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 § 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) 1-6 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiner et al (2017/0284154) in view of Brewster (2022/0073184).
Reiner et al figures 1-20, shows a secondary cockpit barrier(able to function as a secondary cockpit barrier), comprising: a cylindrical cartridge having an outer wall and an interior compartment; an opening (par 69; …..opening or slot…)formed through the outer wall of the cylindrical cartridge; an internal roller tube(52) disposed in the interior compartment of the cylindrical cartridge; a receiver stanchion including a plurality of guide holes; a vertical bar(72) configured to engage the receiver stanchion; a barrier (54) having a first edge coupled to the internal roller tube and a second edge coupled to the vertical bar, wherein the barrier is configured to unroll from the internal roller tube and extend through the opening from the cylindrical cartridge to the receiver stanchion; a plurality of latch guides (figure 17, the parts to the left of vertical rod 66) extending from a surface of the vertical bar, each of the plurality of latch guides configured to engage a guide hole of the plurality of guide holes; and a lock(the parts forming the holes) coupled to the receiver stanchion, the lock configured to engage the plurality of latch guides to secure the barrier in a deployed position.
Reiner et al does not show the lock is spring-loaded and triggered in response to the plurality of latch guides engaging the vertical bar.
Brewster figure 1, shows a lock (130) being spring loaded(par. 56) and triggered in response to the plurality of latch guides(112a or 112b) engaging the vertical bar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Reiner et al’s structures to show the lock is spring-loaded and triggered in response to the plurality of latch guides engaging the vertical bar with Brewster’s teaching of spring loaded lock with a reasonable expectation of success since having the spring loaded lock would automatically lock and prevent the lock from being accidently disengaged (par. 56, Brewster).
Per claim 2, Reiner et al as modified further shows the barrier includes at least one of a wire, a synthetic cord, or an aramid fiber woven into a semi-transparent mesh( part 65).
Per claim 3, Reiner et al as modified further shows the internal roller bar is configured to rotate in a first direction to extend the barrier and to rotate in a second direction opposite the first direction to retract the barrier.
Per claim 4, Reiner et al as modified further shows an internal spring(par 67) coupled to the internal roller bar and configured to apply a force to rotate the internal roller bar in the second direction.
Per claim 5, Reiner et al as modified further shows a wall anchor(figure 23) coupled to the cylindrical cartridge and configured to be secured to an exterior surface of a wall by a fastener (able to be configured to function as claimed).
Per claim 6, Reiner as modified further shows the opening extends a height of the cylindrical cartridge and the barrier extends the height of the cylindrical cartridge.
Claim(s) 7, 9-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiner et al in view of Manten et al (2003/0169184) and Brewster (2022/0073184).
Reiner et al shows a secondary cockpit barrier(able to function as claimed), including: a cylindrical cartridge coupled to the first monument, the cylindrical cartridge having an outer wall and an interior compartment; an internal roller tube disposed in the interior compartment of the cylindrical cartridge; an opening (see par. 69) formed through the outer wall of the cylindrical cartridge, a receiver stanchion coupled to the second monument across the aisle from the first monument; the receiver stanchion including a plurality of guide holes, a vertical bar configured to engage the receiver stanchion; a barrier having a first edge coupled to the internal roller tube and a second edge coupled to the vertical bar, the barrier is configured to unroll from the internal roller tube and extend from the opening of the cylindrical cartridge to the receiver stanchion; and a lock coupled to the receiver stanchion and configured to secure the vertical bar to the receiver stanchion, a plurality of latch guides (66) extending from a surface of the vertical bar (70), each of the latch guides configured to engage a guide hole of the plurality of guide holes.
Reiner does not show a cockpit barrier system, comprising: a first monument adjacent a cockpit door; a second monument adjacent the first monument; an aisle extending to the cockpit door and passing between the first monument and the second monument, a second cockpit barrier system forming a barrier between the monuments, a lock coupled to the receiver stanchion and configured to secure the vertical bar to the receiver stanchion, the lock is spring loaded and triggered in response to the plurality of latch guides engaging the vertical bar.
