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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 June 2026, with respect to the objections to claims 7 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 25 March 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim(s) 1 and 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.
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) 1, 6-9, 12-16 and 20-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (US-20150225989-A1) in view of Turner (US-20200208446-A1) in further view of Smith (US-20090190331-A1). All citations refer to the Edwards reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 1, Edwards discloses a portal securing system (CR, E1, E2 Figure 2), comprising:
a permanent or semi-permanent component having at least one anchor element (E1, E2 Figure 2), with each anchor element being configured to securely couple to a surface (WL Figure 2) adjacent a portal (D Figure 2) or to a frame (J Figure 2) defining the portal;
a transportable component (PC Figure 2) having a longitudinal element (C Figure 2) coupled to a coupling mechanism (CR Figure 2), with the transportable component having at least a certain breaking load (the breaking load of cable C, Figure 2), the longitudinal element having first and second ends (left and right ends, Figure 2) with each end having a loop or lariat assembly (L1, L2 Figure 5), wherein the loop or lariat assembly of the second end is adaptable to be positioned about and releasably coupled to a locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal (Para. 0033), the coupling mechanism having an eyelet element that defines a circular or ovular aperture (as shown Figure 2), the loop or lariat assembly of the first end (L1 Figure 5) being disposed through the circular or ovular aperture of the eyelet element of the coupling mechanism such that the coupling mechanism and the longitudinal element are securely coupled (as shown Figure 2); and
wherein the portal securing system is operable to prevent the portal from being opened while the transportable component is releasably coupled between the permanent or semi-permanent component and the locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal (Para. 0033).
Edwards does not disclose wherein an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the second end of the longitudinal element is greater than an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the first end of the longitudinal element.
However, Turner discloses a similar portal securing system (Figure 3) comprising adjustable loop assemblies (Para. 0024) wherein an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the second end of the longitudinal element (106 Figure 1) is greater (as shown Figure 3) than an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the first end (107 Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Turner’s adjustable loop assemblies such that an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the second end of the longitudinal element is greater than an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the first end, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use loop assemblies of various sizes to reliably accommodate various sizes of anchor elements and portal locking mechanisms.
Edwards does not disclose an illumination assembly mechanically coupled to the transportable component.
However, Smith discloses an illumination assembly (2 Figures 3) coupled to a transportable component (as shown Figure 3) and operable to emit light to enable locating a transportable component and to enable illumination of an area or region associated coupling the transportable component (Para. 0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple Smith’s illumination assembly to Edwards’s transportable component, such that the illumination assembly is mechanically coupled to the transportable component and operable to emit light to enable locating the transportable component and to enable illumination of an area or region associated with releasably coupling the transportable component between the permanent or semi-permanent component and the locking mechanism of the portal, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add an illumination assembly to better facilitate operation of the portal securing system in a low light scenario.
With regards to claim 6, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a sheath is disposed about the longitudinal element (C Figure 2) to enable further protection of the longitudinal element from being severed (Para. 0038).
With regards to claim 7, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one anchor element comprises first and second anchor elements (E1, E2 Figure 2), and wherein the first anchor element (E1 Figure 2) is positioned on the wall (WL Figure 2) or the portal frame between another anchor element (E2 Figure 2) and the locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal (D Figure 2).
With regards to claim 8, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one anchor element (E1 Figure 2) has a vertical height, relative to a floor associated with the portal (D Figure 2), that is the same vertical height as the locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal (Para. 0015).
With regards to claim 9, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one anchor element comprises first and second anchor elements (E1, E2 Figure 2), and wherein the first anchor element (E1 Figure 2) has a vertical height, relative to a floor surface associated with the portal (D Figure 2), that is below a vertical height of the second anchor element (E2 Figure 2) and a vertical height of the locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal (Para. 0015).
With regards to claim 12, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the permanent or semi-permanent component includes first (E2 Figure 2) and second (E1 Figure 2) anchor elements securely coupled to the surface adjacent to the portal (WL Figure 2) or the frame defining the portal (D Figure 2), with the second anchor element being disposed between the first anchor element and the locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal.
With regards to claim 13, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the first (E2 Figure 2) and second (E1 Figure 2) anchor elements and the locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal are at a same vertical height relative to a floor surface associated with the portal (D Figure 2) (Para. 0015, Figure 2).
With regards to claim 14, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the second anchor element (E1 Figure 2) is positioned about equidistant between the first anchor element (E2 Figure 2) and the locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal while the portal is closed (Figure 2).
With regards to claim 15, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the second anchor element (E1 Figure 2) is positioned about half a length of the longitudinal element (C Figure 2) from the first anchor element (E2 Figure 2).
With regards to claim 16, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 1.
Edwards is silent on the magnitude of the certain breaking load (C Figure 2).
However, In re Aller (220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235) held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select materials for the longitudinal element such that the certain breaking load of the longitudinal element is at least one hundred MegaPascals (100 MPa), with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to select such materials to prevent a potential intruder from breaking the longitudinal element.
With regards to claim 20, Edwards discloses a transportable component device (PC Figure 2), comprising:
a coupling mechanism (CR Figure 2) having an eyelet element that defines a circular or ovular aperture (as shown Figure 2);
a longitudinal element (C Figure 2) having first and second ends (left and right ends, Figure 2) with each end having a loop or lariat assembly (L2, L1 Figure 5), with the loop or lariat assembly of the second end of the longitudinal element being adaptable to be positioned about and releasably coupled to a locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of a portal (D Figure 2), the loop or lariat assembly of the first end being disposed through the circular or ovular aperture of the eyelet element of the coupling mechanism such that the coupling mechanism and the longitudinal element are securely coupled (as shown Figure 2);
at least one anchor element (E1, E2 Figure 2), with each anchor element being configured to securely couple to a surface (WL Figure 2) adjacent a portal (D Figure 2) or to a frame (J Figure 2) defining the portal; and
wherein a portal securing system (CR, E1, E2 Figure 2) that includes the transportable component device and the permanent or semi-permanent component is operable to prevent the portal from being opened while the transportable component device is releasably coupled between the permanent or semi-permanent component and the locking mechanism of the portal (Para. 0033).
Edwards is silent on whether an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly (L1 Figure 5) at the second end of the longitudinal element being greater than an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly (L2 Figure 5) at the first end of the longitudinal element.
However, Turner discloses a similar portal securing system (Figure 3) comprising adjustable loop assemblies (Para. 0024) wherein an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the second end of the longitudinal element (106 Figure 1) is greater (as shown Figure 3) than an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the first end (107 Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Turner’s adjustable loop assemblies such that an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the second end of the longitudinal element is greater than an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the first end, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use loop assemblies of various sizes to reliably accommodate various sizes of anchor elements and portal locking mechanisms.
Edwards does not disclose an illumination assembly.
However, Smith discloses an illumination assembly (2 Figures 3) mechanically coupled to a system element (as shown Figure 3) and operable to emit light to enable locating a transportable component and to enable illumination of an area or region associated coupling the transportable component (Para. 0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple Smith’s illumination assembly to Edwards’s transportable component, such that the illumination assembly is mechanically coupled to the longitudinal element at the loop or lariat assembly of the first end, the longitudinal element at the loop or lariat assembly of the second end, or the coupling mechanism at the eyelet element, and operable to emit light to enable locating the transportable component device and to enable illumination of an area associated with releasably coupling the transportable component device to a permanent or semi-permanent component, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to add an illumination assembly to better facilitate operation of the portal securing system in a low light scenario.
With regards to claim 21, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the illumination assembly (2 Figure 3 – Smith) includes a light emitting device operable to emit light to enable the illumination of the area or region (Para. 0028-0029 – Smith) associated with releasably coupling the transportable component (PC Figure 2) to the permanent or semi-permanent component (E1, E2 Figure 2) and the locking mechanism of the portal (H Figure 2).
With regards to claim 22, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the illumination assembly (2 Figure 3 – Smith) includes a motion sensor circuit, a control circuit, and a light emitting device, with the motion sensor circuit being operable to detect movement associated with the transportable component and in response, send, to the control circuit, an indication of that motion, the control circuit being operable to receive, from the motion sensor circuit, the motion indication, and in response, to enable power to the light emitting device (Para. 0030 – Smith).
With regards to claim 23, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the illumination assembly (2 Figure 3 – Smith) includes a photoluminescent material that is operable to emit light (Para. 0030 – Smith).
With regards to claim 24, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the portal securing system of claim 1, wherein the illumination assembly (2 Figure 3 – Smith) is operable to absorb and emit light to enable locating the transportable component (PC Figure 2)(Para. 0030 – Smith).
With regards to claim 25, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the portal securing system of claim 1, wherein the illumination assembly (2 Figure 3 – Smith) is operable to automatically emit light upon detection of movement (Para. 0030 – Smith) associated with accessing a storage device (B Figure 1) in which the transportable component (PC Figure 2) is disposed, to enable locating the transportable component within the storage device (Para. 0037).
With regards to claim 26, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the portal securing system of claim 25, wherein the storage device (B Figure 1) is coupled to a portal assembly associated with the portal (Figure 3).
With regards to claim 27, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the portal securing system of claim 1, wherein the element of the transportable component (PC Figure 2) at which the illumination assembly (2 Figure 3 – Smith) is coupled (Para. 0003 – Smith) is the loop or lariat assembly of the first end of the longitudinal element (L1 Figure 5), the loop or lariat assembly of the second end of the longitudinal element (L2 Figure 5), or the eyelet element of the coupling mechanism (CR Figure 2).
With regards to claim 28, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the portal securing system of claim 6.
Edwards is silent on whether the sheath is composed of a material configured to resist severing of the longitudinal element (C Figure 2) by a projectile discharged from a firearm.
However, In re Leshin (277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416) held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compose the sheath from a material configured to resist severing of the longitudinal element by a projectile discharged from a firearm, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use such a material for the sheath due to its strength and durability.
With regards to claim 29, Edwards in view of Turner in further view of Smith teaches the portal securing system of claim 28.
Edwards is silent on whether the material is metal, ceramic material, fiberglass material, wood, aramid fiber material, polyethylene material, polycarbonate material, acrylic material, or graphene, or any combination thereof.
However, In re Leshin (277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416) held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal, ceramic material, fiberglass material, wood, aramid fiber material, polyethylene material, polycarbonate material, acrylic material, or graphene, or any combination thereof as the material, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to use such a material for the sheath due to its strength and durability.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Noah Horowitz, whose telephone number is (571)272-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00AM - 7:00 PM.
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.
/NOAH HOROWITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights