DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
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 § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation "a frame mount". Claim 3 depends from claim 2 which recites “the frame mount”. Thus, it is unclear whether the frame mount of claim 3 is referring to the same frame mount of claim 2 or another frame mount. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2005/0058974 to PHILLIPS in view of US 5,556,143 to ROBINSON.
Regarding claim 1, PHILLIPS teaches a door breach training system (Abstract: door breach training system) comprising:
a frame at least partially defining a doorway with a bottom, the frame having a lock jamb and a hinge jamb (par. 0020; FIG. 1, ref. 14: door frame, as shown having a bottom, lock jamb and hinge jamb; see also claim 1 describing the equivalent structure; par. 0021: To simulate the locks within the training system, embodiments of the present invention include door sockets 16, frame sockets 18, and shear pins 20);
a door having a bottom, a lock side, and a hinged side, the hinged side connected to the hinge jamb with at least one hinge (par. 0020; FIG. 1, ref. 12: door, as shown with a lock side, and a hinged side, the hinged side connected to the hinge jamb with at least one hinge; see also claim 1 describing the equivalent structure).
Although PHILLIPS further discloses the use of door sockets 16, frame sockets 18, and shear pins 20 connected to the frame and the door (e.g., see par. 0021-0022), PHILLIPS does not expressly disclose: at least one mount-and-socket pair, each mount-and-socket pair connected to the frame and the door, ROBINSON discloses a door security apparatus for use on a hinge-mounted door and corresponding door frame (FIG. 5). ROBINSON discloses at least one mount-and-socket pair (see FIG. 4 and 5, ref. 59, assembly, as shown including member 53 which includes a plate and barrel portion), each mount-and-socket pair connected to the frame and the door (see FIG. 4 and 5, showing each assembly 59 connected to the frame and door). ROBINSON discloses that this invention is for preventing the forced entry of a locked door (col. 1, lines 4-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the assembly comprising a plate and barrel connected to the frame and door, as taught by ROBINSON, into the invention of PHILLIPS, in order to enable practice in breaching a secured door that utilizes a known door security apparatus, thereby providing a real-world training experience.
Regarding claim 2, PHILLIPS teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein each of the at least one mount-and-socket pair comprises a frame socket connected to the frame mount, and a door socket connected to the door. However, ROBINSON further discloses each of the at least one mount-and-socket pair comprises a frame socket connected to the frame mount, and a door socket connected to the door (FIG. 4 and 5; ref. 59, showing two barrel portions for each assembly including one attached to the frame and one attached to the door via plate 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the assembly comprising door and frame barrel portions connected to the frame and door via a mounting plates, respectively, as taught by ROBINSON, into the invention of PHILLIPS, in order to enable practice in breaching a secured door that utilizes a known door security apparatus, thereby providing a real-world training experience.
Regarding claim 3, PHILLIPS teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein each of the at least one mount-and-socket pair comprises a frame mount connecting the frame socket to the lock jamb and a door mount connecting the door socket to the door. However, ROBINSON further discloses wherein each of the at least one mount-and-socket pair comprises a frame mount connecting the frame socket to the lock jamb and a door mount connecting the door socket to the door (FIG. 4 and 5; ref. 59, showing two barrel portions for each assembly including one attached to the lock jamb of the frame and one attached to the door via plate 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the assembly comprising door and frame barrel portions connected to the lock jamb of the frame and door via a mounting plates, respectively, as taught by ROBINSON, into the invention of PHILLIPS, in order to enable practice in breaching a secured door that utilizes a known door security apparatus, thereby providing a real-world training experience.
Regarding claim 4, PHILLIPS teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose at least one pin in at least part of the frame socket and in at least part of the door socket. However, ROBINSON teaches at least one pin in at least part of the frame socket and in at least part of the door socket (FIG. 4 and 5; ref. 51, bolt engaging barrel portions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the assembly comprising a bolt for engaging two corresponding barrel and plate assemblies, as taught by ROBINSON, into the invention of PHILLIPS, in order to enable practice in breaching a secured door that utilizes a known door security apparatus, thereby providing a real-world training experience.
Regarding claim 7, PHILLIPS teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one mount-and-socket pair has a plurality of mount-and-socket pairs and a plurality of pins engaged with the plurality of mount-and-socket pairs and spaced a plurality of distances from the lock jamb. However, ROBINSON teaches wherein the at least one mount-and-socket pair has a plurality of mount-and-socket pairs and a plurality of pins engaged with the plurality of mount-and-socket pairs and spaced a plurality of distances from the lock jamb (FIG. 4 and 5; ref. 51, 59, showing multiple assemblies 59 each with a corresponding bolt engaging the respective barrel portions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate multiple assemblies each comprising a bolt for engaging two corresponding barrel and plate assemblies, as taught by ROBINSON, into the invention of PHILLIPS, in order to enable practice in breaching a secured door that utilizes a known door security apparatus, thereby providing a real-world training experience.