Manten figure 2, shows a cockpit barrier system, comprising: a first monument (figure 2; 11 left) adjacent a cockpit door; a second monument( figure 2; 11 right) adjacent the first monument; an aisle extending to the cockpit door and passing between the first monument and the second monument, a second cockpit barrier system (26) forming a barrier between the monuments.
Brewster figure 1, shows a lock(130) coupled to the receiver stanchion and configured to secure the vertical bar to the receiver stanchion, the lock is spring loaded and triggered in response to the plurality of latch guides(112a or 112b) engaging the vertical bar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Reiner et al’s disclosure to show the barrier used in a first monument adjacent a cockpit door; a second monument adjacent the first monument; an aisle extending to the cockpit door and passing between the first monument and the second monument, a second cockpit barrier system forming a barrier between the monuments as taught by Manten with a reasonable expectation of success since it would allow for forming a retractable/extendable barrier in the cockpit on the airplane against intruder, and modifying Reiner’s structure to show a lock(130) coupled to the receiver stanchion and configured to secure the vertical bar to the receiver stanchion, the lock is spring loaded and triggered in response to the plurality of latch guides(112a or 112b) engaging the vertical bar as taught by Brewster would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since having the spring loaded lock would automatically lock and prevent the lock from being accidently disengaged (par. 56, Brewster).
Per claim 9, Reiner et al as modified further shows the barrier includes at least one of a wire, a synthetic cord, or an aramid fiber woven into a semi-transparent mesh.
Per claim 10, Reiner et al as modified further shows the internal roller bar is configured to rotate in a first direction to extend the barrier and to rotate in a second direction opposite the first direction to retract the barrier.
Per claim 11, Reiner et al as modified further shows the secondary cockpit barrier further comprises: an internal spring coupled to the internal roller bar and configured to apply a force to rotate the internal roller bar in the second direction.
Per claim 12, Reiner et al as modified further shows the cylindrical cartridge is coupled to an exterior surface of a wall of the first monument and wherein the receiver stanchion is coupled to an exterior surface of a wall of the second monument.
Per claim 13, Reiner et al as modified further shows the cylindrical cartridge is integral with the first monument and the receiver stanchion is integral with the second monument.
Per claim 14, Reiner et al as modified further shows the secondary cockpit barrier further comprises: an isolator mount(110, 100) disposed between the cylindrical cartridge and the first monument.
Per claim 15, Reiner et al as modified further shows an aircraft monument, comprising: a first wall; a cylindrical cartridge coupled to the first wall, the cylindrical cartridge having an outer wall and an interior compartment; an opening formed thorugh the outer wall of the cylindrical cartridge, an internal roller tube disposed in the interior compartment of the cylindrical cartridge; a receiver stanchion including a plurality of guide holes; a vertical bar configured to engage the receiver stanchion; a barrier having a first edge coupled to the internal roller bar and a second edge coupled to the vertical bar, where the barrier is configured to unroll from the internal roller tube and extend through the opening from the cylindrical cartridge to the receiver stanchion; and a lock coupled to the receiver stanchion and configured to secure the vertical bar to the receiver stanchion, wherein the lock is spring loaded and triggered in response to the plurality of latch guides engaging the vertical bar.
Per claim 16, Reiner et al as modified further shows the cylindrical cartridge is integral with the first wall.
Per claim 17, Reiner et al as modified further the cylindrical cartridge is coupled to an exterior surface of the first wall.
Per claim 18, Reiner et al as modified further the barrier includes at least one of a wire, a synthetic cord, or an aramid fiber woven into a semi-transparent mesh.
Per claim 19, Reiner et al as modified further the internal roller bar is configured to rotate in a first direction to extend the barrier and to rotate in a second direction opposite the first direction to retract the barrier.
Per claim 20, Reiner et al as modified further an internal spring coupled to the internal roller bar and configured to apply a force to rotate the internal roller bar in the second direction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to statements to cylindrical shape: adjective. having the form of a cylinder. synonyms: cylindric. rounded. curving and somewhat round in shape rather than jagged. Reinder’s shape appears to meet the limitation to “ cylindrical” per the definition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art shows different barrier locking device.
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 PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 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.
/PHI D A/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights