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 because: Fig. 3 has been labeled Fig. 4B and there is already a Fig. 4B (i.e., compare drawing sheets 3 and 4); and, reference character “444” in Fig. 4C does not appear in the written description (but Applicant’s intent is presumed to be crimped edge 454). 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
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 712,605 to Shaaber.
Re: claim 1, Shaaber discloses the claimed invention including a ballistic wall assembly for protecting personnel from ballistic projectiles, the ballistic wall assembly comprising: an outer ballistic panel C, e.g., Figs. 1-3; an inner ballistic panel A spaced from the outer ballistic panel to define an air gap therebetween (shown); a plurality of springs B positioned between the outer ballistic panel and the inner ballistic panel, wherein the springs are configured to provide resistance while allowing the outer ballistic panel to move toward the inner ballistic panel upon impact from a ballistic projectile, ll. 39-80; and wherein the air gap is configured to trap bullets that pass through the outer ballistic panel and are stopped by the inner ballistic panel, thereby preventing ricochets (inherent: see explanation, below).
With respect to the air gap configuration, Applicant discloses “The air gap traps bullets that pass through the outer panel and are stopped by the inner panel,” ¶ [0012], and that “an interior air gap 104 … can trap bullets,” ¶ [0031]. Shaaber clearly shows an air gap between panels A and D. Thus, Shaaber fairly anticipates this limitation. Note that the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2131. Thus, that Shaaber discloses the recited structure suffices for anticipation.
Re: claim 2, Shaaber further discloses further comprising a frame (upright portions of A) surrounding the outer ballistic panel and the inner ballistic panel, wherein the frame includes a slip joint that allows the outer ballistic panel to move within the frame. See, ll. 63-75.
Re: claim 7, Shaaber further discloses further comprising an outer cover D positioned on an exterior surface of the outer ballistic panel (shown), the outer cover concealing the ballistic nature of the ballistic wall assembly (see, ll. 49-55).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaaber.
Shabber discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for wherein the ballistic wall assembly has a wall thickness in a range between approximately 2 inches and approximately 4 inches.
It has been held that limitations relating to the size of an element were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claims 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaaber in view of US 2023/0408226 to Giordano et al. (“Giordano”) or vice versa.
Anent the claims, Shaaber discloses the claimed invention as applied above except for further comprising a suspension system configured to support the ballistic wall assembly for movement (between a stored position and a deployed position), wherein the suspension system includes rollers and an overhead rail.
Giordano teaches a ballistic panel, e.g., 710, e.g., Fig. 7, including rollers 706 and an overhead rail 702 in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of positioning a mobile bulletproof protection system, ¶ [0077].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shaaber as taught by Giordano in order to position the system with a reasonable expectation of success because Giordano further discloses such allows for complete ballistic protection, id. Further rationale: All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaaber in view of US 2018/0313074 to Brown et al. (“Brown”).
Anent the claims, Shaaber discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising bearings between the outer ballistic panel and the frame to facilitate movement of the outer ballistic panel within the frame.
Brown teaches a protective shelter 100, e.g., Figs. 3-4, including moveable panels 125, 126, each having bearing assemblies 164, e.g., Fig. 9, “that contain balls or bearings 164,” ¶ [0051], in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of “allow[ing the] panels 125 and 126 to roll or “glide” open when configuring shelter 100 in the extended configuration 123 or returning same to closed configuration 101,” id.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shaaber as taught by Brown in order to have the outer panel move within the frame with a reasonable expectation of success because Brown further discloses such speeds deployment time and are capable of moving omni-directionally as opposed to uni-directionally, id. The further rationale provided above would apply here equally well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8, and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Reasons for allowance to be included in a future action, if necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Bret Hayes at telephone number (571) 272 – 6902, fax number (571) 273-6902, or email address bret.hayes@uspto.gov, which is preferred, especially for requesting interviews, general questions, etc. Note, however, that return correspondence cannot be made in the event that information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122 has been included. See MPEP §§ 502.03 and 713.01, I, regarding email communications. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays from 5:30 AM to 1:30 PM, Eastern.
The Central FAX Number is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to contact the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers, can be reached at (571) 272 – 6874.
/Bret Hayes/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
22-Sep-26
