DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 03/26/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, 4, and 20 have been amended, claim(s) 7, 8, 16, and 17 have been cancelled, and claim(s) 11-15, 18, and 19 have been previously withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18-20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
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 of this title, 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, 2, 4-6, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (U.S. Patent No. 11,739,526) in view of Davidson (WO 2006085980 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Armstrong teaches a system (shelter formwork; col. 29, lines 5-10) capable of sheltering students and teachers in a classroom during an active shooter event, comprising: a student shelter (600); the student shelter formed from two or more modular side walls (690-693); each modular side wall comprising a first fiberglass outer-layer (630; fiberglass; abstract), a second fiberglass outer-layer (635; fiberglass; abstract), and a core of ballistic concrete between (Armstrong discloses concrete between the two layers; abstract; which depending on the thickness and / or magnitude and direction, would be capable of resisting ballistic impact, and therefore meets the claimed ballistic concrete limitation); the student shelter comprising a top section (611 / 645); the student shelter including a tabletop (640) mounted above the top section (figure 6B), allowing the student shelter to function as a table during non-emergency periods (it is understood that the top 640 is capable of functioning as a table during non-emergency periods); a teacher shelter (600); the teacher shelter formed from a ballistic shield (694) placed in a corner of a classroom against existing classroom walls (it is understood that the shelter is capable of being placed in a corner against existing classroom walls; the examiner notes that a corner of a classroom and existing classroom walls are not being positively claimed); whereby students and a teacher can shelter in place within a classroom during an active shooter event (it is understood that the modular shelter is capable of allowing students and a teacher to shelter in place within a classroom during an active shooter event).
Armstrong does not specifically disclose two layers of ballistic cloth between the first fiberglass outer-layer and the second fiberglass outer-layer; and ballistic concrete between the two layers of ballistic cloth.
Davidson discloses a hurricane shelter (paragraph 3) including two layers of ballistic cloth (14-left, 14-right; figure 10) between the first outer-layer and the second outer-layer (figure 10); and ballistic concrete (col. 3, lines 5-10) between the two layers of ballistic cloth (as illustrated, the concrete would be between the two layers of ballistic cloth; figure 10).
Therefore, from the teaching of Davidson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shelter of Armstrong to include two layers of ballistic cloth between the first fiberglass outer-layer and the second fiberglass outer-layer; and ballistic concrete between the two layers of ballistic cloth, as taught by Davidson, in order to provide a lightweight material that is easy to handle and further strengthens the shelter against ballistic impact.
Regarding claim 2, the figure 6A embodiment of Armstrong does not specifically disclose the two or more modular side walls of the student shelter are connected together by offset joints. However, the figure 1A embodiment discloses two or more modular side walls of the student shelter are connected together by offset joints (at 114; figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the figure 6A embodiment such that the two or more modular side walls of the student shelter are connected together by offset joints, as in the figure 1A embodiment in order to simplify assembly and provide a gapless joint that further protects against outside impacts.
Regarding claim 4, Armstrong teaches the top section of the student shelter is formed of bullet-resistant material (it is understood that the rebar is capable of functioning as a bullet-resistant material, depending on the magnitude and direction of a bullet).
Regarding claim 5, Armstrong teaches the bullet-resistant material is steel (it is understood that the rebar is steel).
Regarding claim 6, Armstrong teaches the ballistic shield of the teacher shelter is formed from ballistic steel (it is understood that the rebar is steel and is capable of functioning as a ballistic material, depending on the magnitude and direction of an impact).
Regarding claim 20, Armstrong teaches a system (shelter formwork; col. 29, lines 5-10) capable of sheltering students and teachers in a classroom during an active shooter event, comprising: a student shelter (600); the student shelter formed from two or more modular side walls (690-693); each modular side wall comprising a first fiberglass outer-layer (630; fiberglass; abstract), a second fiberglass outer-layer (635; fiberglass; abstract), and a core of ballistic concrete between (Armstrong discloses concrete between the two layers; abstract; which depending on the thickness and / or magnitude and direction, would be capable of resisting ballistic impact, and therefore meets the claimed ballistic concrete limitation); the student shelter comprising a top section (611 / 645) formed of bullet-resistant material (it is understood that the section 694 is capable of resisting bullets depending on the thickness and magnitude of the impact); the student shelter including a tabletop (640) mounted above the top section (figure 6B), allowing the student shelter to function as a table during non-emergency periods (it is understood that the top 640 is capable of functioning as a table during non-emergency periods).
Armstrong does not specifically disclose two layers of ballistic cloth between the first fiberglass outer-layer and the second fiberglass outer-layer; and ballistic concrete between the two layers of ballistic cloth.
