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 .
Rule 105 Request
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application. The scope of 37 CFR 1.105 is extended to any assignee because the information required may be known to some members of the assignee even if not known by the inventors.
The authority for the Office to make such requirements arises from the statutory requirements of examination pursuant to 35 USC 131 and 132. An examiner or other Office employee may make a requirement for information reasonably necessary to the examination or treatment of a matter in accordance with the policies and practices set forth by the Director(s) of the Technology Center or other administrative unit to which that examiner or other Office employee reports.
The examiner is requesting a statement of facts explaining how the non-patent documents submitted are of potential relevance to the present application as best understood by the inventors or assignee. Please provide a concise explanation of each document and/or identify specific pages with the pertinent information.
The examiner is also requesting any written descriptions or analyses, prepared by any of the inventors or assignees, of goods or services in competition with or related to the goods or services in which the claimed subject matter has been embodied. Specifically, the examiner notes that Applicant appears to have sold a similar product known or available prior to this filing. Therefore, Examiner requests any documentation assignee has concerning instruction manuals, advertisements, brochures, catalogues, magazine or journal articles or reviews, presentations at trade or professional shows, etc., including dates when such documents were made publicly available.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office Action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office Action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 July 2025 and the IDS submitted on 10 Sept. 2025 was is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugoni, US 2019/0082321 A1, in view of Miller et al., US 2018/0334836 A1.
Claim 1: Dugoni discloses a lock for a container for selectively limiting a user's access to their mobile electronic device, the lock comprising:
a first plate (114b) formed within a first flap of the container (shown in Fig. 2) and a second plate (114a) formed within a second flap of the container (shown in Fig. 2), wherein the first and second flaps are configured to fold away from an opening of the container such that the container is in an open position and the opening is accessible to the user (depicted in Fig. 2);
a pin (Fig. 4 depicts a pin extending from the first plate), wherein the pin is insertable into a corresponding passage of the second plate (depicted in Fig. 4); and
a lock component disposed on the second plate and configured to secure the pin to the second plate via the passage ([0014], [0043]: “securably matable” female member on the second plate is a lock component that secures the male member (pin on the first plate) in the passage; claim 1 (“a locking means”)) such that the container is secured in a closed position (Fig. 1) and limits the user’s access to their mobile electronic device ([0005]),
wherein a distance between the first and second plate is greater when the container is in the open position than when the container is in the closed position (Fig. 1 compared to Fig. 2 illustrates a greater distance between the first and second plates in the open position (Fig. 2) than the closed position (Fig. 1)).
However, Dugoni is silent to a button protruding outwardly from the first plate, and the pin resiliently extensible from an interior of the button through the first plate to the second plate.
Miller teaches a lock comprising a first plate (Fig. 8 shows upper housing 806 has a first plate) and a second plate (Fig. 8 shows lower housing 808 includes a second plate); a button (812) protruding outwardly from the first plate (Fig. 8); a pin (1302) resiliently extensible from an interior of the button ([0098]) through the first plate to the second plate (depicted in Fig. 15); and a lock component (1504) for securing the pin to the second plate via a passage ([0093]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a button protruding outwardly from the first plate, and a pin resiliently extensible from an interior of the button through the first plate to the second plate, as taught by Miller, with the lock of Dugoni to provide a visual indication of the state of the pin’s securement (Miller [0007], [0098]) and increase safety when the pin is released from the second plate by retracting the pin (Miller [0095] (the free end of the pin is not exposed)). One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and have reasonable expectation that, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 2: Dugoni, in view of Miller, teaches the lock of claim 1, wherein the button comprises a stacked body (Miller 1406, 1408) having a base member (Miller 1408) and at least one interconnected section (Miller 1406), the at least one interconnected section being configured to move concentrically with respect to the base member (shown by movement from Miller Fig. 14 to Fig. 15) upon application of an external force to an outer surface of the stacked body (Miller [0094], [0096]).
Claim 3: Dugoni, in view of Miller, teaches the lock of claim 2, wherein application of external force causes the at least one interconnected section of the stacked body to at least partially nest within the base member (shown in Miller Fig. 15), thereby securing the pin with the lock component (Miller [0094]), and preventing the stacked body from returning to an extended state until the pin unsecured from the lock component (Miller [0004]).
Claim 4: Dugoni, in view of Miller, teaches the lock of claim 1, wherein the button has a top (Miller Fig. 14 depicts the pin secured to a top of the button) and at least one sidewall extending from the top to define the interior of the button (Miller Fig. 14 depicts at least one sidewall extending from the top defining the interior of the button), and a spring (Miller [0098] (“via a spring”)), and wherein the pin is secured to an interior surface of the top (Miller [0094]) and is surrounded by the spring (Miller [0115], Fig. 20 depicts a pin surrounded by the spring to bias the pin).
Claim 5: Dugoni, in view of Miller, teaches the lock of claim 1, wherein the button comprises a spring surrounding the pin (Miller [0115], Fig. 20 depicts a pin surrounded by the spring to bias the pin).
Dugoni further teaches the container comprising a covering extending over an outer surface and extending over a portion of the pin (illustrated in Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly taught by Dugoni, as modified by Miller, to provide a covering extending over a portion of an outer surface of the first plate and extending over a portion of the pin with a reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice to provide desired aesthetics. See MPEP 2144.04(I); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Claim 8: Dugoni, in view of Miller, teaches the lock of claim 1. Miller further teaches a status indicator (902, 904) configured to indicate whether the pin is secured to the lock component ([0099]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a status indicator configured to indicate whether the pin is secured to the lock component taught by Dugoni, as modified by Miller, to increase visibility of the lock state. For example, Miller teaches a colored line would be more easily visible from a distance to monitor if the pin is not fully secured (Miller [0099]).
Claim 10: Dugoni discloses a lock for a container for selectively limiting a user's access to their mobile electronic device, the lock comprising:
a first plate (114b) formed within a first flap of the container (shown in Fig. 2) and a second plate (114a) formed within a second flap of the container (shown in Fig. 2), wherein the first and second flaps are configured to fold away from an opening of the container such that the container is in an open position and the opening is accessible to the user (depicted in Fig. 2);
a pin (Fig. 4 depicts a pin extending from the first plate), wherein the pin is insertable into a corresponding passage of the second plate (depicted in Fig. 4); and
a lock component disposed on the second plate and configured to secure the pin to the second plate via the passage ([0014], [0043]: “securably matable” female member on the second plate is a lock component that secures the male member (pin on the first plate) in the passage; claim 1 (“a locking means”)) such that the container is secured in a closed position (Fig. 1) and limits the user’s access to their mobile electronic device ([0005]).
However, Dugoni is silent to a button protruding outwardly from the first plate, and the pin resiliently extensible from an interior of the button, and a status indicator configured to indicate whether the pin is secured within the lock component.
Miller teaches a lock comprising a first plate (Fig. 8 shows upper housing 806 has a first plate) and a second plate (Fig. 8 shows lower housing 808 includes a second plate); a button (812) protruding outwardly from the first plate (Fig. 8); a pin (1302) resiliently extensible from an interior of the button ([0098]), wherein the pin is insertable into a corresponding passage of the second plate (depicted in Fig. 15; [0093]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a button protruding outwardly from the first plate, and a pin resiliently extensible from an interior of the button, as taught by Miller, with the lock of Dugoni to increase safety when the pin is released from the second plate by retracting the pin (Miller [0095] (the free end of the pin is not exposed)) and provide a visual indication of the state of the pin’s securement (Miller [0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and have reasonable expectation that, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Miller further teaches a status indicator (902, 904) configured to indicate whether the pin is secured with the lock component ([0099]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a status indicator configured to indicate whether the pin is secured with the lock component with the device taught by Dugoni, as modified by Miller, to increase visibility of the lock state. For example, Miller teaches a colored line would be more easily visible from a distance to monitor if the pin is not fully secured (Miller [0099]).
Claim 11: Dugoni, as modified by Miller, teaches the lock of claim 10, wherein the status indicator is configured to indicate an unsecured state via an outer surface of the button (as modified, the button has a status indicator on the outer surface that is visible when unsecured (Miller [0099])).
Claim 12: Dugoni, as modified by Miller, teaches the lock of claim 10. Miller further teaches the status indicator is a color that is visually distinct from the first plate or container and is disposed on an outer surface of the button (Fig. 9 depicts a status indicator 902, 904 as a color visually distinct from the first plate; [0099] (“a colored line”)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a color that is visually distinct from the first plate or container disposed on an outer surface of the button as the status indicator taught by Dugoni, as modified by Miller, to allow the user to easily discern the lock state and ensure the pin is successfully secured (see Miller [0099]).
