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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/12/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim 33 is 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 regard to claim 33, the claim is indefinite because it is not clear what is the fire rating of the window, i.e. a standard or a time/temperature that the window can withstand. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unascertainable.
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 16-19, 25-27, 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishler US 2871802 (hereinafter ‘Fishler’) in view of Danna US 5479738 (hereinafter ‘Danna’).
In regard to claim 16, Fishler teaches an underground shelter assembly for accommodating a small group of people (see col. 1, ln. 1-25 and col. 2, ln. 36-39), the shelter assembly comprising:
a generally cylindrical body (11) with a hollow internal space (see fig. 1), the cylindrical body being adapted to be positioned underground (see fig. 2 and col. 2, ln. 36-39);
an access passage (31) extending into the internal space of the cylindrical body through an entrance of the cylindrical body to allow one or more people to enter the internal space of the cylindrical body (col. 3, ln. 59), the access passage being defined by one or more passage walls (walls 31) extending transversely relative to a longitudinal axis of the cylindrical body towards ground level (see fig. 1) during use to terminate in an access opening (at 32);
seating platforms (15/16) on both lateral sides of the floor (see fig. 2) and extending substantially continuous along at least a majority of the length of the internal space (see figs. 1-2, see also col. 3, ln. 2-6);
wherein both platforms are welded to the inner walls, thus, they are “welded platforms” (see col. 3, ln. 2-13) to define the hollow internal space thereby reinforcing the cylindrical body for resisting the collapsing of the walls of the cylindrical body in a radially inward direction (see col. 3, ln. 7-9).
Fishler does not explicitly disclose a flat floor extending along a length of the cylindrical body.
Danna teaches a shelter assembly (10) comprising a generally cylindrical body (see figures) and comprising a flat floor (76) extending along a length of the cylindrical body (see figs. 2, 5 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a flat floor in the shelter of Fishler, as taught by Danna, so as to provide a level floor surface to the tank interior (see Danna col. 4, ln. 39).
Note that the floor of the combination would be flanked by the seating platforms of Fishler. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to secure the floor to the walls of the shelter by welding in the same manner that the benches are welded so as to enhance the strengthening and stabilization of the tubular body that Fishler is already providing (see Fishler col. 3, ln. 6-9). Furthermore, welding is a process that is widely known in the art and therefore obvious to use because the use of conventional tools to perform their known function is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).
It is noted that the platforms and floor of the combination reinforce the cylindrical body for resisting the collapsing of the walls in a radially inward direction (see Fishler col. 3, ln. 7).
In regard to claim 17, the combination of Fishler/Danna teaches its shelter provides protection to humans “in time of war or during crises of nature” (see Fishler col. 1, ln. 15). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that both time of war, and crises of nature include the possibility of a fire threat. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the passage walls and access door (25) with a fire resistant material so as to provide the protection that Fishler intends to provide.
Nevertheless, the shelter of Fishler is made of steel (see col. 2, ln. 66) and a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily conclude that steel is substantially a fire resistant material due to its resistance to high temperatures and because it is not a combustible material that would not spread flames.
Further, it is noted that fire resistant materials are notoriously well known in the art thus would have been obvious to use because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07) thus one would want to provide a fire resistant material in the walls and door of the shelter because one of its purpose of protecting against war or natural crises.
In regard to claim 18, the combination of Fishler/Danna teaches the claimed invention wherein the cylindrical body further comprises ventilation conduit (17) extending from the body towards above ground level (see fig. 4 and col. 3, ln. 13). Although not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to provide a ventilation inlet extending into the hollow internal space of the body so as to guarantee the passing of fresh air into the shelter.
In regard to claim 19, the combination of Fishler/Danna teaches the claimed invention wherein the cylindrical body is formed from metal (see col. 2, ln. 66).
In regard to claims 25 and 26, the combination of Fishler/Danna is silent regarding the height of the walls defining the access passage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed range (at least 1000mm) as a matter of routine experimentation so as to allow for proper coverage of the shelter as shown in fig. 2 of Fishler. See MPEP 2144.05 (in the instant case, height differences in the access passage will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that such height is critical).
In regard to claim 27, the combination of Fishler/Danna teaches the claimed invention wherein the outer surface of the cylindrical body comprises corrosion resistant material (see Fishler col. 2, ln. 32).
In regard to claim 30, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed range (at least 1500mm) as a matter of routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (in the instant case, height differences of the walls defining the access passage will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that such height is critical).
In regard to claim 31, the combination of Fishler/Danna teaches the cylindrical body is made of steel, but does not explicitly recite corrosion resistant steel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the body in a corrosion resistant steel so as to enhance the corrosion resistant property provided by the plastic coating.
In regard to claim 32, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the shape of the access passage to have four sides (walls), since such a modification would have only involved a mere change in the shape of a component.
Absent any persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It is also common knowledge to choose a shape that has a desired aesthetic or durability and flexibility etc. for the application and intended use of that element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the access passage to have four walls, in order to facilitate flow of traffic when there’s more than one person exiting or entering the shelter.
Claims 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishler and Danna and in further view of Yamaguchi US 2009/0064604 A1 (hereinafter ‘Yamaguchi’).
In regard to claim 20, the combination does not explicitly teach a separation chamber.
Yamaguchi teaches an underground shelter comprising a separation chamber (1b) which is adapted to be separated from an access portion of the hollow internal volume of the body (see fig. 4-5) wherein the access portion of the body is formed continuously with the access passage (as seen in fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a separation chamber in the shelter of the combination, as taught by Yamaguchi, so as to provide a storage room or mechanical room (see [0073]).
In regard to claims 21 and 24, the combination teaches the chamber is separated by the access portion by a partition (Yamaguchi 6 Note that the partition is made of high-strength reinforced concrete which is fire-resistant) which is movably mounted onto inner surfaces of the cylindrical body (note that the partition of Yamaguchi is installed within the shelter and can be removed, thus meeting the claim).
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the partition fire-resistant so as to enhance the fire protection provided by the shelter as disclosed in [0071]).
In regard to claims 22 and 23, the combination teaches the chamber is separated by the access portion by a fire resistant door (Yamaguchi 13) which is part of a fire-resistant partition (6). Note that Yamaguchi discloses in [0074] that the door 13 provides protection to the chamber when there is a fire in the other chamber, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the door 13 and the partition 6 fire resistant so as to contain a fire in a given chamber.
Alternatively,
Claim 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishler and Danna and in further view of Kuehnl US 4805360 (hereinafter ‘Kuehnl’).
In regard to claim 32, the combination of Fishler/Danna teaches the access passage extends transversely relative to the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical body towards ground level as seen in figs 1-2 of Fishler, but does not explicitly disclose the access passage is defined by four passage walls.
Kuehl teaches an underground shelter assembly comprising a generally cylindrical body (46) with a hollow internal space, comprising an access passage defined by four passage walls (18, 20, 22, 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide an access passage comprising four walls in the shelter of the combination, as taught by Kuehl, so as to enable for more than one user to enter and exit the shelter.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishler and Danna and in further view of Bunn US 10041268 B1 (hereinafter ‘Bunn’).
In regard to claim 32, the combination of Fishler/Danna does not explicitly disclose the fire resistant access door is provided with a fire-rated viewing window.
Bunn teaches an underground shelter assembly comprising a door provided with a viewing window (see col. 5, ln. 29-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide a viewing window in the shelter of the combination, as taught by Bunn, so as to enable the user to safely check the exterior before opening the door. Further, it would have been obvious to make the window fire-rated so as to withstand the fires the combination if protecting users from.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, 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. See PTO-892.
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 PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 5PM.
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 E Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633