DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, line 14, it appears “an appropriate code” should read --said preselected code-- to correspond to line 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 14, 15 and 18-20 are 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.
In regards to claims 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 14, 15 and 20, the transitional phrase “consisting of” in the preamble of claim 1 excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim; therefore claims 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 14, 15 and 20 are improper dependent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claims 18 and 19, the transitional phrase “consisting of” in the preamble of claim 17 excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim; therefore claims 18 and 19 are improper dependent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 4, “the locker” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to claim 8, “the at least one emergency response equipment” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers, III et al. (US Pat. No. 10,249,177 B2) in view of Pappas (US Pat. No. 4,309,065).
In regards to claim 1, Powers teaches an emergency response kit comprising: a. an enclosure (30, Fig. 9) for storage having an operational front open end and a rear closed end, the enclosure being defined by a base, lateral walls, a back wall, and a rooftop; b. a door (38) pivoted at the operational front end to one of the lateral walls using an attachment means that facilitates movement of the door between an open position and a closed position to selectively provide access to an inside of the enclosure; d. emergency response equipment secured on an inside of the enclosure to at least one of said base, said rooftop, said back wall, and said lateral walls, said emergency response equipment consisting of breaching equipment (e.g.; a baton, club, or nightstick; Col 3, Lines 29-33), medical supplies (e.g.; a first aid kit and/or trauma kit; Col 3, Line 43), fire safety equipment (e.g.; a fire extinguisher; Col 30, Lines 38-52), and one or more ballistic shields (e.g.; ballistic inserts; Col 15, Lines 18-23); and e. a locking mechanism (96) for securing the door in said closed position to restrict access to the at least one emergency response equipment.
Powers does not teach the emergency response kit consisting of the above recited limitations in addition to a weather-resistive gasket sealing a peripheral edge of the open end of the enclosure.
Pappas teaches an emergency response kit consisting of: a. an enclosure (10) for storage having an operational front open end and a rear closed end, the enclosure being defined by a base (66), lateral walls (64), a back wall (20), and a rooftop (48); b. a door (12) pivoted at said the operational front end to one of the lateral walls using an attachment means (14) that facilitates movement of the door between an open position and a closed position to selectively provide access to an inside of the enclosure; c. a weather-resistive gasket (18) sealing a peripheral edge of said open end of the enclosure; d. emergency response equipment (e.g.; a gun) secured on an inside of the enclosure to at least one of said base, said rooftop, said back wall, and said lateral walls; and e. a locking mechanism (34) for securing the door in said closed position to restrict access to the at least one emergency response equipment.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Power’s emergency response kit to consist of the recited limitations of claim 1, to include a weather-resistive gasket sealing a peripheral edge of the open end of the enclosure. The motivation would be for the purpose of sizing and adapting the kit to be mountable to a wall as taught by Pappas (Col 2, Lines 26-34), thereby allowing the kit to be easily used in a variety of different premises.
In regards to claim 2, modified Powers teaches the enclosure comprises sections, and at least one section is made accessible through a secure access control mechanism (Powers: 98).
In regards to claim 3, Powers does not particularly teach the attachment mechanism comprises a full-length hinge. Pappas teaches a full-length hinge (Pappas: 14).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Power’s attachment mechanism to comprise a full-length hinge as taught by Pappas. The motivation would be for the purpose of using a more secure hinge structure.
In regards to claim 6, modified Powers teaches the locking mechanism comprises a biometric lock (Powers: 42).
In regards to claim 7, modified Powers teaches an alarm module (i.e.; the controller and associated tamper sirens 148 of Powers) coupled electromechanically with a locking mechanism and configured to provide an audible alert when the door is accessed using force or any unauthenticated manner (Powers: Col 4, Lines 15-24).
In regards to claim 8, modified Powers teaches the at least one emergency response equipment is secured on the inside of the enclosure through a plurality of securing and mounting means (Powers: 63).
In regards to claim 9, modified Powers teaches the mounting means comprises brackets (Powers: 63), but does not particularly teach tamper-resistant fasteners and anchor fasteners.
Pappas teaches mounting means comprising brackets (Pappas: 26), tamper-resistant fasteners (Pappas: 24), and anchor fasteners (Pappas: 22).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Powers’s kit such that the mounting means comprises tamper-resistant fasteners and anchor fasteners as taught by Pappas. The motivation would be for the purpose of using readily available fasteners to secure the bracket to the enclosure.
In regards to claim 11, in modifying Powers, Pappas teaches said emergency response kit is a portable kit adapted to be mounted on a wall (i.e.; via screws 44 attached to the wall 43, Fig. 3 of Pappas).
In regards to claim 12, modified Powers teaches the enclosure includes a housing (Powers: 78) on the back wall.
In regards to claim 20, Powers, modified by Pappas, does not particularly teach a flashbang. However, Powers teaches the kit can include tear gas, smoke bombs, etc. (Col 29, Lines 45-46), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize similar devices to tear gas canisters and smoke bombs would include flashbangs.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Power’s kit to include a flashbang. The motivation would be for the purpose of including similar types of defensive devices as taught by Powers (Col 29, Lines 45-46).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers, III et al. (US Pat. No. 10,249,177 B2) and Pappas (US Pat. No. 4,309,065), and in further view of Radke (US Pat. No. 7,814,621 B1).
In regards to claim 5, Powers, modified by Pappas, does not teach the locking mechanism comprises at least two roller ball catches attached to an interior of the door. Radke teaches at least two roller ball catches (bearings 44) attached to an interior of a cabinet door (36).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Powers’s kit such that the locking mechanism comprises at least two roller ball catches attached to an interior of the door as taught by Radke. The motivation would be for the purpose of further securement of the door.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers, III et al. (US Pat. No. 10,249,177 B2) and Pappas (US Pat. No. 4,309,065), and in further view of Arndt (US Pat. No. 10,750,860 B1).
In regards to claim 10, Powers, modified by Pappas, does not teach labeled decals for ease of identification of the emergency response equipment stored within the enclosure. Arndt teaches labeled decals (i.e.; stickers 110) for ease of identification of the equipment stored within the enclosure (i.e.; safety rules about the firearm; Col 3, Lines 9-26).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Powers’s enclosure to include labeled decals for ease of identification of the emergency response equipment stored within the enclosure. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing safety rules as taught by Arndt (Col 3, Lines 9-26).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers, III et al. (US Pat. No. 10,249,177 B2) and Pappas (US Pat. No. 4,309,065), and in further view of Ognjenovic (US Pub. No. 2008/0258869).
In regards to claim 13, Powers, modified by Pappas, does not teach the enclosure and the door are constructed of cold-rolled galvanized steel.
Ognjenovic teaches a cabinet and door made of galvanized steel (Para 0013). In addition, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The recitation, “cold-rolled” is a product-by-process terminology. Ognjenovic’s end product is galvanized steel.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Powers’s enclosure and door to be constructed of cold-rolled galvanized steel. The motivation would be for the purpose of choosing a suitable material based on it particular environment as taught by Ognjenovic (Para 0013).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers, III et al. (US Pat. No. 10,249,177 B2) and Pappas (US Pat. No. 4,309,065), and in further view of Hlebovy et al. (US Pat. No. 6,814,932).
In regards to claim 14, Powers, modified by Pappas, does not teach the enclosure and the door are constructed of rust-inhibiting phosphate-treated steel material. Hlebovy teaches treating steel with phosphates (Col 16, Lines 30-44).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Powers’s device such that the enclosure and the door are constructed of rust-inhibiting phosphate-treated steel material. The motivation would be for the purpose of preventing corrosion as taught by Hlebovy (Col 16, Lines 30-44).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers, III et al. (US Pat. No. 10,249,177 B2) and Pappas (US Pat. No. 4,309,065), and in further view of Flyer et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0192466 A1).
In regards to claim 15, Powers, modified by Pappas, does not teach the enclosure is coated with weather and rust-resistant coating selected from a baked red enamel and a black enamel coat. Flyer teaches a cabinet coated with baked enamel paint (Para 0046). Furthermore, red paint is old and well known.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Powers’s enclosure to be coated with baked red enamel. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing protection to the surfaces as taught by Flyer (Para 0046).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powers, III et al. (US Pat. No. 10,249,177 B2) and Pappas (US Pat. No. 4,309,065), and in further view of Collum (US Pat. No. 7,967,400 B1).
In regards to claim 16, Powers, modified by Pappas, does not teach the rooftop is sloped at an angle. Collum teaches a wall mountable housing (12) having a rooftop (16) sloped at an angle.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Powers’s rooftop to be sloped at an angle. The motivation would be for the purpose of giving the housing the appearance of a picture frame as taught by Collum (Col 6, Lines 24-28), thus providing a decorative appearance.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capouch et al. (US Pub. No. 2006/0214770 A1) in view of Pappas (US Pat. No. 4,309,065).
In regards to claim 17, Capouch teaches an emergency response locker, consisting of: a. an enclosure (container 110) for storage having an operational front open end and a rear closed end, the enclosure being defined by a base, lateral walls, a back wall and a roof top; b. a door (112) pivoted at said operational front end to one of the lateral walls using an attachment means (118) that facilitates movement of the door between an open position and a closed position to selectively provide access to an inside of the enclosure; d. said rooftop having a sloped profile (i.e.; the rooftop slopes left and right in Fig. 1); and e. a locking mechanism (120) for securing the door in said closed position to restrict access to interior portions of the locker, said locking mechanism comprising a handle (116) attached to an exterior portion of the door and being configured to break off in response to application of excessive force caused by pulling hard on the handle to open the locker without a key or preselected code, leaving the door locked in place but subject to being opened through the use of said key and/or an appropriate code (e.g.; see Para. 0014-0019).
Capouch does not teach the enclosure further consisting of a weather-resistive gasket sealing a peripheral edge of said open end of the enclosure. Pappas teaches an enclosure including a weather-resistive gasket (18) sealing a peripheral edge of an open end of the enclosure.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Capouch’s enclosure to further consist of a weather-resistive gasket sealing a peripheral edge of said open end of the enclosure. The motivation would be for the purpose of making the enclosure dust proof as taught by Pappas (Col 2, Lines 1-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 18 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious an emergency response kit, and an emergency response locker consisting of the recited limitations in claims 4, 18 and 19. Further combining prior art while excluding additional elements taught by the art not included within the claims would involve improper hindsight in view of Applicant’s disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. The examiner has presented new grounds of rejection with respect the claims above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631