DETAILED ACTION
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 1-17 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Bergman (WO/0053859).
Re claim 1, Johnson discloses a ballistic shelter (10; [0079]) providing ballistic protection ([0079]), wherein the ballistic shelter (10) is self-supporting (Fig. 1) and comprises:
roof modules (102) comprising two honeycomb roof panels (206; [0080]);
wall modules (64) forming side walls (Fig. 4A) of the ballistic shelter (10) and wall modules (64) forming end walls (Fig. 1A) of the ballistic shelter (10), the wall modules (64) each comprising a honeycomb wall panel ([0080]),
vertical support elements (50) on the honeycomb wall panels (64) of the side walls (Fig. 4A) of the ballistic shelter (10), each vertical support element (50) being configured to connect (Fig. 4A) a respective wall module (64) to a respective roof module (102; at least indirectly), and
triangular gable end modules (118/120),
but fails to disclose the roof modules each comprising two roof panels connected to each other to form a ridge of the respective roof module, a bottom chord connected to the two roof panels, and a center support connected to the ridge and the bottom chord so that the respective roof module is self-supporting.
However, Bergman discloses the roof modules (Fig. 1-2; 4) each comprising two roof panels (5) connected to each other (Fig. 1-2) to form a ridge (between adjacent elements 5) of the respective roof module (4), a bottom chord (see examiner comments) connected to the two roof panels (5), and a center support (see examiner comments) connected to the ridge (between adjacent elements 5) and the bottom chord (see examiner comments) so that the respective roof module (4) is self-supporting (Fig. 2).
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 ballistic shelter of Johnson with the roof modules each comprising two roof panels connected to each other to form a ridge of the respective roof module, a bottom chord connected to the two roof panels, and a center support connected to the ridge and the bottom chord so that the respective roof module is self-supporting as disclosed by Bergman in order to reduce assembly time on site, and reduce danger during assembly such that the roof need not be assembled on site (Page 1 lines 7-14).
Re claim 4, Johnson as modified discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein the two honeycomb roof panels (102; [0080]) are connected to each other (Fig. 1A) with a mechanical joint (Fig. 5I) at the ridge (84) of the respective roof module (102) by means of flanges (98).
Re claim 6, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein one side (top side thereof) of the center support (84) connected to the ridge (at 84) and an opposite side (bottom side thereof) of the center support (84) connected to the bottom chord (bottom chord of 82) with a fixing flange (98/86) and a mechanical joint (98/86),
but fails to disclose wherein the center support is triangular in shape.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson wherein the center support is triangular in shape in order to provide a simple, less difficult to manufacture shape.
Re claim 7, Johnson as modified discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein the bottom chord (bottom chord of 82; see also examiner comments) is connected to (at the intersection of 88 and 80) a bottom edge (bottom edge of 102) of the honeycomb roof panels (102) or to a height (h) (Fig. 1) from the bottom edge (bottom edge of 102) (see also Fig. 2 of Bergman, as modified).
Re claim 10, Johnson discloses a method ([0086]) for fabricating a ballistic shelter (10; [0079]), the method comprising the following:
producing (Fig. 7A showing 102 having been produced) roof modules (102) comprising two honeycomb roof panels (206; [0080]);
producing (Fig. 4A showing 64 having been produced) wall modules (64) forming side walls (Fig. 4A) of the ballistic shelter (10) and wall modules (64) forming end walls (Fig. 1A) of the ballistic shelter (10), the wall modules (64) each comprising a honeycomb wall panel ([0080]),
producing (Fig. 8A showing 118/120 having been produced) triangular gable end modules (118/120);
producing (Fig. 4A showing 50 having been produced) vertical support elements (50) on the honeycomb wall panels (64) of the side walls (Fig. 4A) of the ballistic shelter (10),
connecting (Fig. 4A) the wall modules (64) of the sided walls (Fig. 4A) to respective roof modules (102; at least indirectly) with the vertical support elements (50) to provide rigidity (Fig. 4A) to the connections between respective wall modules (64) and roof modules (102),
but fails to disclose the roof modules each comprising two roof panels connected to each other to form a ridge of the respective roof module, a bottom chord connected to the two roof panels, and a center support connected to the ridge and the bottom chord so that the respective roof module is self-supporting.
However, Bergman discloses the roof modules (Fig. 1-2; 4) each comprising two roof panels (5) connected to each other (Fig. 1-2) to form a ridge (between adjacent elements 5) of the respective roof module (4), a bottom chord (see examiner comments) connected to the two roof panels (5), and a center support (see examiner comments) connected to the ridge (between adjacent elements 5) and the bottom chord (see examiner comments) so that the respective roof module (4) is self-supporting (Fig. 2).
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 method of Johnson with the roof modules each comprising two roof panels connected to each other to form a ridge of the respective roof module, a bottom chord connected to the two roof panels, and a center support connected to the ridge and the bottom chord so that the respective roof module is self-supporting as disclosed by Bergman in order to reduce assembly time on site, and reduce danger during assembly such that the roof need not be assembled on site (Page 1 lines 7-14).
Re claim 12, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the two honeycomb roof panels (102; [0080]) are connected to each other (Fig. 1A) with flanges (98) and a mechanical joint (Fig. 5I).
Re claim 16, Johnson as modified discloses the method according to claim 10, further comprising connecting (Fig. 6D) the wall modules (64) with each other (Fig. 6D) with horizontal support elements (Fig. 4H 56A-D) at corners (per Fig. 6D) of the ballistic shelter (10).
Re claim 17, Johnson as modified discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, further comprising horizontal support elements (56A-D) at corners (see Fig. 6D) of the ballistic shelter (10).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Bergman (WO/0053859) and Zagorski (US 10,584,509).
Re claim 2, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein the ballistic shelter (10) further comprises a door assembly (Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B 64S, 64D, 64M), vertical beams (50) in corners (Fig. 5A) of the ballistic shelter (10), but fails to disclose the sliding door arrangement as a sliding door arrangement for sliding doors, the arrangement comprising a channel rail in a bottom part thereof, a support structure in a top part thereof.
However, Zagorski discloses the sliding door arrangement (Fig. 3) as a sliding door arrangement for sliding doors (308; Col 6 lines 29-31), the arrangement (Fig. 3) comprising a channel rail (301) in a bottom part thereof (Fig. 3), a support structure (303) in a top part thereof (Fig. 3).
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 ballistic shelter of Johnson with the sliding door arrangement as a sliding door arrangement for sliding doors, the arrangement comprising a channel rail in a bottom part thereof, a support structure in a top part thereof as disclosed by Zagorski in order to provide a wide opening (Col 5 lines 4-5), and to provide a simple to use mechanism for providing entry/exit.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Bergman (WO/0053859), Peters (US 2014/0174284) and De Jaham (US 2009/0277103).
Re claim 3, Johnson as modified discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein the bottom chord (bottom chord of 82; Bergman: see examiner comments) is a beam (Fig. 5B; Bergman: see examiner comments), which comprises one or two parts (Fig. 5B; Bergman: see examiner comments), wherein when the beam comprises two parts, the two parts are connected to each other with a mechanical joint (this being optional/conditional language), and wherein ends of the bottom chord connected to the two honeycomb roof panels correspond to a pitch (Fig. 5A) of the two honeycomb roof elements ([0080]).
but fails to disclose the bottom chord as an I-beam and the ends of the bottom chord are at least partially beveled.
However, Peters discloses the bottom chord (Johnson: bottom chord of 82; see also examiner’s comments) as an I-beam (Peters: Fig. 1E; 14D).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson with the bottom chord as an I-beam as disclosed by Peters in order to maximize structural strength and load bearing capacity while minimizing material and weight, as these are very well-known benefits of I-beam constructions. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In addition, De Jaham discloses the ends (Johnson: ends of the bottom chord of 82; see also examiner’s comments) of the bottom chord (Johnson: bottom chord of 82; see also examiner’s comments) as at least partly beveled (De Jaham: [0027]).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson with the ends of the bottom chord at least partly beveled as disclosed by De Jaham in order to fit the structural members flatly / flush against one another. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Additionally, the language “when” is language that suggests or makes optional/contingent the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Bergman (WO/0053859) and Peterson (US 2018/0340310).
Re claim 5, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the flanges have lifting holes for lifting the respective roof module.
However, Peterson discloses wherein the flanges (208) flanges lifting holes ([0033]) for lifting ([0033]) the respective roof module (516).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson wherein the flanges have lifting holes for lifting the respective roof module as disclosed by Peterson in order to provide simple hoisting for precise alignment, and to provide securing points for safety lines as needed ([0033]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Bergman (WO/0053859) and Slater (US 5,755,062).
Re claim 8, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein the ballistic shelter (10) is erected on foundations (12), but fails to disclose the foundations as concrete or steel.
However, Slater discloses the foundations (14) as concrete or steel (Col 9 lines 7-8).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson with the foundations as concrete or steel as disclosed by Slater in order to utilize a readily available, inexpensive, durable, high-strength material.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Bergman (WO/0053859) and Kostka (US 7,600,348).
Re claim 9, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the ballistic shelter is erected to rest on the ground.
However, Kostka discloses wherein the ballistic shelter (20) is erected to rest on the ground (Col 2 lines 59-63).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson wherein the ballistic shelter is erected to rest on the ground as disclosed by Kostka in order to reduce costs by eliminating the need for constructing any decking or foundation beneath the ballistic shelter.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Bergman (WO/0053859) and Zagorski (US 10,584,509).
Re claim 11, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the ballistic shelter (10) is provided with a door arrangement (Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B 64S, 64D, 64M), vertical beams (50), but fails to disclose the door arrangement as a sliding door arrangement comprising sliding doors, a channel rail, an overhead support structure.
However, Zagorski discloses the door arrangement (Fig. 3) as a sliding door arrangement comprising sliding doors (308; Col 6 lines 29-31: Johnson 64S, 64D, 64M), a channel rail (301), an overhead support structure (303).
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 method of Johnson with the door arrangement as a sliding door arrangement comprising sliding doors, a channel rail, an overhead support structure as disclosed by Zagorski in order to provide a wide opening (Col 5 lines 4-5), and to provide a simple to use mechanism for providing entry/exit.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Bergman (WO/0053859) and Peterson (US 2018/0340310).
Re claim 13, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein each roof module is lifted into a position on top of the wall modules and the triangular gable end modules from the lifting holes of the flanges.
However, Peterson discloses wherein each roof module (516) is lifted into a position ([0033]) on top of the wall modules (308, 508) and the triangular gable end modules (Johnson: 118/120) from the lifting holes ([0033]) of the flanges (208).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson wherein each roof module is lifted into a position on top of the wall modules and the triangular gable end modules from the lifting holes of the flanges as disclosed by Peterson in order to provide simple hoisting for precise alignment, and to provide securing points for safety lines as needed ([0033]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Bergman (WO/0053859), Peterson (US 2018/0340310) and Heselden (US 2013/0047829).
Re claim 14, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 13, but fails to disclose each roof module is pre-assembled on a jig and lifted as a finished roof module onto the on top of the wall modules and the triangular gable end modules.
However, Heselden discloses each roof module (4) is pre-assembled on a jig ([0027], any surface or tool being a jig) and lifted as a finished roof module ([0027]) on top of the wall modules (Johson: 14) and the triangular gable end modules (Johnson: 118/120).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson wherein each roof module is pre-assembled on a jig and lifted as a finished roof module onto the on top of the wall modules and the triangular gable end modules as disclosed by Heselden in order to enable construction of the roof module at a remote location away from incoming fire or other hostile activity, or simply away from a place of exposure ([0027]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Bergman (WO/0053859) and Slater (US 5,755,062).
Re claim 15, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 10, further comprising producing (Fig. 1 showing 12 produced) modular foundations (12) for the ballistic shelter (10), but fails to disclose the modular foundations as concrete or steel.
However, Slater discloses the modular foundations (14) as concrete or steel (Col 9 lines 7-8).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson with the modular foundations as concrete or steel as disclosed by Slater in order to utilize a readily available, inexpensive, durable, high-strength material.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
258
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102/103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended language of the independent claims. As agreed upon in the 8/17/26 Interview, this language overcame the rejection as previously presented. However, as noted in the above, Bergman reads on the amended features.
Conclusion
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 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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights