DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending.
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) 1-2, 4-7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahita (US 9,828,798) in view of Mamchych (US 2009/0217604).
Re claim 1, Lahita discloses a radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly (10; Col 1 lines 34-39) comprising:
an opening (into which 12 is inserted) with a door frame (14);
a first door leaf (12), each said first door leaf (12) and said second door leaf (as modified below) hingedly attached (16) to the door frame (14);
a shielding media (22) sheathing (Fig. 3) each said first door leaf (12) and said second door leaf (as modified below);
a conductive contact channel (24) attached to a perimeter (Fig. 3) of each said first door leaf (12) and said second door leaf (as modified below), said conductive contact channel (24) electro-mechanically bonded to (Col 4 lines 60-63) said shielding media (22);
a conductive flange (31, 37; Col 5 lines 21-22 disclosing steel) extending along (Col 5 lines 12-32) a door head (32) and along a door jamb (29) of said door frame (14); and
a conductive contact (26; Col 4 lines 63-65) attached to a bottom (Fig. 4) of each said first door leaf (12) and second door leaf (as modified below), wherein said conductive flange (31, 37) is in electrical contact with said conductive contact channel (24) and with said conductive contact (26) when said first door leaf (12) is in a closed position (Col 5 lines 12-32),
but fails to disclose a second door leaf.
However, Mamchych discloses a second door leaf (13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Lahita with a second door leaf as disclosed by Mamchych in order to provide a larger opening through a structure, allowing for entry/exit of more people and/or cargo, as second door leaves (double doors) are extremely well-known and common in the art. In addition, it has been held that the duplication of parts (such as applying the first door leaf of Lahita to the second door leaf of Mamchych) is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to duplicate the door leaf of Lahita with a second door leaf per Mamchych.
Re claim 2, Lahita as modified discloses the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Claim 1 wherein said first door leaf (12) and second door leaf (12, Mamchych: 13, as modified) includes radio frequency and acoustic shielding (Col 2 lines 21-22).
Re claim 4, Lahita as modified discloses the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Claim 1 wherein said conductive contact channel (24) is chosen from a group consisting of silver, copper, gold, aluminum, zinc, lithium, nickel, stainless steel, steel, and an alloy thereof (Col 4 line 64-Col 5 line 1).
Re claim 5, Lahita as modified discloses the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Claim 1 wherein said conductive flange (31, 37) is chosen from a group consisting of silver, copper, gold, aluminum, zinc, lithium, nickel, stainless steel, steel, and an alloy thereof (Col 5 lines 21-22 disclosing steel).
Re claim 6, Lahita as modified discloses the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Claim 1 wherein said conductive contact (26) is chosen from a group consisting of silver, copper, gold, aluminum, zinc, lithium, nickel, stainless steel, steel, and an alloy thereof (Col 4 line 64-Col 5 line 1).
Re claim 7, Lahita as modified discloses the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Claim 1 but fails to disclose including a removable mullion between said first door leaf and said second door leaf.
However, Mamchych discloses including a removable mullion (2; [0032]) between said first door leaf (13) and said second door leaf (13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Lahita with a removable mullion between said first door leaf and said second door leaf as disclosed by Mamchych in order to allow for larger loads to be passed through the doors, and then reinstalled ([0001]).
Re claim 9, Lahita as modified discloses the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Claim 1 wherein said conductive flange (31, 37; reference being made only to 37, but Fig. 3 shows the same shape for 31 as 37) includes an interior side strut (see examiner comments), a frame strut (see examiner comments) attached to said interior side strut (see examiner comments), and an exterior side strut (see examiner comments) connected to said frame strut (see examiner comments).
Re claim 10, Lahita as modified discloses the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Claim 9 wherein said interior side strut (see examiner comments) is substantially parallel to (Fig. 3-4) said exterior side strut (see examiner comments) and said frame strut (see examiner comments) is spaced from (Fig. 3-4) said door jamb (35) and said door header (32).
Re claim 11, Lahita as modified discloses the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Claim 10 wherein said interior side strut (see examiner comments), said frame strut (see examiner comments), and said exterior side strut (see examiner comments) together form an enclosed void (see examiner comments) configured to retain acoustic insulation, RF insulation, and/or ballistic shielding (the void is capable of retaining acoustic insulation, RF insulation, and/or ballistic shielding, as this is a statement of intended use).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahita (US 9,828,798) in view of Mamchych (US 2009/0217604) and Daniels et al (“Daniels”) (US 2014/0000194).
Re claim 3, Lahita as modified discloses the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Claim 2 wherein each said door leaf includes ballistic shielding.
However, Daniels discloses wherein said first door leaf (Lahita: 12) and second door leaf (Lahita: 12, Mamchych: 13, as modified; Daniels: 100) includes ballistic shielding ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Lahita wherein each said door leaf includes ballistic shielding as disclosed by Daniels in order to protect the interior from unwanted entry, as ballistic shielding is extremely well-known and common in the art.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahita (US 9,828,798) in view of Mamchych (US 2009/0217604) and Bourassa et al (“Bourassa”) (US 2017/0145735).
Re claim 8, Lahita as modified discloses the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Claim 7, wherein said removable mullion (Mamchych: 2) is configured as a hollow tube (Fig. 4), but fails to disclose filled with insulation.
However, Bourassa discloses the hollow tube (9) filled with insulation (8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Lahita with the hollow tube filled with insulation as disclosed by Bourassa in order to increase the insulating value of the door (Abstract).
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
617
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lahita is drawn to a single door. Applicant argues that when there are two doors, there are only solid non-movable structures on 3 sides of the door. The fourth side must seal against a moveable structure. Applicant thus contends that the mere combination provided in the Office Action glosses over additional technical considerations that must be considered to arrive at a seal between two moving surfaces that will contain radio waves and acoustic waves. However, these “technical considerations” are not claimed. There is no claim language defining any particular sides, locations, or juxtapositions of the doors, nor is there any claim language defining any particular sides, locations, or juxtapositions of any features with respect to any moveable or non-movable sides. The claims merely require a shielded door with particular shielding features, and a second door with particular shielding features. Lahita discloses the features of a shielded door. Double doors are extremely well-known and common in the art. As noted above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radio frequency and acoustically shielded door and frame assembly of Lahita with a second door leaf as disclosed by Mamchych in order to provide a larger opening through a structure, allowing for entry/exit of more people and/or cargo, as second door leaves (double doors) are extremely well-known and common in the art. In addition, it has been held that the duplication of parts (such as applying the first door leaf of Lahita to the second door leaf of Mamchych) is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to duplicate the door leaf of Lahita with a second door leaf per Mamchych. Moreover, Applicant does not appear to dispute the rationale for combining the references. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments concerning dependent claims are addressed by the above.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635