Davidson discloses a hurricane shelter (paragraph 3) including two layers of ballistic cloth (14-left, 14-right; figure 10) between the first outer-layer and the second outer-layer (figure 10); and ballistic concrete (col. 3, lines 5-10) between the two layers of ballistic cloth (as illustrated, the concrete would be between the two layers of ballistic cloth; figure 10).
Therefore, from the teaching of Davidson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shelter of Armstrong to include two layers of ballistic cloth between the first fiberglass outer-layer and the second fiberglass outer-layer; and ballistic concrete between the two layers of ballistic cloth, as taught by Davidson, in order to provide a lightweight material that is easy to handle and further strengthens the shelter against ballistic impact.
In addition, figure 6A embodiment of Armstrong does not specifically disclose the two or more modular side walls of the student shelter are connected together by offset joints. However, the figure 1A embodiment discloses two or more modular side walls of the student shelter are connected together by offset joints (at 114; figure 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the figure 6A embodiment such that the two or more modular side walls of the student shelter are connected together by offset joints, as in the figure 1A embodiment in order to simplify assembly and provide a gapless joint that further protects against outside impacts.
Claim(s) 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (U.S. Patent No. 11,739,526), in view of Davidson (WO 2006085980 A2), and in view of Egawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,666,781).
Regarding claim 3, Armstrong does not specifically disclose the two or more modular side walls of the student shelter are connected together at a butt joint, the butt joint including a steel plate sandwiched by two or more modular side walls.
Egawa et al. discloses joining fasteners for an architectural member (abstract) wherein the two or more modular side walls (at 41, 42) are connected together at a butt joint (figure 3A), the butt joint including a steel plate (40) sandwiched by two or more modular side walls (figure 3A).
Therefore, from the teaching of Egawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shelter system of Armstrong such that the two or more modular side walls of the student shelter are connected together at a butt joint, the butt joint including a steel plate sandwiched by two or more modular side walls, as taught by Egawa et al., in order to provide a more robust assembly and to minimize chances of collapse under outside forces.
Claim(s) 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (U.S. Patent No. 11,739,526), in view of Davidson (WO 2006085980 A2), and in view of White (U.S. Patent No. 11,725,421).
Regarding claim 9, Armstrong teaches a door frame (624), but does not specifically disclose a door; the door latched by an automatic locking mechanism that triggers when the door is closed; an internal handle; the internal handle allowing students to unlatch the door from within the student shelter.
White discloses a ballistic resistant door (abstract) including a door (20); the door latched by an automatic locking mechanism (54) that triggers when the door is closed (col. 6, lines 10-15); an internal handle (28-internal; figure 2); the internal handle allowing students to unlatch the door from within the student shelter (col. 7, lines 60-65).
Therefore, from the teaching of White, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shelter system of Armstrong to include a door; the door latched by an automatic locking mechanism that triggers when the door is closed; an internal handle; the internal handle allowing students to unlatch the door from within the student shelter, as taught by White, in order to provide prevent access to the shelter from the outside for protection, while providing means to unlock the door from the inside, for escape.
Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (U.S. Patent No. 11,739,526), in view of Davidson (WO 2006085980 A2), and in view of Wirtz (U.S. Patent No. 9,702,160).
Regarding claim 10, Armstrong does not specifically disclose each modular side wall of the two or more modular side walls further comprises: base holes, allowing each modular side wall to be affixed to a floor by a fastener.
Wirtz discloses an above-ground shelter (title) wherein each modular side wall of the two or more modular side walls further comprises: base holes (hole through which fastener 904 extends; figure 9), allowing each modular side wall to be affixed to a floor by a fastener (in the combination, it is understood that the base holes of Wirtz would allow each modular side wall of Armstrong to be affixed to a floor by a fastener).
Therefore, from the teaching of Wirtz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shelter system of Armstrong such that each modular side wall of the two or more modular side walls further comprises: base holes, allowing each modular side wall to be affixed to a floor by a fastener, as taught by Wirtz, in order to further secure the shelter to the floor or foundation to further stabilize the shelter and prevent dislocation under external forces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
New reference Davidson (WO 2006085980 A2) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s argument regarding the prior art not disclosing the teacher shelter being placed in a corner of a classroom because the teacher is often bigger than the students and therefore may have trouble fitting in a shelter that is as low as a table has been considered. The argument is not found persuasive since tables and the size of people can vary and since the prior art meets the structural limitations, the claim is met. In addition, the applicant argues that the prior art does not specifically disclose a tabletop since the top is made of steel and is not comfortable for prolonged use as it remains cold, and does not provide overhang for one to place a chair or stool under. The argument was not found persuasive since it is drawn to the intended use of the structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). With regards to the overhang argument, this was not found persuasive since such an overhang is not being claimed. With regards to the new limitations, they are overcome by Armstrong in view of new reference Davidson.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633