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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 11,187,030 to Wong.
Regarding claim 1, Wong teaches in Figures 1, 2B 4C, a protection device [roller shutter (Column 4, Line 1)] for securing an entranceway (Column 4, Line 14), comprising: a bullet-resistant [explosion or blast (Column 3, Line 57)] curtain (120) (Column 4, Line 11) made of multiple panels (130) [slats (Column 4, Line 25)] of bullet-resistant materials [explosion or blast (Column 3, Line 57)] having a width equal to or wider than a width of the entranceway [closing the entrance (Column 4, Line 14)], with sufficient panels (130) of a length so that the bullet-resistant curtain (120) covers a height of the entranceway when deployed [closing the entrance (Column 4, Line 14)]; a plurality of horizontal bars (260) [elongate reinforcing members (Column 7, Lines 58-59)] that exceed the width of the entranceway [closing the entrance (Column 4, Line 14)], the plurality of horizontal bars (260) attached to and distributed along the length of the bullet-resistant curtain (120); and a plurality of bar retainers (140) [eyelet structures (Column 5, Line 21)] configured to be attached to a perimeter of the entranceway (Column 5, Lines 64-65) and engage the plurality of horizontal bars (260) to prevent entry or displacement [provide additional support to mitigate impact force (Column 15, Lines 53-55)] of the bullet-resistant curtain (120) when deployed [lowered (Column 4, Line 14)].
Regarding claim 4, Wong teaches in Figures 1 and 2B, the horizontal bars (260) are positioned at regular intervals along the length of the bullet-resistant curtain (120).
Regarding claim 5, Wong teaches in Figures 1, 2B 4C, the plurality of bar retainers (140) each have a plurality of holes [eyelets (Column 5, Line 21)] for mounting the bar retainers (140) to the perimeter of the entranceway (Column 5, Lines 64-65).
Regarding claim 7, Wong teaches in Figure 1, a casing (100) [roller shutter (Column 4, Line 1)] coupled to one end of the bullet-resistant curtain (120) and configured to be attached to a structure above the entranceway [as seen] and sized to contain the bullet-resistant curtain (120) in a folded configuration [raised (Column 4, Line 13)] when the protection device is not deployed [raised].
Regarding claim 10, Wong teaches in Figure 1, the casing (100) has a length that will exceed the width of the entranceway when the protection device is mounted above the entranceway.
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.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 11,187,030 to Wong in view of US Patent # 10,942,011 to Zea.
Regarding claim 2, Wong teaches a protection device with multiple panels but does not teach the panels are made of multiple layers of bullet-resistant material. However, Zea teaches in Figure 1, a protection device (105) [roll-up door (Column 3, Line 37)] made of multiple layers of bullet-resistant materials [Kevlar (Column 3, Line 29)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wong with Zea with a reasonable expectation of success because Zea teaches Kevlar is bullet and fire resistant (Column 10, Lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 11, Wong teaches a protection device but does not teach a quick release mechanism. However, Zea teaches a quick release mechanism [button (Column 5, Line 66)] configured to release a bullet-resistant curtain (105) [roll-up door (Column 3, Line 37)] when the quick release mechanism is activated (Column 5, Lines 66-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wong with Zea with a reasonable expectation of success because Zea teaches the quick release mechanism closes the door (Column 5, Lines 66-67).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 11,187,030 to Wong.
Regarding claim 3, Wong teaches a protection device with a plurality of horizontal bars but is silent about what they are made from. However, 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 for the horizontal bars since it has been held to be 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. In the instant case, it seems as though metal would provide adequate bullet-resistance.
Regarding claim 6, Wong teaches a protection device with a plurality of bar retainers but is silent about what they are made from. However, 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 bar retainers from metal since it has been held to be 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. In the instant case, it seems as though metal bar retainers would provide adequate strength for keeping the bar retainers in place during an impact event.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 11,187,030 to Wong in view of US Patent # 9,702,665 to Rose et al.
Regarding claim 8, Wong teaches a protection device with a casing but does not teach the casing includes an opening located on a bottom of the casing. However, Rose teaches in Figures 2 and 3, a casing (7) that includes an opening on a bottom of the casing (7), wherein the opening is positioned and sized so that a bullet-resistant curtain (6) will be release vertically from the casing (7) when the bullet-resistant curtain (6) is deployed [rolled off (Column 5, Lines 5-6)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wong with Rose and have a reasonable expectation of success because Rose teaches the casing hides the roller from view (Column 4, Lines 62-63).
Regarding claim 9, Wong teaches a protection device with a casing but does not each a plurality of holes for mounting the casing above the entranceway. However, Rose teaches in Figure 2, the casing (7) comprises a plurality of holes for mounting (Column 4, Line 5) the casing (7) above the entranceway (5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wong with Rose and have a reasonable expectation of success because Rose teaches the mounting holes allow the system to be mounted to wall studs (Column 4, Line 59).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 11,187,030 to Wong in view of US Patent # 11,733,005 to Adrain.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Wong teaches a protection device but does not teach a plurality of sensors. However, Adrain teaches in Figure 9, a plurality of sensors [sensor array] coupled to a curtain [barrier] and comprising vibration sensors [sound (Column 15, Line 26)] configured to detect impacts [gun impact (Column 15, Line 27)] from penetrative objects [ballistics (Column 15, Line 25)] and a transmitter [send smart alerts (Column 10, Line 59)] configured to transmit notifications (Column 10, Line 59) of detected objects (Column 10, Lines 60-61) to an authority (Column 10, Lines 63-64) in response to the vibration sensors (Column 15, Lines 21-22) detecting impacts (Column 15, Line 25) from penetrative objects (Column 15, Lines 25-27); further comprising a sensor control switch [controller] coupled to the plurality of vibration sensors (Column 15, Lines 21-22) via a wired or wireless connection (Column 15, Line 50) and configured to activate (Column 8, Line 10) the vibration sensors (Column 15, Lines 21-22) when the sensor control switch [controller] is pressed or moved by a person (Column 8, Lines 8-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wong and Adrain and have a reasonable expectation of success because Adrain teaches that the authorities could be notified upon detection with the sensors (Column 10, Lines 63-64).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm 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 Mattei can be reached at (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 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635