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 .
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, 3, 6, 10-13, 16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 1,815,187 to Coles.
Coles discloses a construction element (page 1, lines 1-4) for a container wherein the lower construction element (1) comprises a first surface (first sidewall 14), and a second surface (second sidewall 14), arranged at a distance from one another, forming a space where at least one non-concrete composite bar (11) is arranged, and where a metal component (10) is arranged that at least partly surround the composite bar, and where concrete (15; page 2, lines 38-51) is arranged in the space between the first wall, the second wall, the metal component and the composite bar, as in claim 1.
Coles also discloses several of the non- concrete composite bars are arranged with a separating distance (shown best in figure 2) between them, as in claim 3, and the non-concrete composite is a composite comprising at least two of the components; a polymer, an organic material, and a metal (page 2, lines 38-51), as in claim 6.
Coles further discloses at least one of the first surface and the second surface is made of steel plate armor (page 2, lines 2-5), as in claim 10, wherein the concrete comprises at least one additive selected from wood pellets, plastic pellets, and/or metal pellets (page 2, lines 38-51), as in claim 11.
Coles additionally discloses a construction element (page 1, lines 1-4) for a container wherein the construction element comprises a first surface (first sidewall 14), and a second surface (second sidewall 14), arranged at a distance from one another, forming a space where at least one non-concrete composite bar (11) is arranged perpendicularly to a metal component (10), and where the composite bar is arranged to pass through an opening arranged in the metal component, and where concrete (15; page 2, lines 38-51) is arranged in the space between the first wall, the second wall, the metal component and the composite bar (figures 1 and 2), as in claim 12.
Coles also discloses several of the non-concrete composite bars are arranged with a separating distance (shown best in figure 2), between them, as in claim 13, and the non-concrete composite is a composite comprising at least two of the components; a polymer, an organic material, and a metal (page 2, lines 38-51), as in claim 16, as well as at least one of the first surface and the second surface is made of steel plate armor (page 2, lines 2-5), as in claim 20, wherein the concrete comprises at least one additive selected from wood pellets, plastic pellets, and/or metal pellets (page 2, lines 38-51), as in claim 21.
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, 5, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coles, as applied above.
Coles discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Coles discloses the construction element is of any thickness. However, Coles does not disclose the specific separating distance of the composite bars and the overall thickness of the construction element. It is common knowledge in the prior art to adjust the distance of the materials to fit the desired use of the construction element in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of improving torch and drill resistant safe and vault members or plates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the separating distance to be between 200 mm to 300 mm, as in claims 4 and 14, and the thickness of the construction element is in the range of 130 mm - 170 mm, as in claims 5 and 15, in order to improve ferrous base composite plate for safe and vault constructions. The optimization of proportions in a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Reese, 290 F.2d 839, 129 USPQ 402 (CCPA 1961).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coles, as applied above.
Coles discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Coles discloses the non-concrete composite being made with plastic and strong metals. However, Coles does not disclose what the polymer or metal are in the non-concrete composite. It is common knowledge in the prior art to select a material suitable in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of having materials that are drill, abrasion and torch resistant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to structural units from polyethylene and aluminum in order to be torch, and drill resistant safe and vault members or plates. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coles, as applied above.
Coles discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Coles discloses a construction element (page 1, lines 1-4) for a container wherein the lower construction element (1) comprises a first surface (first sidewall 14), and a second surface (second sidewall 14), arranged at a distance from one another, forming a space where at least one non-concrete composite bar (11) is arranged, and where a metal component (10) is arranged that at least partly surround the composite bar, and where concrete (15; page 2, lines 38-51) is arranged in the space between the first wall, the second wall, the metal component and the composite bar. However, Coles does not disclose the construction element is used as an upper or lower construction element. It is common knowledge in the prior art to construct a safe or vault from multiple construction elements in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of improving torch and drill resistant containers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the construction element as upper and lower construction elements within a safe or vault in order to improve safe and vault construction. Duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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: the metal component at least partly surround only three out of four surfaces of the non-concrete composite bar in the longitudinal direction of the composite bar, and wherein the four surfaces of the non-concrete composite care are exposed to the concrete.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the argument that Coles does not disclose a non-concrete composite bar, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Coles clearly discloses the inserts are an intermediate member composed of non-concrete materials in a generally flat, rectangular cross-section shape, thus it is clear that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the inserts of Coles are non-concrete composite bars.
In regards to the argument that Coles does not disclose concrete is arranged in the space between the first wall, the second wall, the metal component and the composite bar, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is unclear what the applicant is construing as the first and second walls, as neither of these limitations are found prior to the recitation. Assuming arguendo, the applicant meant the walls are the first and second surfaces, Coles does disclose a sheath around the metal component and the composite bar, obtained by setting up the metal component and the composite bar in a casting concrete, between the respective surfaces, as reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
227
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Responding to the argument that Coles does not disclose the non-concrete composite is a composite comprising at least two of the components; a polymer, an organic material, and a metal, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Coles discloses the non-concrete composite comprise a mesh of malleable iron rods or wire, such reinforced members have a high degree of resistance to torches, as well as to mechanical cutting tools, such as drills and the like, and are markedly abrasion resistant, and later that the embedments are any suitable composition, such as plastic, concrete, cement, and carbides of such materials as zirconium, vanadium, chromium.
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 CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9-4; F 9-12.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
CJB /cb/
February 2, 2026