Detailed Action
The following is a non-final rejection made in response to preliminarily amended claims received on April 9th 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 1, and by extension all claims dependent therefrom1, is/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.
A preliminary amendment to claim 1 adds a limitation that reads “wherein said protective attendant station is integrated within an existing attendant station.” This limitation is considered to render the claim indefinite for several reasons.
The limitation makes it unclear what structure, if any, is considered to be an “existing attendant station” since none is cited by the claim. A simple space in which an attendant is occupying may be considered as a station when taking a reasonably broad interpretation of the plain language applied, but it is unclear if this is the Applicant’s intent.
Claim 30 is considered to be further indefinite based on citation of the term “said countertop”. Neither the claim nor its parent (claim 1) establish an antecedence basis for this claim, and it is unclear whether the Applicant intends to reference “a countertop” established in a different claim (claim 27) or whether the recitation of “said countertop” was an inadvertent error meant to be -a countertop- within claim 30 itself.
Further clarification and/or amendment is required for compliance with this section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2003/0213359 (hereinafter referred to in this section as “KROPF” or simply as “the reference”).
Regarding claim 1, Kropf teaches a protective attendant station, said station comprising:
an upper portion (via door 61) comprising a protective window (27) configuration that is bullet-resistant and transparent2;
a lower portion (via housing 21) that is also bullet-resistant3; and
said upper portion and said lower portion secured together to form a station having an interior configured for the presence of an attendant therein (see Figs. 1 and 2) and wherein said bullet-resistant and transparent upper portion provide unobstructed communication between the attendant and another person on an outside location of said protective attendant station while also preventing transfer of moisture droplets while minimizing transfer of Covid and other potentially infectious diseases between the another person and the attendant4; and
wherein said protective attendant station is integrated within an existing attendant section (see rejection under §112(b), the existing attendant station relied upon by the Applicant does not necessarily include any structure and could be understood to be the physical space in which an attendant occupies).
Regarding claim 20, Kropf teaches that the bullet-resistant and transparent protective window configuration comprises thermoplastic that are Level 1 Ballistic-5.0 and Level III Ballistic-7.5 pounds5.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 6,845,701 (hereinafter referred to in this section as “DRACKETT” or simply as “the reference”).
Regarding claims 1, Drackett teaches a protective attendant station, said station comprising:
an upper portion (via top portion 16) comprising a protective window configuration that is bullet-resistant and transparent (via bullet resistant glass windows 20 and 21);
a lower portion (14 and 15) that is also bullet-resistant (shield panels 14 and 15 may include Kevlar or “similar polymer shield material common used in bulletproof vests”6); and
said upper portion and said lower portion secured together to form a station having an interior configured for the presence of an attendant therein and wherein said bullet-resistant and transparent upper portion provide unobstructed communication between the attendant and another person on an outside location of said protective attendant station while also preventing transfer of moisture droplets while minimizing transfer of Covid and other potentially infectious diseases between the another person and the attendant (see Figs. 1-3); and
wherein said protective attendant station is integrated within an existing attendant section (see rejection under §112(b), the existing attendant station relied upon by the Applicant does not necessarily include any structure and could be understood to be the physical space in which an attendant occupies).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 23, and 27-30 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.
Conclusion
While the Examiner is available via telephone to help resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, Applicants are encouraged to consider utilizing the USPTO’s Inventor Assistance Center for general administrative and/or procedural matters at 800-786-9199. Issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. In accordance with current USPTO policy, this form must be submitted on the record prior to internet communications being authorized. A written statement by the Applicant authorizing internet communications on the record is not sufficient. Once authorization is submitted, the Applicant may contact the Examiner at samir.abdosh@uspto.gov. In the event that a telephone conversation would be the easiest means of resolving issues related to the subject matter of a pending patent application, the Examiner may be reached by telephone at 303-297-4454. Interviews will not be granted after issuance of a final rejection unless it is to discuss an amendment that either places the application in condition for allowance or simplifies issues for appeal.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Samir Abdosh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
1 Dependent claims 20, 22, 23, and 27-30 are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 1.
2 Para. [0022] – “The windows 27 and 31 are formed of armored transparent material such as armored glass or the like.”
3 Para. [0022] – “Also the walls 22, 25 and 26 are formed of armored material. One example of an appropriate material for the walls is 1/8" thick aluminum and Level 3 or 4 Kevlar”
4 The reference discloses “An armored booth that functions as a protective enclosure permitting the occupants to approach armed individuals with reduced risk of harm to the occupants” (abstract)
5 Para. [0023] states that “The armored glass is also available commercially from Protective Armored Systems of 140 Crystal Street, Lenox Dale, Mass. 01242” which provides the cited grades of ballistic resistant glazing.
6 See col. 3, ll. 16-23