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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the header panel configured to couple with the pivot mount and the wall system must be shown or the features canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 11-12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blackburn (US 2019/0260782).
Regarding claim 1, Blackburn discloses a ballistic resistant panel system (Fig. 5) comprising:
a panel 23, the panel comprising:
a ballistic resistant layer 9; and
an outer layer 24 secured to at least one side of the ballistic resistant layer (Fig. 5; Par. 0021: “the bulletproof door panel 9 is mounted onto an inside panel 24 of the main entry door 23”); and
a pivot mount (Door Hinge, not shown; Par. 0022: “It is preferred that the foot bolt 10 be located at the lower inside corner, opposite from the door hinge side of door”) connected to the panel and configured to secure the panel with respect to a wall system and facilitate selective movement of the panel about the pivot mount and relative to the wall system (Fig. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 2, Blackburn further discloses a lock 10 secured to the panel and configured to lock the panel at a location relative to the wall system (Fig. 5-6; Par. 0022-0023).
Regarding clam 4, Blackburn further discloses wherein the pivot mount includes one or more hinge secured to the panel and securable to the wall system (Door Hinge, not shown; Par. 0022: “It is preferred that the foot bolt 10 be located at the lower inside corner, opposite from the door hinge side of door”).
Regarding claim 9, Blackburn further discloses wherein the panel has a height and width configured to cover a doorway along the wall system (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Blackburn further discloses wherein the outer layer secured to at least one side of the ballistic resistant layer comprises a first outer layer secured to a first side of the ballistic resistant layer and a second outer layer secured to a second side of the ballistic resistant layer (Par. 0021: “a secondary panel made of a corkboard material and of size similar to the bulletproof door panel 9 can be attached onto the bulletproof door panel 9 with adhesive thus concealing the appearance of the bulletproof door panel 9”).
Regarding claim 12, Blackburn further discloses, wherein the first outer layer has a surface forming one or more of a white board surface, a chalkboard surface, a magnetic surface, a cork board surface, and a glass surface (Par. 0021: Par. 0021: “a secondary panel made of a corkboard material and of size similar to the bulletproof door panel 9 can be attached onto the bulletproof door panel 9 with adhesive thus concealing the appearance of the bulletproof door panel 9”).
Regarding claim 15, Blackburn further discloses a method of securing an opening in a wall system, the method comprising:
identifying an attacker risk at one or more locations along the wall system (Par. 0024); and
adjusting a position of a ballistic resistant panel from a non-securing position spaced from the one or more locations along the wall system to a securing position covering the one or more locations along the wall system (Par. 0017-0020; Par. 0021-0022; Fig. 2-6).
Regarding claim 16, Blackburn further discloses locking the ballistic resistant panel in the securing position (Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 17, Blackburn further discloses interacting with an outer surface of the ballistic resistant panel when the ballistic resistant panel is in the non-securing position (Fig. 5; Par. 0021-0022; Fig. 2-6).
Regarding claim 20, Blackburn further discloses wherein the ballistic resistant panel is mounted to the wall system (Par. 0017-0020; Par. 0021-0022; Fig. 2-6).
Claims 1, 7, 10, 15, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zimmer (US 2012/0060436).
Regarding claim 1, Zimmer discloses a ballistic resistant panel system comprising:
a panel 110A, 110B, the panel comprising:
a ballistic resistant layer (Claim 2; Par. 0031); and
an outer layer secured to at least one side of the ballistic resistant layer (claim 2; Par. 0031); and
a pivot mount 130 connected to the panel and configured to secure the panel with respect to a wall system and facilitate selective movement of the panel about the pivot mount and relative to the wall system (Par. 0038-0039; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Zimmer further discloses a header panel configured to couple with the pivot mount and the wall system (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Zimmer further discloses wherein the panel has a height and width configured to cover a window along the wall system (Fig. 4; Par. 0027: “a panel system 100 configured for securing a building 101, openings 102 of a building 101, doors, or windows of a building, or other means of entering any structure”).
Regarding claim 15, Zimmer further discloses method of securing an opening in a wall system, the method comprising: identifying an attacker risk at one or more locations along the wall system; and adjusting a position of a ballistic resistant panel from a non-securing position spaced from the one or more locations along the wall system to a securing position covering the one or more locations along the wall system (claim 19-20).
Regarding claim 18, Zimmer further discloses wherein the one or more locations along the wall system comprise a window.
Regarding claim 19, Zimmer further discloses wherein the ballistic resistant panel is mounted to a ceiling adjacent the wall system. (Par. 0039: the mounting hinge 130 may support the vertically hanging weight of the panel system 100 from any structure of a building. Non-limiting examples include walls, ceilings, overhangs, ledges, planters, and balconies”).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn in view of Aliev (US 10,167,644).
Regarding claim 3, Blackburn fails to disclose one or more wheels secured to the panel to facilitate the movement of the panel relative to the wall system.
Aliev teaches that it is known in the art of ballistic doors to use wheels to facilitate movement (Fig. 6b, 12; Col. 12, lines 20-62: “FIG. 12 depicts a wheel caster attached to the door frame in accordance with aspects of the disclosure. For example, as shown in FIG. 12, a wheel caster 49 may be attached to the bottom corner connector 59 of the door 42. In an exemplary embodiment the weight of the door with the panel on it is approximately 60 lbs. Without a support (e.g., a wheel caster), opening and closing the door may be challenging in terms of weight alone. Additionally, opening and closing the door would shake (or vibrate) the whole structure, possibly causing the structure to feel unstable. Thus, in accordance with aspects of the disclosure, the wheel caster 49 may be attached to bottom of the door 42 to allow for an easier and smoother opening and closing…”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Blackburn such that the panel had a wheel, in view of Aliev, to obtain the desired result of easier and smoother movement of the panel.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn in view of Shah et al (US 2019/0211595) [hereinafter Shah].
Regarding claims 5-6, Blackburn fails to expressly disclose wherein the one or more hinge comprises one or both of a continuous geared hinge and a load bearing ball bearing hinge.
Shah teaches that it is known in the art of panel hinges to provide one or both of a continuous geared hinge (Fig. 5) and a load bearing ball bearing hinge (Par. 0028: “Referring now to FIGS. 1-3, in the present application, the hinge 12 is shown as a continuous geared hinge, which as is well known in the art are provided in a variety of formats”) wherein the pivot mount extends continuously along a height of the panel (Fig. 5).
Applicant should note that "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results." KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Blackburn such that the hinge was a continuous geared hinge, in view of Shah, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The replacement would be expected to yield door hinges that act as the critical pivot points that connect a door to its frame and allow the door to swing open and closed smoothly while securely bearing its weight and keeping the door aligned for proper locking and latching.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn in view of McCarthy et al (US 2015/0096479) [hereinafter McCarthy].
Regarding claim 8, Blackburn fails to expressly discloses a wall stiffener configured to couple with the pivot mount and the wall system.
McCarthy teaches that it is known in the art of ballistic panels to provide a wall stiffener 98 configured to couple with the pivot mount 36 and the wall system (Fig. 11; Par. 0070).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Blackburn such that the panel had a wall stiffener configured to couple with the pivot mount and the wall system, in view of McCarthy, to obtain the desired result of supporting the panels weight and anchoring the hinges keeping the panel stable and aligned.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn in view of Hunt et al (US 5,816,017) [hereinafter Hunt].
Regarding claim 13, Blackburn fails to disclose an edge wrap extending around a surface of the ballistic resistant layer and a surface of the outer layer.
Hunt teaches that it is known in the art of door panels to provide an edge wrap extending around a surface of the ballistic resistant layer and a surface of the outer layer (Col. 2, lines 5-9: “The metal channels act as covers for housing the door rods between the frame and the incombustible core of the fire door and for securement of the rods to the core, and as metal edge wraps for enhancing the structural integrity of the door edge housing the vertical door rod therein”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Blackburn such that the panel had an edge wrap extending around a surface of the ballistic resistant layer and a surface of the outer layer, in view of Hunt, to obtain the desired result of enhancing the structural integrity of the door panel.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackburn in view of Spransy (2016/0281416).
Regarding claim 14, Blackburn further discloses wherein the outer layer is a finished surface layer configured from cork material for concealing the appearance of the bulletproof door panel (Par. 0021). Blackburn fails to expressly disclose wherein the finished surface layer is configured from white board material.
Spransy teaches that it is known in the art of ballistic panels to provide a finished surface 18 layer is configured from white board material (Par. 0015: “In some embodiments, the ballistic skin may be covered with cork or a white board material. Hence, the classroom barrier can be disguised as a simple bulletin board for everyday use”; Par. 0034).
Applicant should note that "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results." KSR at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams 383 US 39, 50-51 (1966)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Blackburn such that a finished surface layer is configured from white board material, in view of Spransy, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The replacement would be expected to yield concealing the bullet proof door panel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4269. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM MST M-F.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 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 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.
/JOSHUA E FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights