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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted 3/27/2025 is acknowledged and has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 3/27/2025 are acknowledged and acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 13, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Peters et al. (U.S. Patent 8,701,544).
In regards to claim 1, Peters et al (henceforth referred to as Peters) disclose a ballistic desk device comprising:
a tabletop. Peters teaches various tabletop configurations including figure 13;
a frame configured to support the tabletop, the frame comprising a leg. Figure 13 of Peters includes a table with a frame and legs;
and
a ballistic shield mounted to a bottom surface of the tabletop. Item 12 of figure 13 is a ballistic shield.
In regards to claim 2, Peters discloses that the tabletop is comprised of a rounded edge. As shown in figure 12, the table has substantially rounded edges.
In regards to claim 3, Peters discloses that the tabletop is comprised of a protective coating. The tabletop of Peters includes a top surface constituting a “protective coating”.
In regards to claim 4, Peters discloses that the frame is comprised of a foldable frame. As illustrated, the frame of the tabletop is foldable (see figure 13).
In regards to claim 5, Peters discloses that the ballistic shield is comprised of a ballistic outer body. The outer surface of the ballistic layer shown in figures 1-7 constitutes an outer body.
In regards to claim 6, Peters discloses that the ballistic shield is comprised of a ballistic fabric. Peters teaches either a soft fabric or hard ballistic material (claim 1 of Peters).
In regards to claim 8, Peters discloses a ballistic desk device comprising:
a tabletop. Peters teaches various tabletop configurations including figure 13;
a frame configured to support the tabletop, the frame comprising a leg. Figure 13 of Peters includes a table with a frame and legs; and
a ballistic shield mounted to a bottom surface of the tabletop, wherein the ballistic shield comprises a layer of a ballistic fabric. Peters teaches an attached ballistic soft or hard armor attached to the bottom of the table indicated as item 12 of figure 13. Note that Peters teaches that the soft armor may be a ballistic fabric.
In regards to claim 9, Peters discloses that the leg is comprised of a foldable leg. Note the folding legs of figure 13.
In regards to claim 12, Peters discloses that the leg is comprised of a repositionable foot. Peters teaches embodiments with table legs including feet that are repositionable (figs. 18, 22, 24, 25).
In regards to claim 13, Peters discloses a ballistic desk device comprising:
a tabletop. Peters teaches various tabletop configurations including figure 13;
a frame configured to support the tabletop, the frame comprising a leg. Figure 13 of Peters includes a table with a frame and legs; and
Peters teaches a ballistic shield comprised of a plurality of layers of ballistic material mounted to the bottom of a table, but not removably mounted to a bottom surface of the tabletop and the ballistic shield comprised of a handle. However, Pappas teaches a furniture piece with a removable ballistic shield and comprising handles (par. 37 and figure 3) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to fabricate the ballistic material of Peters as removable and with handles as taught by Pappas, to allow a user to reposition the shield easily.
In regards to claim 18, Peters discloses that the ballistic shield is comprised of a transparent viewing window. Note the transparent viewing windows of the Peters embodiment shown in figure 10 (items 42).
In regards to claim 20, Peters discloses that the ballistic fabric is comprised of an aramid. Peters teaches aramid fiber use.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 7, 10, 13, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (U.S. Patent 8,701,544) in view of Pappas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0364832).
In regards to claims 7, 10 and 17, Peters does not disclose that the ballistic shield is comprised of an NIJ Level III ballistic shield. However, Pappas et al (henceforth referred to as Pappas) teaches furniture with inlayed ballistic material including NIJ Level III (par. 43 of Pappas) as claimed and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to utilize various ballistic materials including NIJ Level III as taught by Pappas, to protect against .44 Magnum impacts.
In regards to claim 13, Peters discloses a ballistic desk device comprising:
a tabletop. Peters teaches various tabletop configurations including figure 13;
a frame configured to support the tabletop, the frame comprising a leg. Figure 13 of Peters includes a table with a frame and legs; and
Peters teaches a ballistic shield comprised of a plurality of layers of ballistic material mounted to the bottom of a table, but not removably mounted to a bottom surface of the tabletop and the ballistic shield comprised of a handle. However, Pappas teaches a furniture piece with a removable ballistic shield and comprising handles (par. 37 and figure 3) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to fabricate the ballistic material of Peters as removable and with handles as taught by Pappas, to allow a user to reposition the shield easily.
In regards to claim 19, Peters does not disclose the ballistic shield removably attaches to the bottom surface via a mechanical fastener. However, Pappas teaches removable application of a ballistic shield in/on a desk and utilizing a mechanical fastener to removably attach the armor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to facilitate removable attachment of the armor material of Peters using a mechanical fastener as taught by Pappas, to provide protection for a user away from the desk.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (U.S. Patent 8,701,544) in view of Harwood et al. (WIPO Document WO 2014/127400).
In regards to claim 11, Peters does not explicitly disclose that the ballistic fabric is comprised of an ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene. However, Harwood et al (henceforth referred to as Harwood) teaches fabricating furniture using Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) as a ballistic material (par. 31 of Harwood) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to utilize UHMWPE in/on the furniture of Peters as taught by Harwood, since this material is a well-known effective ballistic material.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (U.S. Patent 8,701,544) in view of Hall et al. (U.S. Patent 7,886,651).
In regards to claim 16, Peters does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of layers of the ballistic fabric are arranged in a crosshatch pattern. However, Hall et al (hence forth referred to as Hall) teaches a ballistic fabric with fiber/fabric layers in cross-hatch or overlapping pattern (col. 16, lines 13-20 of Hall). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to utilize cross-hatch fabric layers in/on the Peters ballistic armor as taught by Hall, to create an integrated armor material.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (U.S. Patent 8,701,544) in view of Nafziger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0261105).
In regards to claim 14, Peters fails to disclose that the leg is comprised of a telescopic leg. However, Nafziger et al (henceforth referred to as Nafziger) teaches a desk/table with telescoping legs 44/42 of figure 1 and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide telescoping legs in/on the desk of Peters as taught by Nafziger, to allow for height adjustment.
In regards to claim 15, Peters as modified by Nafziger discloses of a locking mechanism. Note that locking mechanism to place the legs in a specific telescopic length (38/40 of figure 1).
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641