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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, 16, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 2007/0245933 to Kramer et al.
Kramer et al. disclose a protective barrier (figure 1), comprising: at least one blast mitigation panel (23) configured upright on a threat side of said protective barrier; and at least one ballistic resistant panel (24) detachably attached to said blast mitigation panel and configured upright on the opposite side of said threat side of said protective barrier (figures 1-4), as in claim 1.
Kramer et al. also disclose said protective barrier may be modularized and expanded horizontally (paragraph 25), as in claim 2, and said protective barrier may be modularized and expanded vertically (provide the wall to be the height of a desired wall; paragraph 35), as in claim 3, as well as a support structure (16) affixed or attached to said ballistic resistant panel on the opposite side of said threat said of said protective barrier (figures 1-4), as in claim 4, wherein said support structure is a platform (figures 1-4), as in claim 5.
Kramer et al. further disclose an anti-climb mesh (13) affixed or attached to said blast mitigation panel on the threat side of said protective barrier, as in claim 6, and at least one additional ballistic resistant panel (15) attached to said ballistic resistant panel, wherein said additional ballistic resistant panel is attached on the opposite side of said threat side of said protective barrier (figures 1-4), as in claim 8.
Kramer et al. additionally disclose a protective barrier (figure 1), comprising: at least one blast mitigation panel (23) configured on a threat side of said protective barrier; at least one ballistic resistant panel (24) attached to said blast mitigation panel and configured on the opposite side of said threat side of said protective barrier (figures 1-4); and a frame (51-53), wherein said at least one blast mitigation panel and at least one ballistic resistant panel are configured to attach and detach from said frame (panels are configured to attach and detached to create a larger barrier wall; figure 1), as in claim 9.
Kramer et al. also disclose said protective barrier may be modularized and expanded horizontally (paragraph 25), as in claim 10, and said protective barrier may be modularized and expanded vertically (provide the wall to be the height of a desired wall; paragraph 35), as in claim 11, as well as a support structure (16) affixed or attached to said frame on the opposite side of said threat said of said protective barrier (figure 4 and 6), as in claim 12, wherein said support structure is a platform (paragraph 14), as in claim 13.
Kramer et al. further disclose an anti-climb mesh (13) affixed or attached to said frame on the threat side of said protective barrier, as in claim 14, and said frame comprises steel (paragraph 11), as in claim 16, as well as at least one additional ballistic resistant panel (15) attached to said ballistic resistant panel, wherein said additional ballistic resistant panel is attached on the opposite side of said threat side of said protective barrier (figures 1-4), as in claim 17.
Kramer et al. additionally disclose a protective barrier (figure 1) system comprising: at least one section, wherein each section is comprised of: at least one blast mitigation panel (23) configured on a threat side of said protective system; and at least one ballistic resistant panel (24) attached to said blast mitigation panel and configured on the opposite side of said threat side of said protective system (figures 1-4); with a framing structure (51-53) configured to connect a plurality of said sections (as shown in figure 1), as in claim 19.
Kramer et al. also disclose at least one additional ballistic resistant panel (15) attached to said ballistic resistant panel, wherein said additional ballistic resistant panel is attached on the opposite side of said threat side of said protective barrier system (figures 1-4), as in claim 20.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al., as applied above.
Kramer et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, where the height of the projectile barrier can be as high as 2.4 meters (paragraph 35). However, Kramer et al. do not disclose the specific size of the blast mitigation panel. It is common knowledge in the prior art to change the size of a protective barrier in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of providing protection to given dangers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct said blast mitigation panel to have a length and a height of 4 feet by 4 feet in order to provide protection the dangers that could cause damage or injury. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al., as applied above, in view of U.S. Patent Number 7,866,106 to Bowlware.
Kramer et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed. However, Kramer et al. do not disclose a hook-and-loop system on one of said ballistic resistant panels. Bowlware teaches of a protective barrier (10, 10a, 10b), comprising: at least one blast mitigation panel (panel containing 126) configured on a threat side of said protective barrier; at least one ballistic resistant panel (panel containing 130) attached to said blast mitigation panel and configured on the opposite side of said threat side of said protective barrier (figures 4 and 6); and a frame (30), wherein said at least one blast mitigation panel and at least one ballistic resistant panel are configured to attach and detach from said frame (panels are configured to attach and detached to create a larger barrier wall; figure 1), where a hook-and-loop system on one of said ballistic resistant panels (column 6, lines 21-37), as in claim 18.
All of the component parts are known in Kramer et al. and Bowlware. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by mounting them on a single chassis. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a hook-and-loop system as taught by Bowlware onto the ballistic resistant panels in Kramer et al., since the barrier prevents casualties from a ballistic blast is in no way dependent on an attachment system on a panel, and the hook-and-loop system could be used in combination with the ballistic resistant panels to achieve the predictable results of easily attaching accessories to the ballistic resistant panels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to protective barriers:
U.S. Patent Number 12,209,845 to Adrain; U.S. Patent Number 12,169,118 to Warren et al.; U.S. Patent Number 12,098,022 to Warren et al.; U.S. Patent Number 10,704,256 to Siver et al.; U.S. Patent Number 10,473,436 to Pottinger; U.S. Patent Number 10,458,756 to Whitaker; U.S. Patent Number 10,383,449 to White et al.; U.S. Patent Number 7,159,503 to Weatherwax.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9-4; F 9-12.
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.
//CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
CJB /cb/
February 4, 2026