Claims 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PHILLIPS in view of ROBINSON, as applied to claim 1, in further view of US 2011/0223569 to PERRONE.
Regarding claim 5, PHILLIPS teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose an elongate member connected to the lock jamb and extending partially into the doorway to define a channel adjacent to the lock jamb.
Regarding claim 6, PHILLIPS teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose a door stop occupying at least part of the channel.
Regarding claim 10, PHILLIPS teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the bottom of the door is at least one inch from the bottom of the doorway.
However, PERRONE teaches a similar apparatus for training the art of forcible door entry comprising a door attached to a frame (Abstract; par. 0007) wherein the lock jamb of the door frame includes a jamb plate 120, as shown in Figure 2A and 3A connected to the lock jamb 103 and extending partially into the doorway to define a channel adjacent to the lock jamb (par. 0022). PERRONE further teaches, as shown in Figure 2A and 3A, the channel formed by the jamb plate is occupied by a door stop 121 (par. 0022). PERRONE teaches the removable jamb plate 120 with the door stop 121 allows forcible entry training using the ADZ end or fork end of a halligan tool, for example, in an around the door stop and between the door and frame to force open the door, and that these components are replaceable when damaged (par. 0027). Lastly, PERRONE teaches wherein the bottom of the door is at least one inch from the bottom of the doorway (FIG. 3A, showing gap at least 1” between bottom of door 150 and base 101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the configuration of jamb plate and door stop, as taught by PERRONE, into the modified invention of PHILLIPS, in order to enable trainees to practice forcible entry training using breaching tools in and around the door stop and between the door and frame to force open the door, wherein damaged components can be replaced, thereby making the apparatus reusable. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a gap of at least one inch between the bottom of the door and base, as taught by PERRONE, into the modified invention of PHILLIPS, as doing so would amount to combining prior art features of breach training doors according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PHILLIPS in view of ROBINSON, as applied to claim 1, in further view of US 2009/0308914 to WRIGHT.
Regarding claim 8, PHILLIPS teaches a knob (FIG. 1 and 2, showing a knob attached to the door), but does not expressly disclose wherein the door further comprises a dummy knob with a hemispherical end.
WRIGHT also teaches a door breach training system (Abstract) comprising a dummy knob in order to allow trainees to use the dummy knob as a point of reference when practicing proper aiming at the simulated lock and latch mechanisms, thereby providing a more realistic training scenario (par. 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the same dummy knob, and corresponding lock and latch mechanisms, as taught by WRIGHT, into the modified invention of PHILLIPS, in order to teach trainees the proper technique for breaching a door by using the dummy knob as a point of reference, thereby providing a more realistic training scenario. Moreover, the shape of the knob as claimed relates to ornamentation and thus does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that hemispherical-shaped door knobs were well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and thus incorporating a well-known and conventional shaped door knob into the modified invention of PHILLIPS would have been obvious as doing so would amount to one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, modifying the shape of the dummy knob of WRIGHT, as incorporated into the modified invention of PHILLIPS would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of design choice, because the shape of the dummy knob does not have any significance to its function of representing a door knob.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PHILLIPS in view of OBINSON, as applied to claim 1, in further view of US 2010/0109294 to KLEMENTOWICZ, or alternatively in further view of KLEMENTOWICZ and WRIGHT.
Regarding claim 11, PHILLIPS teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the door comprises at least one tubular member and a rib extending between the top and bottom.
KLEMENTOWICZ teaches a similar breaching training door (Abstract) including a door that is a tubular frame door (par. 0012; 0022), as shown in Figure 1 and 2 comprising a horizontal top and bottom connected by a vertical rib (37). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a tubular door frame construction with a top and bottom connected by a rib, as taught by KLEMENTOWICZ, into the modified invention of PHILLIPS, as doing so would amount to combining prior art features of breach training doors according to known methods to yield predictable results. To the extent the tubular frame member 37 of KLEMENTOWICZ is not interpreted as a rib, WRIGHT also teaches a breach training door (e.g., FIG. 2, ref. 24) comprising vertical beam 54, also interpreted as a rib extending between top and bottom horizontal beams 46 and 48, and WRIGHT teaches the vertical beam 54 provides additional support for the door 24 as well as fastening points for the door surface (par. 0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vertical beam, as taught by WRIGHT, into the modified invention of PHILLIPS, in order to reinforce the door while providing additional fastening points for attaching a door surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715