Claim 13: Dugoni, as modified by Miller, wherein the status indicator is at least partially obscured when the pin is secure to the lock component (Miller [0099]).
Claim 14: Dugoni, as modified by Miller, teaches the lock of claim 10, wherein the status indicator comprises a protrusion extending outwardly from the first plate (Miller [0099] (“the telescoping actuator being placed in its fully depressed state and/or returned to its undepressed state”); the telescoping actuator includes a protrusion has a reduced height when in the locked state in the same manner as Figs. 1-2 and para. 0060 of the instant invention).
Claim 16: Dugoni, as modified by Miller, teaches the lock of claim 10, wherein the button comprises a stacked body (Miller 1406, 1408) having a base member (Miller 1408) and at least one interconnected section (Miller 1406), the at least one interconnected section being configured to move concentrically with respect to the base member upon application of an external force to an outer surface of the stacked body (shown by movement from Miller Fig. 14 to Fig. 15; Miller [0094]).
Claim 17: Dugoni, in view of Miller, teaches the lock of claim 16, wherein the external force causes the at least one interconnected section of the stacked body to at least partially nest within the base member (shown in Miller Fig. 15), thereby securing the pin with the lock component (Miller [0094]; as modified, the depressing the button moves the pin through the passage so it engages the lock component), and preventing the stacked body from returning to an expanded state until the pin is unsecured from the lock component (Miller Fig. 15; as modified, the button carrying the pin is held in the depressed position by the pin secured by the lock component until the pin is disengaged).
Claim 18: Dugoni, in view of Miller, teaches the lock of claim 10, wherein the button has a top (Miller Fig. 14 depicts the pin secured to a top of the button) and at least one sidewall defining a hollow interior (Miller Fig. 14 depicts at least one sidewall defining a hollow interior of the button), and a spring (Miller [0098] (“via a spring”)), and wherein the pin is secured to an interior surface of the top (Miller [0094]) and is surrounded by the spring (Miller [0115], Fig. 20 depicts a pin surrounded by the spring to bias the pin).
Claim 19: Dugoni, in view of Miller, teaches the lock of claim 10, wherein the button comprises a spring (Miller [0098]). Dugoni further teaches a covering extending over an outer surface of the first plate and extending over a portion of the pin (illustrated in Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally include a covering, as suggested by Dugoni, extending over a portion of an outer surface of the first plate and extending over a portion of the pin with the assembly of Dugoni, as modified by Miller, with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious matter of design choice to provide desired aesthetics. See MPEP 2144.04(I); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (Claim was directed to an advertising display device comprising a bottle and a hollow member in the shape of a human figure from the waist up which was adapted to fit over and cover the neck of the bottle, wherein the hollow member and the bottle together give the impression of a human body. Appellant argued that certain limitations in the upper part of the body, including the arrangement of the arms, were not taught by the prior art. The court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Claim 20: Dugoni discloses a lock for a container for selectively limiting a user's access to their mobile electronic device, the lock comprising:
a first plate (114b) formed within a first flap of the container (shown in Fig. 2) and a second plate (114a) formed within a second flap of the container (shown in Fig. 2), wherein the first and second flaps are configured to fold away from an opening of the container such that the container is in an open position and the opening is accessible to the user (depicted in Fig. 2);
a pin (Fig. 4 depicts a pin extending from the first plate), wherein the pin is insertable into a corresponding passage of the second plate (depicted in Fig. 4); and
a lock component disposed on the second plate and configured to secure the pin to the second plate via the passage ([0014], [0043]: “securably matable” female member on the second plate is a lock component that secures the male member (pin on the first plate) in the passage; claim 1 (“a locking means”)) such that the container is secured in a closed position (Fig. 1) and limits the user’s access to their mobile electronic device ([0005]),
wherein a distance between the first and second plate is greater when the container is in the open position than when the container is in the closed position (Fig. 1 compared to Fig. 2 illustrates a greater distance between the first and second plates in the open position (Fig. 2) than the closed position (Fig. 1).
However, Dugoni is silent to a button protruding outwardly from the first plate, wherein the button comprises a sidewall that is insertable into a slot defined in the first plate and the pin resiliently extensible from an interior of the button through the first plate to the second plate.
Miller teaches a lock comprising a first plate (Fig. 8 shows upper housing 806 has a first plate) and a second plate (Fig. 8 shows lower housing 808 includes a second plate); a button (812) protruding outwardly from the first plate (Fig. 8), wherein the button comprises a sidewall (Fig. 14 depicts at least one sidewall) that is insertable into a slot defined in the first plate (shown by movement from Fig. 14 to Fig. 15); and a pin (1302) resiliently extensible from an interior of the button through the first plate to the second plate ([0098]), wherein the pin is insertable into a corresponding passage of the second plate (depicted in Fig. 15; [0093]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a button protruding outwardly from the first plate wherein the button comprises a sidewall that is insertable into a slot defined in the first plate, and a pin resiliently extensible from an interior of the button through the first plate to the second plat, as taught by Miller, with the lock of Dugoni to increase safety when the pin is released from the second plate by retracting the pin (Miller [0095] (the free end of the pin is not exposed)) and provide a visual indication of the state of the pin’s securement (Miller [0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and have reasonable expectation that, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugoni, US 2019/0082321 A1, and Miller, US 2018/0334836 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mainetti, US 9,824,557 B2.
Claim 7: Dugoni, in view of Miller, teaches the lock of claim 1. However, Dugoni, as modified by Miller, is silent to a tampering indicator configured to indicate whether the pin has been forcibly unsecured from the lock component.
Mainetti teaches a tampering indicator (10) configured to indicate whether a pin (4) has been forcibly unsecured from a lock component (col. 2 lines 57-61; col. 3 lines 35-46).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lock taught by Dugoni, in view of Miller, to include a tampering indicator configured to indicate whether the pin has been forcibly unsecured from the lock component, as taught by Mainetti, in order to identify the unauthorized user tampering with the lock by visibly staining their hands (Mainetti col. 3 lines 5-11).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugoni, US 2019/0082321 A1, and Miller, US 2018/0334836 A1, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Muller et al., US 2022/0178176 A1.
Claim 15: Dugoni, in view of Miller, teaches the lock of claim 10. However, Dugoni, as modified by Miller, is silent to a tampering indicator disposed on an inner surface of at least one of the first and second plates, the tampering indicator configured to provide an indication that the pin has been forcibly unsecured from the lock component.
Muller teaches a tampering indicator ([0051] (“alarm generating device”)) disposed on an inner surface of at least one of a first and second plate (Fig. 3), the tampering indicator configured to provide an indication that the pin has been forcibly unsecured from the lock component ([0051-52]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lock taught by Dugoni, in view of Miller, to further include a tampering indicator disposed on an inner surface of the at least one of the first and second plates, the tampering indicator configured to provide an indication that the pin has been forcibly unsecured from the lock component, as taught by Muller, in order to counteract attempts to access the container and trigger an alarm to alert unauthorized removal of the pin (Muller [0030-33], [0054]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 July 2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues Miller explicitly teaches that a non-unitary configuration is undesirable. However, Dugoni discloses the container and lock assembly is a single unit and remains a single unit when the two plates are separated, depicted in Figs. 1-2. Miller specifically describes “two separate parts,” which are detached and “separately reclaimed” in paragraph 0041; the configuration disclosed by Dugoni does not include two separate parts that are detached and separately reclaimed, therefore Miller does not explicitly teach against the configuration disclosed by Dugoni. Furthermore, Miller does not suggest the button requires a fixed spacing between plates to properly function.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may 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. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Miller’s telescoping actuator with the pin of Dugoni, so the free end of the pin is not exposed when the container is open to increase safety and provide a convenient visual indication. The motivation to improve safety for users is provided by Miller, as detailed in at least paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0048, and 0095. Miller further discloses the telescoping actuator is advantageous to provide a visual indication of the state of the pin in at least paragraphs 0007, 0049, and 0099. Although similar to the motivation given in the instant specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not need the instant application as a template for reconstruction because it is a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and Miller provides some teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2143 (details the KSR rationales and provides examples illustrating how it may be used to support a finding of obviousness).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675