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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 140.
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. 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, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sisco et al., US 11,473,361 B1.
Claim 1: Sisco discloses a secure enclosure (Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (120);
a housing door (112) coupled to the housing (col. 4 ln. 10-15) and movable between an opened position (Fig. 1) and a closed position (Fig. 2), wherein the housing door comprises a concealment panel (136) coupled to an innermost face of the housing door (Fig. 1) and a storage cavity (138) concealed from view by the concealment panel (Fig. 3); and
a door locking system (150) mounted to the housing door within the storage cavity (col. 4 ln. 46-53) and configured to selectively lock the housing door to and unlock the housing door from the housing while in the closed position (col. 4 ln. 35-45).
Claim 2: Sisco discloses the secure enclosure of claim 1, wherein the secure enclosure is a gun safe (the enclosure is sized and structured to keep a gun safe and secure, thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition for a safe (noun) and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and wherein the storage cavity of the housing door is configured to store at least one of jewelry, documents (col. 1 ln. 63-67), one or more firearms, or firearm accessories between an outermost face of the housing door and the concealment panel (col. 3 ln. 46-49).
Claim 5: Sisco discloses the secure enclosure of claim 1, wherein the concealment panel is pivotally coupled to the housing door along a first edge of the concealment panel (illustrated by Fig. 1).
Claim 7: Sisco discloses the secure enclosure of claim 5, wherein the concealment panel is detachably coupled to the housing door along a second edge of the concealment panel opposite the first edge (illustrated by Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sisco et al., US 11,473,361 B1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al., CN 105863435 A.
Claim 3: Sisco discloses the secure enclosure of claim 1, wherein the housing door comprises the concealment panel (Fig. 1). However, Sisco is silent to the housing door comprising an outermost steel layer, a fire-resistant layer, and a steel inner liner layer.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court, quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify to modify the housing door comprising a concealment panel disclosed by Sisco to further comprise an outermost steel layer, a fire-resistant layer, and a steel inner liner layer with a reasonable expectation of success. Yu teaches an outermost steel layer, a fire-resistant layer, and a steel inner liner layer, to improve fire-resistance and durability ([0010]; [0017]). The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely the housing door comprising an outermost steel layer, a fire-resistant layer, a steel inner layer, and the concealment panel.
Claim 4: Sisco, in view of Yu, teaches the secure enclosure of claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the storage cavity is formed between the steel inner liner layer of the housing door and the concealment panel in order to protect items inside the storage cavity from fire, moisture, and theft (Yu [0010]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sisco et al., US 11,473,361 B1, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Frost et al., GB 2183289 A.
Claim 6: Sisco discloses the secure enclosure of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the concealment panel is pivotally coupled to the housing door along the first edge of the concealment panel via a piano hinge.
Frost teaches a panel (1) coupled to a housing along a first edge of the panel (Fig. 2) via a piano hinge (Figs. 1-2 depict a piano hinge; p. 1 lines 68-75, 124-130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concealment panel disclosed by Sisco to be pivotally coupled to the housing door along the first edge of the concealment panel via a piano hinge, as taught by Frost, in order to attach the concealment panel with a strong concealed hinge and reduce sagging (Frost p. 1 lines 60-64).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sisco et al., US 11,473,361 B1, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kallay, US 2015/0159426 A1.
Claim 8: Sisco discloses the security enclosure of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose the concealment panel is detachably coupled to the housing door using at least one of a catch, a latch, a magnet, or a fastener.
Kallay teaches a concealment panel (50) pivotally coupled along a first edge of the concealment panel (Fig. 6) and wherein the concealment panel is detachably coupled along a second edge (Fig. 6) using at least one of a catch, a latch, a magnet, or a fastener ([0031] (“magnetic strips”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concealment panel disclosed by Sisco to be detachably coupled along the second edge using at least one of a catch, a latch, a magnet, or a fastener, as taught by Kallay with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reliably hold the concealment panel closed to cover the cavity (Kallay [0031], claim 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights