Application/control
number 10/029,951
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
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.
A 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”?
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.
Claim
Rejections-35USC~103
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.
Zekich
discloses 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 Anastassakis.
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 of Boudreau.
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 art.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent
to application’s disclosure.
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 703-306-4195.
TD
June 14, 2003