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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 as filed on 09/10/2024 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
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 at least one hole (claim 8) and the fasteners in holes (claim 8) 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities: see below. Appropriate correction is required.
In regards to Claim 1, “made out of armor plate” as recite in lines 3-4 appears to worded incorrectly. It appears made out of armor plate is intended to recite “made out of an armor plate”.
In regards to Claim 8, “arranging armor plate” as recite in line 4 appears to worded incorrectly. It appears arranging armor plate is intended to recite “arranging an armor plate”.
In regards to Claim 8, The second and third bullet under claim 8 both recite ii). It appears the second bullet is intended to recite ii.) where as the third bullet is intended to recite iii.) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to Claim 8, “one hole in armor plate” as recite in line 5 is deemed unclear. It is not apparent if the armor plate is the same armor plate recite in line 4. Examiner has interpreted both armor plates (lines 4 and 5) to be the same. It appears “one holes in the armor plate” is intended to be recited, once formally introduced in line 4.
In regards to Claim 8, “more resilient” as recited in line 2 is deemed unclear. The term more resilient does not clearly disclose what is it more resilient than. It appears more resilient is intended to recite “in order to be resilient against diamond drilling”.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Gustavsson (WO 2020141991 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Gustavsson discloses
A construction element (1) [Fig 1] for a safety cabinet (100) [Fig 3] [As understood, a safety cabinet can be a container] comprising a first wall (10) [Figs 1-2] is made out of armor plate [Page 2, Line 39-40] and arranged with at least one anchor (30) [Figs 1-2], where the anchor (30) [Figs 1-2] is arranged with at least one through hole (32, 34) [Fig 2].
In regards to Claim 3, Gustavsson discloses
The construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, wherein a surface of the first wall (20) [Figs 1-2] is arranged with a number of anchors [Unnumbered, see examiners comment] [Figs 1-2] arranged in a grid pattern [Figs 1-2, showing grid pattern] with a distance [Page 6, Lines 10-15] between each respective anchor [Unnumbered, see examiners comment] [Figs 1-2] within the range 8 cm - 18 cm [Page 6, Lines 10-15, distance of 100 mm to 250 mm] [As understood, converting from mm to cm equals to 10cm - 25cm].
Additionally, the phrase “within the range” has been understood to encompass any set of numbers within the range as specified, it is not understood to exclusively be the numbers as specified.
In regards to Claim 4, Gustavsson discloses
The construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, comprising a second wall (10) [Figs 1-2], a first side wall (50) [Fig 2] and a second side wall (60) [Fig 2] arranged against the first wall (20) [Figs 1-2] so as to jointly form a mold [Page 7, Lines 21-24] for pouring of concrete (40) [Fig 2] and to hold the concrete (40) [Fig 2] [Page 2, Lines 40-45] [Claim 1, Lines 14-17] once the concrete (40) [Fig 2] has been poured.
In regards to Claim 5, Gustavsson discloses
The construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, wherein the concrete (40) [Fig 2] comprises at least one additive selected from wood pellets, plastic pellets and/or metal pellets [Page 3, Lines 1-2] [Claim 9].
In regards to Claim 6, Gustavsson discloses
A door (108) [Fig 3] for a container (100) [Fig 3] comprising [Page 3, Lines 35-38, Page 4, Lines 1-2, indicating the construction element can be used for a wall, door, lower or upper element of a container] a construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, at least one lock and at least one hinge [Claim 11] [Page 3, Lines 11-12].
In regards to Claim 7, Gustavsson discloses
A container (100) [Fig 3] comprising [Page 3, Lines 35-38, Page 4, Lines 1-2, indicating the construction element can be used for a wall, door, lower or upper element of a container] at least one construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, and a door (108) [Fig 3] comprising at least one lock and at least one hinge [Claims 11-12] [Page 3, Lines 11-12].
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustavsson (WO 2020141991 A1) in view of Michael Samways (CN 103348070 A)(Herein Samways).
In regards to Claim 2, Gustavsson as modified discloses the construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to claim 1. Samways discloses wherein the armor plate [Page 2, Line 39-40, Gustavsson] has a hardness in the range of 480-540 HBW [¶ 0068, disclosing the armor plate can be steel and be at least 500 Brinell Hardness].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the construction element as disclosed by Gustavsson to further include wherein the armor plate has a hardness in the range of 480-540 HBW as disclosed by Samways. When modified, the armor plate would be made of a steel material of at least 500 HBW, further allowing a security hardness against theft and making it extremely difficult to penetrate.
Additionally, the phrase “within the range” has been understood to encompass any set of numbers within the range as specified, it is not understood to exclusively be the numbers as specified.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustavsson (WO 2020141991 A1) in view of David Richard Painter (GB 2227205 A)(Herein Painter)
In regards to Claim 8, Gustavsson as modified discloses
Method [Page 6; Para 2, Lines 1-2] for improving a safety cabinet (100) [Fig 3] with a concrete wall [Fig 1, Showing Concrete Wall] (40) in order to be more resilient against diamond drilling [Page 1; Para 2, Lines 5-6] , comprising
i.) arranging [Fig 1, showing arranged] armor plate (10) [Fig 1] [Page 2, Line 39-40] on an inside [Fig 1, Inside Wall] of the safety cabinet (100) [Fig 3],
ii.) arranging [Fig 1, showing arranged, Painter] at least one hole [Unnumbered, Fig 1] (see examiners comments) in armor plate (10) [Fig 1] [Page 2, Line 39-40], going into a concrete wall (40) [Fig 2],
ii.) arranging [Fig 1, Showing Arranged, Painter] fasteners (13, Painter) [FIG 1] in holes [Unnumbered, Fig 1, Painter] (see examiners comments) so that the armor plate (10) [Fig 1] [Page 2, Line 39-40] is arranged to the concrete (40) [Fig 2].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the safety cabinet with a concrete wall as disclosed by Gustavsson to further include a method for improving a safety cabinet with a concrete wall in order to be more resilient against diamond drilling as disclosed by Painter. When modified, the method allows for safety against theft by adding a resistance of penetration regarding the diamond drill.
Examiners comments
PNG
media_image1.png
818
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gustavsson, Figures 1-2
PNG
media_image2.png
706
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Painter, Fig 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA K. AL-ASWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 5PM.
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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights