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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered. As directed by the amendment: Claims 2 – 3 are cancelled. Claims 21 – 22 are newly added. Claims 1 and 4 – 6 are amended. Thus, claim 1 and 4 – 22 are currently pending. Applicant’s arguments regarding the Non-Final Rejection on 09/11/2025 are fully considered (please see “Response to Arguments” section) and the following Final Rejection is made herein.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a fixing member", "a driving member", "a first elastic member", "a locking member”, “a guide structure”, "a pressing member" and "a moving member" in claim 1 and "a second elastic member" in claim 7, wherein the words "member" and "structure" are generic place holders coupled with functional limitations "fixing", "driving", "elastic" "locking", "guide", "pressing" and "moving" without sufficient recitation of what the terms structurally entail.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Thus,
"a fixing member" is interpreted to mean any pin or a plate with a hole/opening at its center and equivalent thereof (¶0330).
"a driving member" is interpreted to mean any hollow Key column with concentric tubular materials comprising a pressing member and a moving member and equivalent thereof (¶ 0359 – 0360, FIGS. 28 and 34 – 35).
"a first elastic member" and "a second elastic member" are interpreted to mean any spring like material and equivalent thereof (¶ 0330).
"a locking member" is interpreted to mean any clamping bolt and equivalent thereof (¶ 0330).
“a guide structure" is interpreted to mean any guiding rib, rail or hole and equivalent thereof (¶ 0353 and FIG.36).
"a pressing member" is interpreted to mean any key column with protrusions on the side wall and equivalent thereof, (¶ 0359 - 0360 and FIG. 34)
"a moving member" is interpreted to mean any concentric hollow body fittingly coupled to the pressing member and equivalent thereof, (¶ 0359 - 0360 and FIG. 35).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4 of the current application (17/833,135) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 – 8 of copending Application No. 17/829,828 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
claim 1 of the current application is anticipated by the bold limitations of claim 1, 6 and 7 of reference application. and,
claim 4 of the current application is anticipated by claim 8 of reference application, as illustrated in the inserted table herein.
Claims of current application No.17/833,135
Claims copending Application No.17/829,828
Claim 1. A lock structure comprising: a fixing member; and a locking assembly comprising: a mount; a driving member, at least a portion of the driving member being provided within the mount; a first elastic member, a first end of the first elastic member being connected to the driving member; a locking member connected to a second end of the first elastic member, and the locking member being capable of moving relative to the mount under driving of the driving member and the first elastic member, and being locked to or separated from the fixing member; and a guide structure provided on the mount, at least a portion of the driving member being movable along the guide structure and restrained at an end of the guide structure, wherein the driving member comprises: a pressing member provided through the mount and movably connected to the mount, wherein the pressing member comprises a first inclined surface; and a moving member slidingly connected to the guide structure, the moving member being connected to a first end of the first elastic member, the moving member being capable of being restrained to an end portion of the guide structure, wherein the moving member comprises a second inclined surface, and the first inclined surface can abut against the second inclined surface to drive the moving member to drive the locking member to switch a station of the locking member.
Claim 1. A lock structure comprising: a fixing member; and a locking assembly comprising: a bearing member comprising: a mounting portion provided with a first opening, wherein the mounting portion comprises a first side surface configured to detachably connect with a mounting surface; and a bearing portion comprising: a first end connected to the first side surface of the mounting portion, and a second end, wherein the second end is provided with a second opening; and an accommodation portion in communication with the second opening; a mount connected to the bearing member, wherein the mount extends into the accommodation portion of the bearing member via the first opening of the bearing member; a driving member disposed at least partially within the mount; a first elastic member comprising: a first end connected to the driving member; and a second end; and a locking member connected to the second end of the first elastic member, wherein the locking member is configured to move relative to the second opening of the bearing member under a driving of the driving member and the first elastic member and is to be locked to or separated from the fixing member.
Claim 6. The lock structure according to claim 1, wherein the locking assembly further comprises a guide structure provided on the mount, wherein at least a portion of the driving member is movable along with the guide structure and restrained at an end of the guide structure.
Claim 7.The lock structure according to claim 6, wherein the driving member comprises: a pressing member penetrating the mount and movably connected to the mount, wherein the pressing member comprises a first inclined surface; and a moving member slidingly connected to the guide structure, the moving member being connected to a first end of the first elastic member, the moving member being capable of being restrained to an end portion of the guide structure, wherein the moving member comprises a second inclined surface, and the first inclined surface is configured to abut against the second inclined surface, so as to drive the moving member to drive the locking member to switch a locking station of the locking member.
Claim 4. The lock structure according to claim 1, wherein: the moving member comprises a sliding jaw sleeve; a sidewall of the sliding jaw sleeve is provided with a first protruding portion which is slidably connected to the guide structure and can abut against the end portion of the guide structure; and the second inclined surface is provided on the first protruding portion.
Claim 8. The lock structure according to claim 7, wherein: the moving member comprises a sliding jaw sleeve, a sidewall of the sliding jaw sleeve is provided with a first protruding portion, wherein the first protruding portion is slidably connected to the guide structure and is configured to abut against the end portion of the guide structure, and the second inclined surface is provided on the first protruding portion.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s), set forth in this Office action or by timely filing a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d).
The examiner notes that a phone call was made on 02/05/2026 attorney Hesong Cao to request to file a terminal disclaimer to overcome the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection and the attorney preferred to write the Final Rejection, as the copending application is still under examination.
Claims 21 – 22 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Non-Final Rejection on 09/11/2025 are fully considered, see Remarks filed on 12/11/2025, pages 7 – 10, and the following response is given herein.
Claim Interpretation
The amendment to the claims did not provide structural support to the interpreted claim limitations in the Non-Final Rejection. As such, the interpretations are maintained herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment to claim 6 overcomes the indefiniteness rejection made to the claim in the Non-Final Rejection. As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
The amendment to the claims overcomes the anticipatory and obviousness rejection made to the claims under 35 U.S C § 102 and 103 in the Non-Final Rejection. As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The amendment to the claims did not overcome the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection in the Non-Final Rejection. As such, the provisional NSDP is modified and maintained herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of 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 filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761