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: 

Old

 

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

 

Change

 to

 

¡õ

¡õ

¡õ

¡õ

 

New

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

 

Fig.1 is consistent in accordance to the same priority (CN01255903.2 25092001) with invention

person self of the apply number ( 01,143,081.8) or publicize number ( CN1408608A) in china.  (See the 1 attached)

 

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

2.      Fig. 6 shows the perfect description on how the narcotic sprayers are installed at the four passages of the entrance of the airliner¡F

3.      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:

    

¡iApplication is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this Office Action. ¡j

 

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 for defense that:

 

¡iAmong 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).  ¡j

 

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 -35 USC 112:

 

Examiner¡¦s argument shown in the paragraph 2.of the DETAILED ACTION as below: 

 

¡iIt 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? ¡j(page 3, line 7)

 

Apparently, see the thick body and add this base line of two sentence that are under ¡§Fig. 1f & Fig.4f¡¨ were omitted.   The letter of 2 attached confirmed inventor¡¦s original design was not honest omitted by the ¡§RABIN & BERDO, P.C.¡¨ of Washington or Giant Group Int¡¦L Pat., TM. & Law Office of Taiwan!   Why the P. C of RABIN & BERDO. do not reply filed before the Final time limit of Nov.14, 2002 again¡H why inventor self have to filed with speed post¡H  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 3 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 3 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 hide 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 (old) Fig.1a & b. or (old) 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 (old) Fig. 1f  & (old) 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.