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 1-13 as filed on 08/03/2026 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
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, 4-8 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 an armor plate [Page 2, Line 39-40] at least one anchor (30) [Figs 1-2] that is coupled to [see page 6 of translated document lines 1-3; “a sheet metal component welded to the wall element 10 and to the wall element 20”] and extends [As shown in Fig 1, extending] from the armor plate [Page 2, Line 39-40], and concrete (40) [Fig 1] [Abstract] that encapsulates (all free surfaces being covered) each of the 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] and configured to have concrete (40) [Fig 1] [Abstract] extend through [see page 7, lines 30-33 “the openings 34 of the sheet components 30 allow the concrete to be distributed in the construction element 1”] the at least one through hole (32, 34) [Fig 2] of the anchor (30) [Figs 1-2].
Examiners Note: As understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, encapsulates indicates covering all FREE surfaces, (i.e., surfaces not coupled).
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] configured for pouring of the 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].
In regards to Claim 8, Gustavsson as modified discloses
A Method [Page 6; Para 2, Lines 1-2] for forming a safety cabinet (100) [Fig 3] with a concrete wall [Fig 1, Showing Concrete Wall] (40), comprising
i.) arranging [Fig 1, showing arranged] an 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 anchor (30) [Fig 1] extending from the armor plate (10) [Fig 1] [Page 2, Line 39-40], the anchor (30) [Fig 1] comprising at least open through hole (32,34) [Fig 1].
ii.) Pouring [Col 7, Lines 27-33 disclosing pour the concrete wall] the concrete wall [Fig 1, Showing Concrete Wall] (40) so that concrete (40) [Fig 1] of the concrete wall [Fig 1, Showing Concrete Wall] (40) extends through [see page 7, lines 30-33 “the openings 34 of the sheet components 30 allow the concrete to be distributed in the construction element 1”] the at least one through hole (32,34) [Fig 1] of the anchor (30) [Fig 1].
In regards to Claim 9, Gustavsson discloses
The construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to claim 1, wherein the at least one anchor (30) [Fig 1] is welded [see page 5; line 40 and page 6; lines 1-2] to the first wall (10) [Fig 1] [Page 5, Lines 1-2].
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.
Claims 3, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustavsson (WO 2020141991 A1).
In regards to Claim 3, Gustavsson discloses
The construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to claim 1,
However, fails to disclose
wherein a surface of the first wall is arranged with a number of anchors arranged in a 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].
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchors of Gustavsson to have multiple portions and separate vertically by a distance of 8 cm – 18cm in order to facilitate attachment. When modified, the addition of separating the anchors into multiple portions allows for an ease of procurement and generally field modifications if deemed necessary. In general, it has been held that making separable is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522.
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 10, Gustavsson as modified discloses
The construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to Claim 3, wherein the number of anchors (30) [Fig 1] are arranged in the grid pattern [As modified above] with a first distance in a first direction (Horizontal) and a second distance [Page 6, lines 13-14] in a second direction (Vertical) transverse to the first direction (Horizontal), each of the first distance (Horizontal) and the second distance (Vertical) being within the range 8 cm to 18 cm [Page 6, lines 13-14].
Examiners Note: As understood, 100 to 250mm converted to cm is 10-25cm.
In regards to Claim 11, Gustavsson as modified discloses
The construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to Claim 1,
However, fails to disclose
wherein the concrete extends beyond the at least one anchor on all sides except a side of the anchor coupled to the first wall.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor of Gustavsson to have the weld only on one side (first wall) in order to facilitate attachment. When modified, the weldability of only side allows ease of procurement and installation in the field. Allowing the ability of the weld to take place at the factory. Furthermore, once separate the concrete would encompass the anchor on all sides expect a side of the anchor coupled to the first wall In general, it has been held that making separable is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522.
In regards to Claim 12, Gustavsson as modified discloses
The construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to Claim 4,
wherein the at least one anchor (30) [Fig 1] extends partially into the mold [Page 7, Lines 21-24].
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor of Gustavsson to have the weld only on one side (first wall) in order to facilitate attachment. When modified, the anchor would facilitate extending into the mold partially allowing for secure connection. In general, it has been held that making separable is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522.
