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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/2/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 7/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all claims are sufficiently related such that no undue burden would be placed upon the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have separate classification and searches. Any art applicable to the first invention would be irrelevant to the second invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10, “a ceiling” should be –the ceiling--.
Claim 1, lines 15 and 16, “operators” should be –operator’s--.
Claim 7, line 8, “and open” should be –an open--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-18 are 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.
Claim 1 is not clearly understood because “the top of which” and “the bottom of which” lacks a clear antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is not clearly understood because “the underside” lacks a clear antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is not clearly understood because “the wings” lacks a clear antecedent basis. Claim 10 depends from claim 7, but the wings are introduced in claim 8.
Claim 11 is not clearly understood because “the underside” lacks a clear antecedent basis.
Claim 13 is not clearly understood because “the rear portion” lacks a clear antecedent basis. Claim 13 depends from claim 7, but the rear portion is introduced in claim 8.
Claim 14 is not clearly understood because “the bottom”, two instances, and “the floor mounting bracket”, two instances, lack a clear antecedent basis. The examiner has read “the bottom” as –the bottom edge. The examiner has read “the floor mounting bracket” as –the mounting bracket--.
Claim 15 is not clearly understood because “the floor mounting bracket” lacks a clear antecedent basis. The examiner has read “the floor mounting bracket” as –the mounting bracket--.
Claim 16 is not clearly understood because “the top of the mounting shelf”, “the top of the shim”, “the bottom partition mount”, and “the inside” lacks a clear antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is not clearly understood because “the partition mount” and “the mounting shelf bracket” lacks a clear antecedent basis. Claim 18 depends from claim 12, but these elements are introduced in claim 14. The examiner believes claim 18 should depend from claim 17 which depends from claim 14.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor, III et al. (5,004,286) in view of KR 10-2006-0106984, further in view of Fisher (US 2004/0104592), further in view of Schmidt et al. (US 2017/0327070).
Taylor, III et al. discloses a partition and door assembly (10) for an operator’s area of a transit vehicle, as shown in Figure 1. The partition (15) has a window that extends to a ceiling (R) of the transit vehicle at a top edge and extends adjacent to adjacent to a windshield (W) and a dashboard (D) of the transit vehicle, as shown in Figure 1. A lock (37) secures the door (27,30) to the partition when in a locked position, as shown in Figures 1 and 4. The door (27,30) has a window (28) that extends from the ceiling (R) of the transit vehicle and is adjacent to the partition (15), as shown in Figure 1. At least one frame (12) is mounted to a rear wall (11) of the operator’s area and extends to the ceiling (R) of the operator’s area and to the floor (F) of the operator’s area and is attached to the rear end of the door (27,30) via hinges (26), as shown in Figure 1. An internal release mechanism (33) is provided to the door (27,30), as shown in Figure 4.
However, Taylor, III et al. does not disclose the mounting bracket, the latch loop, and an external release mechanism.
KR 10-2006-0106984 teaches providing a mounting bracket (14,22b) with a top (14) fixed to bottom edge of a partition window (16) and a bottom fixed to a vehicle floor, as shown in Figure 1.
Fisher teaches forming a door latch as a latch loop (34), as shown in Figure 3.
Schmidt et al. teaches providing external access to a latch release mechanism (18) in case of emergency, as disclosed in paragraph [0056].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to:
Providing a mounting bracket with a top fixed to a bottom edge of the partition window and a bottom fixed to a vehicle floor of Taylor, III et al., as taught by KR 10-2006-0106984, with a reasonable expectation for success more securely fix the partition window in place;
Forming the latch of Taylor, III et al. as a latch loop, as taught by Fisher, with a reasonable expectation for success as an obvious expedient to provide a specific latch that is known to be sufficiently strong to secure a vehicle door; and,
Providing external release mechanism to the door of Taylor, III et al., as taught by Schmidt et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to allow access to the operator’s area in case of emergency to allow first responders to evacuate the operator in the event of a serious accident.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 7 is the partition has a hinge securing the partition window to the ceiling, which is not found in the prior art of record. The closest prior art, Joyner (4,227,735), teaches a partition window that pivots about a vertical support (12).
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 14 is the bottom partition hinge secured to the bottom of the partition window, which is not found in the prior art of record. The closest prior art, Joyner (4,227,735), teaches a partition window that pivots about a vertical support (12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights