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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 31 is acknowledged. In light of the cancellation of claims 3-5 and 17-19, the Examiner agrees that the remaining claim set does not define two mutually exclusive inventions requiring separate examination. The restriction requirement is therefore withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein the at least one anchor element comprises first and second anchor elements, and wherein the first anchor element is positioned on the wall or the portal frame between [[another]] the second anchor element and the locking mechanism of the portal.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 9 objected to because of the following informalities: claim(s) should be amended to recite “wherein the at least one anchor element comprises first and second anchor elements, and wherein the first anchor element has a vertical height, relative to a floor surface associated with the portal, that is below a vertical height of [[another]] the second anchor element and a vertical height of the locking mechanism of the portal.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwards (US-20150225989-A1).
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 wall (WL Figure 2) or frame (J Figure 2) associated with a portal (D Figure 2);
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 minimum 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), with 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 a locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal (Para. 0033).
With regards to claim 6, Edwards discloses 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 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein at least one anchor element (E2 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 discloses 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 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein at least one 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 another anchor element and a vertical height of the locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal (Para. 0015).
With regards to claim 12, Edwards discloses 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 wall (WL Figure 2) or frame associated with 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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).
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) 2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Gyurdzhyan (US-20080110215-A1). All citations refer to the Edwards reference unless otherwise noted.
With regards to claim 2, Edwards discloses the system of claim 1.
Edwards does not disclose an illumination assembly.
However, Gyurdzhyan discloses an illumination assembly (500 Figures 5) coupled to a transportable component (by attachment mechanism 506, Figures 5) 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. 0051). 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 Gyurdzhyan’s illumination to Edwards’s transportable 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 (Para. 0051).
Therefore, Edwards in view of Gyurdzhyan teaches an illumination assembly (500 Figure 5 – Gyurdzhyan) coupled to the transportable component (PC Figure 2) and operable to emit light to enable locating the transportable component and to enable illumination of an area or region associated with coupling the transportable component to the permanent or semi-permanent component (E1, E2 Figure 2) and the locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal (D Figure 2)(Para. 0051 – Gyurdzhyan).
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); 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 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, In re Rose (220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237) held that a mere change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary 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 make the effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the second end of the longitudinal element greater than the effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the first end of the longitudinal element, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the second end of the longitudinal element larger to better accommodate portal locking mechanisms of various sizes (Para. 0033).
Edwards does not disclose an illumination assembly.
However, Gyurdzhyan discloses an illumination assembly (500 Figures 5) coupled to a transportable component (by attachment mechanism 506, Figures 5) 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. 0051). 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 Gyurdzhyan’s illumination to Edwards’s transportable 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 (Para. 0051).
Therefore, Edwards in view of Gyurdzhyan teaches an illumination assembly (500 Figure 5 – Gyurdzhyan) coupled to the transportable component (PC Figure 2) and operable to emit light to enable locating the transportable component and to enable illumination of an area or region associated with coupling the transportable component to the permanent or semi-permanent component (E1, E2 Figure 2) and the locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal (D Figure 2)(Para. 0051 – Gyurdzhyan).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards alone.
With regards to claim 10, Edwards discloses the system of claim 1.
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 (C Figure 2) is greater than an effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly (L2 Figure 5) at the first end of the longitudinal element.
However, In re Rose (220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237) held that a mere change in the size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary 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 make the effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the second end of the longitudinal element greater than the effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the first end of the longitudinal element, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make the effective radius of the loop or lariat assembly at the second end of the longitudinal element larger to better accommodate portal locking mechanisms of various sizes (Para. 0033).
With regards to claim 11, Edwards teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the loop or lariat assembly (L1 Figure 5) of the second end of the longitudinal element (C Figure 2) is adaptable to be positioned about and releasably coupled to the locking mechanism (H Figure 2) of the portal (D Figure 2) (Para. 0033).
With regards to claim 16, Edwards discloses the system of claim 1.
Edwards is silent on the minimum breaking load of the longitudinal element (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 minimum 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.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20200208446-A1: A related portal securing system.
US-20130056998-A1: A related portal securing system.
US-20110133494-A1: A related portal securing system.
US-7036950-B1: A related portal securing system.
US-11459806-B1: A related portal securing system.
US-7510301-B2: A related portal securing system.
US-3853343-A: A related portal securing system.
US-3804454-A: A related portal securing system.
US-8794783-B1: A related portal securing system.
US-5296841-A: A related portal securing system.
Conclusion
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