alignment notches and protrusions of Nolte, in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Maher and Adler teaches base members (600 of Maher), but fails to teach as claimed wherein each base includes a first connector at the first end of the base and a second connector at the second end of the base, each connector including an aperture, a first connector on a first base being adapted for engagement with a second connector on a second base.
However, Nolte teaches each base member includes a first connector (23, 24 in Fig. 2) at a first end of the base member and a second connector (23, 25 in Fig. 2) at a second end of the base member (see Fig. 2), each connector including an aperture (31, 33), and a first connector on a first base being adapted for engagement with a second connector on a second base (see Figs. 4-5), in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Therefore, 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 combination of Maher and Adler, with Nolte, such that it comprises the first and second connectors of Nolte, in order to provide a means for multiple base members to be attached to withstand greater forces than capable by a single base member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 would be allowable for at least the reasons listed in the Allowable Subject Matter section of the Non-Final Rejection dated 17 December 2025.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 would be allowable for at least the reasons listed in the Allowable Subject Matter section of the Non-Final Rejection dated 17 December 2025.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 would be allowable for at least the reasons listed in the Allowable Subject Matter section of the Non-Final Rejection dated 17 December 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026, page 1, recites: “…This limitation is not met by items 104, 105 and 260, as the vertical supports 104 and 105 on the ends of the structure shown in Figure 9 are much larger than the item 260…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s disclosure does not set forth any parameters for the term “approximately”. Accordingly, it is Examiner’s reasonable interpretation that members 104, 105, and 260 of Maher are approximately the same size in cross section. Each bollard is a part of the same fence section and therefore are all approximately the same size in cross section as shown in Fig. 9 of Maher.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026, page 2, recites: “…Further, as to claim 20, the openings 510 and 512 are thru holes to allow passage of the vertical members 104 and 105, and therefore are not openings that extend ‘partially into the base member’…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 20 requires the openings to extend partially into the base member. It is understood that the openings of Maher extend at least partially into the base member. Further, the openings of Maher (510, 512) comprise two separate diameter portions that extend partially into the base member (see Fig. 12). Lastly, openings 560 extend partially into the base member. Therefore, the claim limitation is met by openings 560 and the structure of openings 510 and 512.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026, pages 2-3, recite: “…As explained above, Maher does not disclose these bolded limitations, and Adler does not cure that deficiency. As such, for the above reasons, Maher does not, either alone or in combination with Adler, render independent claims 1 and 8 (nor any of their respective dependent claims) unpatentable…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s disclosure does not set forth any parameters for the term “approximately”. Accordingly, it is Examiner’s reasonable interpretation that members 104, 105, and 260 of Maher are approximately the same size in cross section. Each bollard is a part of the same fence section and therefore are all approximately the same size in cross section as shown in Fig. 9 of Maher. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026, page 3, recites: “…The rejected claims here depend from independent claims 1 and 8. The addition to the combination of Nolte does not overcome the deficiency identified above with regard to claims 1 and 8. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests that these rejected claims are now in condition for allowance, an early notice of which is earnestly solicited…”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For at least the reasons listed above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in view of Nolte are not overcome by Applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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 at 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 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.
/ZAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights