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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (claims 1-4, 6-20) in the reply filed on 9/14/2026 is acknowledged. However, upon further review, claims 1-4, 6-14 are directed to a non-elected species (barrier) and are thus hereby WITHDRAWN. Claims 15-20 are examined accordingly.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the use of heavy shading. Note that solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color. 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.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,227,332 to Howe et al. in view of US 2003/0222788 to Kocek. Regarding claims 1-20, the ‘332 application recites all the limitations of a razor wire container except for an object within the interior area. However, Kocek discloses a razor wire container (Fig 5) and in particular discloses an object (50) within the interior area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate an object within the ‘332 container in order to protect the object.
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(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0222788 to Kocek in view of US 2012/0152946 to Gronholm.
Regarding claim 15, Kocek discloses a razor wire container (Fig 5) comprising a frame including a plurality of walls defining an enclosed interior area, the plurality of walls each including a section of razor wire (€0037), an object (50) within the enclosed interior area. Kocek further teaches an access component (118) coupled to one or more of the walls and movable to provide access to enclosed interior area but does not teach the access component pivotably coupled. Gronholm discloses a container (Fig 1) and in particular discloses a pivotable access component (10) movable to provide access to the interior. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the access component of Kocek with a pivotable one that forms a surface of the container as suggested by Gronholm in order to provide access to larger size objects. The modification would have resulted in the access component comprising sections of razor wire extending across a panel frame since Kocek discloses razor wire on upper edge of each panel (€0037).
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0152946 to Gronholm in view of US 2011/0260128 to Cochrane.
Regarding claim 15, Gronholm discloses a razor wire container (1) comprising a frame including a plurality of walls (200, 300, 400) defining an enclosed interior area, the plurality of walls each including a section of wire (mesh 90), an object (goods, €0008) within the enclosed interior area. Gronholm further teaches an access component (10) pivotably coupled to one or more of the walls and movable to provide access to enclosed interior area (Fig 2). Gronholm does not teach the section of wire to be razor wire. However, Cochrane discloses a fence panel (10, Fig 1) and discloses that it was known in the art to couple a razor wire panel (52) to exterior surface of cross post (18) and two adjacent perimeter posts (14). In particular, Cochrane discloses razor wire panel (52, Fig 2) being coupled to exterior surfaces of frame components (14), the razor wire panel having an outer perimeter (28) extending horizontally beyond the frame (Fig 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the wire mesh of Gronholm with razor wire panels coupled to exterior surface of the post and frame as suggested by Cochrane in order to provide additional security since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 16, Gronholm further discloses the frame including a plurality of perimeter posts (50) extending from a floor (base), wherein access component is rotatably coupled to at least one of the floor and perimeter post (50) (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, Gronholm further discloses a component receptacle (60) extending along the frame, the component receptacle operable to receive a component for moving the frame.
Regarding claim 18, Gronholm discloses a container (1) comprising a frame including a plurality of walls (200, 300, 400) and a floor (500) defining an enclosed interior area, the plurality of walls each including a section of wire (mesh 90), an access component (10) coupled to one or more of the plurality of walls, the access component movable to provide access to the enclosed interior area, wherein the access component comprises one or more sections of wire extending across a panel frame, an object (goods, €0008) within the interior area. Gronholm does not teach the wire to be razor wire. However, Cochrane discloses a fence panel (10, Fig 1) and discloses that it was known in the art to couple a razor wire panel (52) to exterior surface of cross post (18) and two adjacent perimeter posts (14). In particular, Cochrane discloses razor wire panel (52, Fig 2) being coupled to exterior surfaces of frame components (14), the razor wire panel having an outer perimeter (28) extending horizontally beyond the frame (Fig 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the wire mesh of Gronholm with razor wire panels coupled to exterior surface of the post and frame as suggested by Cochrane in order to provide additional security since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding claim 19, Gronholm further discloses the frame including a plurality of perimeter posts (50) extending from a floor (base), wherein access component is rotatably coupled to at least one of the floor and perimeter post (50) (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 20, Gronholm further discloses panel frame of access component (10) directly coupled to frame, wherein in open position (Fig 2), access component rotates away from frame, and in closed position (Fig 1), access component is directed coupled to perimeter post (50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
