Application/control number 10/029,951 Art unit:3644
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 11111.839 (a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the remote control planes, narcotic spray, ground based monitoring center, means for generating can and detector means for detecting must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims(s). No new matter should be entered.
proposed drawing correction or corrected drawings are required in reply to the
Office action to avoid abandonment. The
objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The amendment filed 11/29/02 is objected to under 35U.S.C. 132 because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C.132 states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The narcotic sprayer is new matter.
Application is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please do not list the numbers that represent the parts of the invention next to the figure like “ Fig 1f ” as this is confusing as to suggests that there is a Fig 1F when there is not. Furthermore, on page 12,part B.b. what is a “ launcher ” seems to be a spelling error. What is a “laucher”?
Application/control number 10/029,951
Claims Rejections –
35 USC ~ 112
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph,
as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it
pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use
It is not understood how the
double door system works.
As shown in figure 1 and 4, if the person
trying to enter the cockpit through the double door system, why is the weight
sensor and voice recognition system, etc. not in the space covered by the double
door. Why is there a double entry
space in figure 1?
It seems that all the sensors are located in
the “k” section and not in the space defined by the double door.
Further in claim 6,
what is a raster curtain? A curtain
is defined as “material that hangs in a window or other
In claim 7, what is
a narcotic sprayer? How does it work?
In claim 9, how does
the remote-control plane is prepared to control the airliner? The details seem
lacking for one of ordinary skill to know how this system operates.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant
regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 1, “A double-door
‘single person checkroom’ is that provides” is vague.
In claim 1 ,line 3, “including
first and second door that are to be connected open and closed positions of one
another” is vague. What does this mean? Does this means that if one door
is open the other will open also?
In clam 6, the claim language is confusing. It is not
understood what “
means for generating can to set different frequency’s
beams ” mean
In claim 8, concealed electronic monitoring device is a double inclusion of elements in view of claim 1, part b. Are there different concealed electronic monitoring devices.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, it the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patent ability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. seek
Claims 1-3, and 8, as best understood, are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garehime in view of
Zekich, Feher, and Borthayre.
Garehime discloses an aircraft hijacking system having a concealed monitoring device to deter potential hijackers but lacks the system to allow ground base system to control the aircraft or the “flight trajectory calibrator”, the means to monitor the aircraft from the ground, and the double-door system with means to determine the accessibility of a person to the cockpit and the door system having transparent bulletproof glass. However.
a double door system having clear bullet proof glass and identification means
(five finger mold) are well known in the art. Feher discloses means to monitor the
aircraft from the ground as well as “Flight Trajectory Calibrator 80” are well
known in the art.
Borthayre discloses a system to take control away from the cockpit to the ground system via a special frequency band is well known in the art. Borthayre inherently has a flight trajectory calibrator system to know where the aircraft is and going so it can control the aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have used double door system having clear bullet proof glass and identification Means (five fingers mold), means to monitor the aircraft from the ground system in Garchime’s system as taught by Zekch, Feher, Borthayre to prevent the hijackers from taking over the aircraft. As for the term consists, please note that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have taken away non-critical elements of the security system in Garehime’s system to reduce complexity and reduce weight.
Claim 4-6, as best understood, are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farehime as modified by Zekich,
Feher, and Borthayre as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Garehime as modified by Zekich, Feher, and
Borthayre discloses all claimed parts of the invention except for weight sensor
to detect the weight of the person requesting entry to an area. However, Anastassakis discloses a weight
sensors to know the weight of the person requesting entry to an area is well
known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have used weight sensors in Garehime ‘s system as modified by Zekich, Feher, and Borthayre and as taught by Anastassakis to prevent the hijackers from taking over the aircraft.
Claim 7 is
rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garehime as modified
by Zekich, Feher, and Borthayre as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
Garehime as modified by Zekich, Feher, and
Borthayre discloses all claimed parts of the invention except for the narcotic
sprayer used to put terrorists to sleep. However,
Boudreau discloses the use of narcotic sprayers is well known in the
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have used a narcotic sprayers in Garehime’s system as modified by Zekich, Feher, and Borthayre and as taught by Boudrau to prevent the hijackers from taking over the aircraft.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Garehime as modified by Zekich, Feher, and Borthayre as
pallied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Torian et al.
Garehime as modified by Zekich, Feher, and
Borthayre discloses all claimed parts of the invention except for the remote
control airplane used to control the airliner. However, Torian et al discloses
that an airplane used to control another aircraft is well known in the art.
(please note, that remote control aircrafts are notoriously well known in this
day and age.)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have used a remote control aircraft to control the hijacked aircraft in Garehime’s system as modified by zekich, Feher, and Borthayre and as taught by Torian et al to prevent the hijackers from taking over the aircraft by having the remote control aircraft foolow the hijacked aircraft so that the control signals can not be lost.
Response to arguments
In response to
applicant ‘s argument that there is no
suggestion to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that
obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do
so found either in the references themselves or in
the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
In this case, the teaching of Zekich, Feher, Borthayre, Torian et al, Boudreau, and Anastassakis all teach the necessary modifications that would have been obvious to one skilled in the art make the Garehime’s system more terrorists proof so that damages are prevented.
The applicant’s arguments center on the practicality of the references of the
laws implemented by the U.S. Government.
However, the Examiner would like to point
out that the claims are met by the references. Therefore, the claims are
anticipated by the noted references.
Please note that the claims do
not call for the elements that the applicant supposedly
claims would make the claims be allowable over the prior arts.
art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s
Stomski disclosure a security system.
Application’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP ~ 706.0799(a). Application is reminded of the extension of the time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filled within TWO MONTHS of the mailing of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136 (a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire late than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Tien Dinh whose telephone number is 703-308-2789. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Jordan can be reached on 703-306-4159. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 703-306-4195 for regular communication and 703-306-4195 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or
relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is
June 14, 2003