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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 Jan. 2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries 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, 3, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joern et al., US 2015/0329194 A1, in view of Burrows, US 2,815,698 A.
Claim 1: Joern discloses a safety system for an enclosure comprising a door, comprising:
a triggering circuit ([0170]) configured to generate a trigger signal based on an event associated with the enclosure ([0031]); and
at least one pyrotechnic fastener (215) operably coupled to the triggering circuit ([0170]), wherein the at least one pyrotechnic fastener is adapted to maintain the door of the enclosure in a locked condition (Fig. 41) and disengage itself to unlock the door of the enclosure in response to the triggering signal (Fig. 43; [0171-72]), wherein the at last one pyrotechnic fastener comprises a bolt and a shank of the bolt ([0170]; Fig. 41 depicts a shank),
wherein the at least one pyrotechnic fastener comprises a detachable joint (233) that maintains the door in the locked condition ([0173]; Figs. 41-42 depicts the detachable joint engaged with apertures to maintain the door in the locked condition),
wherein the detachable joint is configured to unlock the door when the at least one pyrotechnic fastener is disengaged ([0171]; Figs. 42-43 depicts the detachable joint separated from the pyrotechnic fastener to unlock the door), and
wherein the detachable joint comprises a breakable member adapted to break upon a disengaging of the at least one pyrotechnic fastener ([0170] “predetermined breaking point” corresponds to a breakable member; Figs. 41-44 illustrate a breakable member between the detachable joint and bolt).
However, Joern is silent to a shank of the bolt including an enclosed cavity filled with a pyrotechnic mixture configured to be detonated by the triggering circuit which causes an explosion of the at least one pyrotechnic fastener.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify the bolt disclosed by Joern to include a shank with an enclosed cavity filled with a pyrotechnic mixture that is configured to be detonated by a triggering circuit as taught by Burrows.
Burrows teaches a pyrotechnic fastener (Fig. 1) comprising a bolt (13), wherein a shank of the bolt (131) includes an enclosed cavity (133) filled with a pyrotechnic mixture (cartridge 16 is explosive, so the cartridge holds a pyrotechnic mixture) configured to be detonated by a triggering circuit which causes an explosion of the at least one pyrotechnic fastener (col. 2 ln. 28-32).
The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a pyrotechnic fastener comprising a bolt with a shank that includes an enclosed cavity filled with a pyrotechnic mixture.
Claim 3: Joern, in view of Burrows, teaches the safety system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one pyrotechnic fastener comprises: a control (Joern 238; Joern [0028]: a pyro charge correlates to a control for aiding a controlled explosion) for aiding a controlled explosion to disengage the at least one pyrotechnic fastener based on the trigger signal generated by the triggering circuit (Joern [0170-71]).
Claim 12: Joern, in view of Burrows, teaches a door (Joern 112) for an enclosure comprising the safety system according to claim 1 (Joern, as modified above by Burrows, teaches the safety system of claim 1).
Claim 13: Joern, in view of Burrows, teaches an enclosure comprising a door (Joern abstract) comprising the safety system according to claim 1 (Joern, as modified above by Burrows, teaches the safety system of claim 1); and one or more sensors for detecting one or more events, wherein the one or more sensors are operably coupled to the triggering circuit of the safety system (Joern claim 14; Joern [0031]).
Claim 14: Joern, in view of Burrows, teaches the enclosure according to claim 13, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a speed sensor, an impact sensor, a pressure sensor (Joern [0031]) a fire sensors, a smoke sensors, or combinations thereof.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joern, US 2015/0329194 A1, and Burrows, US 2,815,698 A, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardesty, US 4,158,322 A.
Claim 8: Joern, in view of Burrows, teaches the safety system according to claim 1, but is silent to the breakable member being made of a polycrystalline material. However, it is known in the art to make a breakable member of a pyrotechnic device with a polycrystalline material, as evidenced by Hardesty. Hardesty teaches a breakable member being made of a polycrystalline material (col. 2 ln. 64-col. 3 ln. 2; graphite, magnesium and aluminum are polycrystalline materials). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the breakable member taught by Joern, in view of Burrows, of a polycrystalline material, as taught by Hardesty, so the breakable member has high strength but is capable of losing strength, melting, or are combusting upon ignition of the explosive charge (Hardesty col. 2 ln. 66-col. 3 ln. 2).
Claim 9: Joern, in view of Burrows, teaches the safety system according to claim 1, but is silent to the breakable member being made of a ceramic material. Hardesty teaches a breakable member being made of a ceramic material (col. 2 ln. 64-col. 3 ln. 2; graphite and glass are ceramic materials). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the breakable member taught by Joern, in view of Burrows, of a ceramic material, as taught by Hardesty, to so the breakable member has higher strength and is capable of losing strength, melting, or are combusting upon ignition of the explosive charge (Hardesty col. 2 ln. 66-col. 3 ln. 2).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joern, US 2015/0329194 A1, and Burrows, US 2,815,698 A, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hunt et al., US 2019/0003211 A1.
Claim 10: Joern, in view of Burrows, teaches the safety system according to claim 1, but is silent to wherein the breakable member is made of polymer plastic.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify the breakable member disclosed by Joern, in view of Burrows, to be made of polymer plastic. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. Fabricating elements from polymer plastic is well known in the art. Hunt teaches a breakable member made of polymer plastic ([0033] (“rib-shaped plastic, right-angled and therefore breakable”).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely the breakable member made of polymer plastic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success and expect use of polymer plastic will reduce weight and cost of the breakable member.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joern, US 2015/0329194 A1, and Burrows, US 2,815,698 A, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mogi et al., JP H09-250532 A.
Claim 11: Joern, in view of Burrows, teaches the safety system according to claim 1, but is silent to the breakable member comprises an adhesive layer.
Mogi teaches providing an adhesive layer to prevent loosening for a strong and reliable connection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the breakable member taught by Joern, in view of Burrows, by providing an adhesive layer, as taught by Mogi, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an adhesive layer in order to prevent loosening and improve reliability of the attachment (Mogi [0002], [0009]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joern et al., US 2015/0329194 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pelz, US 2006/0010769 A1.
Claim 15: Joern, in view of Burrows, teaches the safety system as claimed in claim 1 (shown above), but is silent to a rail vehicle.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
A rail vehicle comprising a safety system is known in the art, as evidenced by Pelz ([0018] (emergency door activating apparatus used to actuate doors on trains)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to utilize the safety system taught by Joern, in view of Burrows, with a rail vehicle. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a rail vehicle comprising a safety system of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 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: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 16-17.
In regards to claim 16, Joern, as modified by Burrows, fails to disclose a latch assembly fastened to a door frame of the door, wherein the latch assembly comprises the breakable member, wherein the explosion of the at least one pyrotechnic fastener disengages the door from the door frame such that the breakable member holds the door on the door frame temporarily until a minimal external force is applied to break open the breakable member. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the assembly taught by Joern, in view of Burrows, to include a latch assembly comprising the breakable member wherein the breakable member is configured to hold the door on the door frame temporarily until a minimal external force is applied to break open the breakable member without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 16 from which the claim depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, and 8-15 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE 19652131 C1 is related to a latch assembly configured to hold a door on the door frame temporarily until a minimal external force is applied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, 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.
/EGB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675