In regards to Claim 13, Gustavsson as modified discloses
The construction element (1) [Fig 1] according to Claim 12, wherein the at least one anchor (30) [Fig 1] does not contact the second wall (20) [Fig 1],
However, fails to disclose wherein the at least one anchor does not contact the first side wall and the second side wall.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anchor of Gustavsson to have the weld only on one side (first wall) in order to facilitate attachment and detach from the first and second side wall. When modified, the anchor would facilitate extending into the mold partially allowing for secure connection. In general, it has been held that making separable is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
1. Objections to the Claims: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claim objections is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
2. Objections to the Drawings: Applicant' s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
3. Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
4. Claim Rejections 35 USC 102: Applicant' s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
In regards to the argument set forth regarding 35 U.S.C. 102
Applicant iterates:
WO2020141991 discloses element 30 is a sheet material which is generally planar and expressly provided “for arrangement of transversal rebar” during casting. Whereas openings (34) are provided “ to allow for concrete to be distributed in the construction element”.
Furthermore, Applicant iterates (30) does not anchor itself into the concrete through its hole in the manner claimed, rather, it acts as a metal obstacle bridging both opposing walls (10) and (20) that has a dulling effect on cutting means. Which is structurally and functionally distinct from the anchor as recited in claim 1, which as amended is coupled to and extends only from the first wall, and which is encapsulated by concrete that also extends through the anchors through hole.
Furthermore, disclosing how sheet element (30) is welded to directly both wall element (10) and (20) which cannot be concrete encapsulating.
Additionally, Applicant recites that the annotated figures labeled “Gustavsson, Figures 1-2” as provided in the non-final office action employ reference numbers and drawing that correspond with the instant applicant in lieu of the prior art.
Finally, Applicant iterates Figure 2 discloses one dimension, linear arrangement, not the two-dimension grid pattern as recited in claim 3.
Examiners Response:
As per Merriam Webster an anchor is as follows “a reliable or principal support”, one of ordinary skill in the art is able to come to the conclusion sheet element (30) as referenced for anchor to be an actual anchor. WO2020141991 discloses the sheet element (30) is used to be welded to the armor plate or wall (10) which is then filled with rebar in opening (32) and concrete in opening (34). The sheet element as understood is anchoring the wall element (10) and binding the connection through concrete. Additionally, as amended in claim 1, “at least one anchor that is coupled to and extends from the armor plate” does not limit the anchor to ONLY be coupled to one wall. The minimum requirement as amended and claimed in Claim 1, is the anchor is coupled to the first wall. Moreover, even if WO2020141991 discloses an intended purpose for feature 30, such an intended purpose does not preclude other purposes being accomplished.
Furthermore, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “encapsulate”, encapsulate only requires the free surface to be surround by concrete. Additionally, [Col 7, Lines 27-33 disclosing pour the concrete wall] of WO2020141991 discloses the concrete flows through the opening, which in return encapsulates the free surface of the anchor (30) to create the wall. Moreover, the language does not require concrete disposed on all sides, or on every side thereof.
Furthermore, per the amendment and additional limitations as applied to claim 1 and furthermore into claim 3. The argument is moot. Please see 103 rejections regarding the anchors in a two-dimension grid pattern.
5. Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant' s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
In regards to Claim 2, Applicant recites
CN103348070 discloses the hardness value in the specific context for a portable safe room to protect ship crew from piracy attacks and wherein the disclosed steel plate having at least 500 Brinell hardness” is offered as a substitute for dedicated bulletproof steel not diamond core drilling resistance.
Examiners Response:
The technical problem solved by the invention does not correlate to the claimed invention. The claims are examined on the merits, not the technical problem solved by the invention. Additionally, the invention as currently claim is not limited by diamond drilling.
In regards to Claim 8, Applicant recites
The claim no longer recites fasteners or holes of the type mapped by the office onto Painters bolt (13), but instead recites an anchor extending from the armor plate and comprising a through hole, with concrete of the concrete wall poured so as to extend through tat through hole.
Examiners Response:
Painter (GB2227205) is not relied upon for the rejection of Claim 8. Gustavsson (WO2020141991A1) is now relied upon, please see 102-rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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