IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Group Art Unit: 3644

Examiner: Tien Quang Dinh

In re PATENT APPLICATION of:

Applicant(s) : Lin ZHEN-MAN` )

)

Serial No. : 10/029,951 )

) AMENDMENT

Filed : December 31, 2001 )

)

For : DEVICE FOR PRECAUTION )

SKYJACKING AND SYSTEM )

)

Amendment by Applicant )

Commissioner of Patents

Washington, D.C. 20231

Sir:

In response to the Office Action of June 14, 2003, the period for reply to which has been

set to expire on December 14, 2003, kindly amend the above-identified application as follows:

IN THE SPECIFICATION / Drawings

Thanks to the agreement by the examiner that a correct or corrected drawings to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment.

Correction list of Figure: (附图的修正列表)

Old

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Change

↓

New

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

1. Fig.1 is consistent in accordance to the same priority (CN01255903.2 25092001) with inventor self of the apply number ( 01,143,081.8) or publicize number ( CN1408608A) in china. ( see the 1 attached)

2. Fig. 1 will be renamed as Fig. 2

3. Fig. 6 shows the perfect description on how the narcotic sprayers are installed at the four passages of the entrance of the airliner；

4. The original “f” and dotted line of Fig. 1 & Fig. 4 wiped out by representative lawyer of RABIN & BERDO, P.C. that has evidence to accusation and therefore beg to agree modification and revised rename are Fig. 2& Fig.5, reason see the below;

In the specification

This Office Action was argue writing below:

『Application is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action. 』

What the new matter?

In specification of Detailed Action, the examiner was arguing on writing below : ( page 2 )

1. The narcotic sprayer is new matter. (narcotic spray)

2. 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. 1 f ” as this is confusing as to suggests that there is a Fig 1f when there is not.

3. Furthermore, on page 12,part B.b. what is a “ launcher ” seems to be a spelling error. What is a “laucher” ? (launcher)

1. About the narcotic sprayer is not new matter?

However, in the first revision to the Application of the second section, inventor had to clarify the doubt of " In claim 7, what is a narcotic gun? " raised by the examiner:

「Among other improvements, the substitute specification condenses the abstract into a single paragraph and provides a new title, as required on page 2 of the Office Action. It also inserts an antecedent basis in the specification for the wrong for translate, such the “ narcotic sprayer “ to replace the “ narcotic guns “ in claim 7 and the remote control plane of claim 9 (for the narcotic guns, see page 12 of the substitute specification, line 2, and for the remote control plane, see page 15 of the substitute specification, lines 16-19). 」

However, inventor in A(3) of “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” of the original specification wrote “chemical spraying guns” instead of “the narcotic guns” in claim 7 because narcotics is a form of chemical. Furthermore, in the first amendment by applicant so as “narcotic sprayer” to replace the “narcotic guns” in claim7.

Therefore, we seek to ask the examiner whether it is therefore make vetoed when “The narcotic sprayer is new matter”?

Based on the above-mentioned, it seems that the term “sprayer” had been used instead of “guns” is misunderstanding of Sino-British translation. show clearly in claim of original that “the narcotic guns” change to “the narcotic sprayer” same should can accept! Come to saying from another gradation, inventor’s amendment have doubt about the examiner, therefore, the misunderstanding should not exist.

The Drawing’s amendment can make the patent apply for perfect, the specification’s argument are not present again.

About the Claim Rejection under the first

Paragraph of 35 USC 112:

35 U.S.C.112 Specification.

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of

making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

Examiner’s argument shown in the Claims Rejections – 35 USC ~ 112, paragraph 2. of the DETAILED ACTION as below:

『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? 』

Apparently, see the thick body and add this base line of two sentence that are under “Fig. 1f & Fig.4f” were omitted. Why the P. C of RABIN & BERDO. do not reply filed before the Final time limit of Nov.14, 2002？ why inventor self have to filed with speed post？ Examiner, Mr. Tien Quang Dinh, was an eyewitness that it is not an accidental incident for violated professional ethics.

Therefore, inventor ask the official of examiner to accept again filed same the 2 attached thus the augment to amendment request in Nov. 28, 2002. In this present amendment, will to be same with brackets being used to identify deletions from the previous version of the rewritten specification and with underlining being used to identify additions to the previous version.

The respectful examiner will not to misinterpret that is shown there a double entry space in figure 1 and

not in the space covered by the double door, the 2 attached of amendment request in Nov. 28, 2002 again in this present amendment and below: ( See 13 page B1 a & b )

a. [FIG.1-a & b. are shown, install ]Two unidirectionally transparent bullet-proof glass doors are hiden as shown in Fig.1 a & b. When closed , the doors push out from the dotled line of Fig.1 f, Fig1.r. shown the check place which is enclose by closing two the doors. from the cabin to the passage as a second door, so that the pilot can see the passage unidirectionally, making hijackers conscious of someone looking at them in the dark.

b. Fig.4 f are [As] shown [in Fig.4 a & b, the back and from panels] install hiden in a and b of the bullet-proof glass door are both unidirectionally transparent, when they push on and closed, with a 0.8-1 meter single person checkroom in between[,]. Fig. 4 [c. is shown] also shows a detector c of a raster curtain,[; FIG.4 d. is shown], a detector d for identifying weight[;], [FIG.4 e. is shown] [and] a detector [of] e for a password card[;], [FIG.4 h is shown] a detector h of [Five-finger] a five-finger mold test[;], and a [FIG.4 i.] detector [of Image test] i for an image test. [FIG.4 j. is shown a] Fig. 4 also shows a detector j of human body infrared[;], [FIG.4 k. is shown] a laucher k of special beams for the raster curtain, and a [FIG.4 l. is shown] detector [of] l for voice recognition[; they will be]. These detectors automatically identifying weight, a password card, [fingerprint] fingerprints, and an image, and provide a voice test. Although FIGS.1 and 4 show elements c, d, h, i, k, and L at positions offset from the “single person checkroom” that is provided between and enclose by closed two the doors.

c. As shown in FIG.2, the [ front and back panels] install hiden in a and b of the double doors are closed under the double control of closing instructions of airplane in flight status and ground-based monitoring center, meanwhile turning on the automatic identifier.

The Fig.1a & b. or Fig.4 a & b that are shown sheath for the double door, “the back and from panels” is wrongly mistranslated, the translator’s opinion was to use “back” and “panels” to represent the two surfaces of the “sheath”. The crucial point at this time is that the examiner should not deepen the misunderstanding further by Fig. 1f & Fig.4f and express the location of open the double door of dotted line were deliberately omitted only.

Above-mentioned c. [ front and back panels] is a translation’s problem should be amended and thus the “install hidden in a and b of the double doors” with same the application Priority Data (cn 01255903.2), the location of double doors open in the figure and that is not a new matter, the page2 c. of specification also for the same explanation.

The examiner should understand that the double door system works from c. of above-mentioned and accompany an airliner to set sail and then close the double door that begin the system works in Fig.3

Examiner’s argument to carry on shown in the Claims Rejections – 35 USC ~ 112, paragraph 3. of the DETAILED ACTION as below:

「It seems that all the sensors are located in the “k” section and not in the space defined by the double door.」

Apparently, the examiner’s illusion that “Fig. 1f & Fig. 4f” were omitted.

But, in any event, inventor request for the examiner Mr. Quang Dinh to agree on the amendment of above-mentioned, because inventor’ figure 2 of priority( CN0 1,255,903.225092001) shown only a space (b) defined by opened the double door and that all the sensors are located in the space (b) with the “k” section.

『 Further in claim 6, what is a raster curtain? A curtain is defined as “material that hangs in a window or other opening as a decoration, shade, or screen.” How could this be used to scan a person entering the cockpit.

Furthermore, what is a “means for generating can” as claim 6. How does it work? In addition, what is a detector means for detecting whether the raster curtain has been breached? How does it work?

How can in be used to detect a breach in the curtain?』

Inventor thinks, to fail to understand what is a raster curtain that is finesse examination for the examiner!

Someone skillful will understood and undoubtedly know that the “raster curtain” are permuting from countless beam of light and get used to shelter for isolation and purification of the detection environment, inventor request to add in the specification that are below:

1. The purpose of “raster curtain” is prevent any person from touching the wall of “single person checkroom” to guarantee the accuracy of the weight sensor.

2. The beam of light can select infrared ray and the launcher of special beams for the raster curtains are located in the “k” section.

Inventor bet one’s life in here, any hijackers can stop dreaming about taking over the aircraft by breaking and untying this two alone and unprecedented of technical to restriction of “single person checkroom”! For sure, this application of two technologies was to innovate than the Garehime‘s system as modified by Zekich, Feher, and Borthayre and as taught by Anastassakis!

『In claim 7, what is a narcotic sprayer? How does it work?』the examiner had brought up the doubt and before instructed to increase a figure for statement ！Therefore, Fig. 6 shows the perfect description on how the narcotic sprayers are installed at the four passages of the entrance of the airliner. As a matter of fact, this is only a simple skills.』

『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. 』the examiner’s misgiving can understand.

The remote-control plane’s back-up of system and operates same the ground-based monitoring center that may be provided so that it can take off and take control of the airliner in the event the signal from the monitoring center lacks sufficient coverage.

To summarized above the Office Action under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph had four do not understood, because the “Fig. 1f & Fig. 4f” of omitted had to be reinstate and illustrated by the correction list of Figure further, inventor to firmly believe something to be true that 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is not obstacle to rejects claims.

About the Office Action rejects under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (page 3)

The Office Action rejects claim 1, line 1 to bring up, “A double-door ‘single person checkroom’ is that provides” is vague and do not understand what does “is that provides” mean?

In this rejects, inventor will to say sorry, because the “provides ”of “is that provides” is a spelling error and will amendment for “is that providing”! Because inventor’s spelling error to study from the abstract of Garehime, Jr. (US Patent No.4644845 ), that below:

『An electronic image sensor is optically coupled with the scope and provides an image to a video surveillance screen at a remote station.』

As a matter of fact, it is redundant to add ‘s’ after provide, that the synonym is supplied, given and furnished.

The Office Action rejects 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?

The double-door are closed From taking off and open and closed of stipulate course that must according to Fig. 3. The double-door are can not open and closed at the same time, the one of program control is below:

「2^nd door Close an Auto-signal to limit (Fig.1-b)Open 1^stdoor 」

Therefore, inventor request to amendment below: [ 加上 ]