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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the deployable barrier" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "said deployment mechanism" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 4-6, 11-17, and 22-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brennan et al. (US 10,928,166), hereinafter (“Brenman”).
Re claims 1, 4-6, 11-17, and 22-28, Brennan (Fig 1) discloses a system for protecting a space from entry by prohibited kinetic objects of substantial mass using a deployable barrier, comprising: a deployable and retractable base structure (26 and/or 28) configured to bar entry into the space when deployed; a deployable and retractable anti-ballistic barrier (20 and/or 50) configured to be deployed adjacent to said base structure to provide anti-ballistic protection to the space, said anti-ballistic barrier comprised of a plurality of layers of flexible anti-ballistic material laminated; and a deployment structure (Fig 6) configured for deploying said anti-ballistic barrier and further configured for retracting and storing the anti-ballistic barrier in a retracted position, wherein said anti-ballistic barrier is further configured with said deployment structure such that said anti-ballistic barrier is stowed in a rolled or folded configuration when in said retracted position.
Re claim 29, Brenman (Fig 1) discloses a system for protecting a space from entry through a doorway by prohibited kinetic objects of substantial mass using a deployable barrier, comprising: a deployable and retractable base structure (26 and/or 28) configured as a door in said doorway to bar entry into the space when deployed; and a deployable and retractable anti-ballistic barrier (20 and/or 50) configured to be deployed adjacent to said base structure to provide anti-ballistic protection to the space, said anti-ballistic barrier structure comprised of a plurality of layers of flexible anti-ballistic material laminated together; a first deployment structure (inherent; e.g. door knob) configured for deploying said base structure and further configured for retracting and storing the base structure in a retracted position; and a second deployment structure (Fig 6) configured for deploying said anti-ballistic barrier and further configured for retracting and storing the anti-ballistic barrier in a retracted position such that, when retracted, the anti-ballistic barrier is stowed in a folded or rolled configuration, and wherein said base structure and said anti-ballistic barrier can be independently deployed.
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) 8, 9, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan in view of Riden (US 2020/0232767). Brennan discloses the claimed invention with the exception of a sensing system for detecting threat data
indicating a ballistic threat exists; and a control system configured to receive said threat
data from said sensing system, said control system operably configured to trigger said
deployment mechanism to automatically deploy said barrier in a manner that secures
sides and/or a bottom of said barrier to a wall and/or a floor, respectively.
Riden (Fig 6) teaches a system including a sensing system (640) for detecting
threat data indicating a ballistic threat exists; and a control system configured to receive
said threat data from said sensing system, said control system (630) operably
configured to trigger said deployment mechanism to automatically deploy said barrier in
a manner that secures sides and/or a bottom of said barrier to a wall and/or a floor,
respectively. The purpose of the system in Riden is to provide for automatic closing of
hallway, classroom, office or other doors (particularly such doors including embedded
ballistic materials), either by themselves, or in combination with the deployment of the
ballistic curtains in order to further restrict personnel traffic flow through typically large
open areas (Riden, p. [0017]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system in
Spransy to have the capability of Riden. The motivation (as taught by Riden) would be
to provide for automatic closing of hallway, classroom, office or other doors (particularly
such doors including embedded ballistic materials), either by themselves, or in
combination with the deployment of the ballistic curtains in order to further restrict
personnel traffic flow through typically large open areas. All claimed elements were
known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as
claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the
combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the
invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7010. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830-530.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
/REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641