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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Claim 2 “a first key”, and “a second key”
Claim 20 “a third key”, and “fourth key”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Fischer (U.S Pub. App. 2021-0388653).
For claim 1, Fischer discloses, in Figures 1-16, a door barricading system, comprising:
a lower portion (504, Figures 12C,14) configured to be slid into a receptacle (150) mountable in a floor inside at least one door to be barricaded (Para. [0047, 0052]);
an upper portion (502) connected to the lower portion (504), wherein the upper portion is configured to either (i) contact the at least one door to prevent the at least one door from swinging inwards, or (ii) connect to at least one door bracket affixed to the at least one door to prevent the at least one door from swinging outwards (Upper portion 502 is designed to connect with a lock 400 affixable to the door to prevent swinging of the door. Abstract. Para. [0025]); and
an insert removably affixable to the upper portion, wherein the insert includes electronic circuitry configured to wirelessly communicate with a monitoring system (416 of 400 defines the insert that removably affixable to 508 of the upper portion 502. Figure 6, Para. [0028]. 500 wirelessly communicate with the monitoring system, cell phone [0052, 0054].)
For claim 2, Fischer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the upper portion (502) comprises a first key (508), and wherein the insert comprises a second key (416) removeable affixable to the first key (Figure 6. Para. [0028].)
For claim 3, Fischer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the second key (416) is removeable affixable to the first key (508) via a vertical sliding motion (Figure 6.)
For claim 4, Fischer discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the first and second key have horizontal bottom edges that are brought into contact by the vertical sliding motion (The first and second keys 508L, 508R, and 416 in Figure 13A.)
For claim 5, Fischer discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the first and second keys are shaped to prevent horizontal movement of the insert away from the upper portion when the first and second keys are affixed (Figures 6 and 13a.)
For claim 6, Fischer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first key (508) comprises a tab or slot, and wherein the second key (416) comprises the other of the tab or slot (Figures 6 and 13a.)
For claim 7, Fischer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the insert comprises a housing for the electronic circuitry comprising a dielectric material (500 can communicate wirelessly with monitoring system [0052]. It is inherent.)
For claim 8, Fischer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to wirelessly transmit a message to the monitoring system indicating that the system has been deployed to barricade the at least one door (Any unauthorized entry is wirelessly communicated to the monitoring system [0052]. Implicit.)
For claim 19, Fischer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the upper portion (502) comprises a first portion and an extension (503) removably affixable to the first portion, wherein the extension is configured to contact the at least one door to prevent the at least one door from swinging inwards (Para. [0042].)
For claim 20, Fischer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the upper portion (502) a third key (508) configured to connect to a fourth key (416) on the at least one door bracket (Para. [0026].)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (U.S Pub. App. 2021-0388653).
For claim 18, Fischer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the upper portion (502) is a cylindrical shape (Figure 6), but does not disclose wherein the insert (404) comprises a curved surface to match the cylindrical shape when the insert is affixed to the upper portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the insert (404) comprises a curved surface to match the cylindrical shape, since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). One skill in the art would realize that the insert with any outer surface when affixed to the upper portion will yield the intended result of barricading a door. Applicant does not claim specific purpose of the curved shape of the insert.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (U.S Pub. App. 2021-0388653) in view of Peterson et al. (CN 104954424).
For claim 9, Fischer discloses the system of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the message is transmitted periodically.
Peterson et al. teaches a method of transmitting periodic messages to assure proper connection (P19, para. [3].) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer to have a system that transmits message periodically, as taught by Peterson et al. with a reasonable expectation of success of assuring effective connection.
For claim 15, Fischer discloses the system of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the insert further comprises a visual indicator configured to indicate when the message is being transmitted.
Peterson et al. teaches a method of transmitting periodic messages to assure proper connection (P19, para. [3]), and a visual display (P6, para. [5]) for output message. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer to have a system that transmits message periodically and a visual display, such that the visual indicator configured to indicate when the message is being transmitted as taught by Peterson et al. with a reasonable expectation of success of assuring effective connection.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (U.S Pub. App. 2021-0388653) in view of Tsou et al. (JP 2016 048023).
For claim 10, Fischer discloses the system of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the message comprises an identification number for the system.
Tsou et al. teaches a lock system having wireless communication with mobile device, automatic message notification, and message including identification number for verification and secured locking (Abstract. P4, para. [7]. P5, para. [3].) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer to have a system that sends message comprises an identification number, as taught by Tsou et al. with a reasonable expectation of success of verification.
For claim 14, Fisher discloses the system of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to automatically transmit the message when the system is deployed.
Tsou et al. teaches a lock system having wireless communication with mobile device, automatic message notification, and message including identification number for verification and secured locking (Abstract. P4, para. [7]. P5, para. [3].) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer to have a system that sends automatic message such that the electronic circuitry is configured to automatically transmit the message when the system is deployed, as taught by Tsou et al. with a reasonable expectation of success of verification.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (U.S Pub. App. 2021-0388653) in view of Wang (U.S. Pub. App. 2009-0263754).
For claim 11, Fischer discloses the system of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the insert comprises a switch, wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to transmit the message when the switch is depressed.
Wang teaches a method of having an automatic switching mechanism (Para. [0010, 0043]), a depressible switch (Para. [0044]), a manual switch (Para. [0045, 0048]), and a locking ring (Para. [0039]) providing a securely locked environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer to have depressible switch such that the electronic circuitry is configured to transmit the message when the switch is depressed, as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success of securely locking the environment.
For claim 12, Fischer discloses the system of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the switch is configured to be depressible by a user upon deploying the system.
Wang teaches a method of having an automatic switching mechanism (Para. [0010, 0043]), a depressible switch (Para. [0044]), a manual switch (Para. [0045, 0048]), and a locking ring (Para. [0039]) providing a securely locked environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer to have switch such that the switch is electronic circuitry is configured to transmit the message when the switch is configured to be depressible by a user upon deploying the system, as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success of securely locking the environment.
23. For claim 13, Fischer discloses the system of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the switch is configured to be automatically depressed when the system is deployed.
Wang teaches a method of having an automatic switching mechanism (Para. [0010, 0043]), a depressible switch (Para. [0044]), a manual switch (Para. [0045, 0048]), and a locking ring (Para. [0039]) providing a securely locked environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer to have switch such that the switch is electronic circuitry is configured to transmit the message when the switch is configured to be automatically depressed when the system is deployed, as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success of securely locking the environment.
24. Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (U.S Pub. App. 2021-0388653) in view of Klink (U.S. Pub. App. 2022-0383677).
25. For claim 16, Fischer discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the electronic circuitry is further configured to receive an alert from the monitoring system.
Klink teaches a wireless system where the server received an alert that a lock was opened (Para. [0100]) and facilitates to provide a secured locking environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer to have a system that is configured to receive an alert from the monitoring system, as taught by Klink with a reasonable expectation of success of providing a secured locking system.
26. For claim 17, Fischer discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to wirelessly receive an alert from the monitoring system.
Klink teaches a wireless system where the server received an alert that a lock was opened (Para. [0100]) and facilitates to provide a secured locking environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fischer to have a system that is configured to wirelessly receive an alert from the monitoring system, as taught by Klink with a reasonable expectation of success of providing a secured locking system.
Conclusion
28. Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides examples of similar inventions. There are no suggestions in the prior art of record for combining any of the references to arrive at as claimed. Relevant prior art cited but not applied includes Richmond (U.S. Pub. App. 2018-0238085); Guerrero et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,238,926); and Tagtow et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,441,333).
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675