DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments from the response filed on 20 January 2026 have been fully considered and will be addressed below in the order in which they appeared.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 12, 14, 15, and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asquith et al. (US 2014/0109631) in view of Scanlon (US 2007/0207186).
Regarding claim 1, Asquith et al. discloses a portable lock apparatus, comprising:
a shackle (110); and
a crossbar (120) comprising a lock mechanism (114,116) operable to selectively secure the shackle to the crossbar in a closed condition;
wherein the shackle comprises:
a rigid shackle core (1A); and
an outer cover layer (115, [0031]) covering at least a portion of the shackle core, wherein the outer cover layer comprises a ceramic material ([0031], l.7).
Asquith et al. does not disclose: a plurality of discrete ceramic particles, wherein the outer cover layer further comprises a second material in which the plurality of discrete ceramic particles are embedded, and wherein the second material comprises metal
Scanlon teaches a plurality of discrete ceramic particles, wherein the outer cover layer further comprises a second material in which the plurality of discrete ceramic particles are embedded, and wherein the second material comprises metal for the purpose of increasing the strength of the base metal material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asquith et al. with a plurality of discrete ceramic particles, wherein the outer cover layer further comprises a second material in which the plurality of discrete ceramic particles are embedded, and wherein the second material comprises metal as taught by Scanlon for the expected benefit of increasing the strength of the base metal material..
Regarding claim 6, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the portable lock apparatus of claim 1, wherein the shackle (110) is separable from the crossbar (120) when the lock mechanism is in an unlocked state.
Regarding claim 8, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses a method of manufacturing a lock apparatus, the method comprising:
forming an outer cover layer (115, [0031]) over a rigid shackle core(1A) for a shackle of the lock apparatus, wherein forming the outer cover layer comprises embedding a plurality of cut-resistant particles in a body (including element 140 in outer ceramic layer 115) of the outer cover layer, wherein the cut resistant particles comprise a ceramic material ([0031], l.7 ), and wherein the body comprises another material (140, conductive material spirally wrapped[0031]) different from the ceramic material; and forming the shackle, wherein
forming the shackle comprises securing the outer cover layer to the rigid shackle core (Fig.1).
Asquith et al. does not disclose: a plurality of discrete ceramic particles, wherein the outer cover layer further comprises a second material in which the plurality of discrete ceramic particles are embedded, and wherein the second material comprises metal
Scanlon teaches a plurality of discrete ceramic particles, wherein the outer cover layer further comprises a second material in which the plurality of discrete ceramic particles are embedded, and wherein the second material comprises metal for the purpose of increasing the strength of the base metal material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asquith et al. with a plurality of discrete ceramic particles, wherein the outer cover layer further comprises a second material in which the plurality of discrete ceramic particles are embedded, and wherein the second material comprises metal as taught by Scanlon for the expected benefit of increasing the strength of the base metal material..
Regarding claim 12, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising combining the shackle (110) with a crossbar (120), the crossbar comprising a lock mechanism (114,116) operable to selectively secure the shackle to the crossbar in a closed condition.
Regarding claim 14, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the method of claim 8, wherein forming the outer cover layer (115) comprises forming the outer cover layer in a plurality of separate cover layer portions (140, conductive material); and wherein securing the outer cover layer to the shackle core comprises securing each of the plurality of cover layer portions to the shackle core.
Regarding claim 15, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses a portable lock apparatus, comprising:
a shackle(110); and
a crossbar (120) comprising a lock mechanism (114,116) operable to selectively engage a foot of the shackle to thereby prevent removal of the foot from the crossbar; wherein the shackle comprises:
a rigid shackle core (1A); and
an outer cover layer (115, [0031]) covering at least a portion of the rigid shackle core, wherein the outer cover layer comprises includes a body formed of a ceramic material ([0031], l.7 ) comprising a plurality of discrete ceramic particles embedded in the body (as discussed above) body, wherein the body of the outer cover layer further comprises a second material in which the plurality of discrete ceramic particles are embedded, and wherein the second material comprises a metal..
Asquith et al. does not disclose: a plurality of discrete ceramic particles, wherein the outer cover layer further comprises a second material in which the plurality of discrete ceramic particles are embedded, and wherein the second material comprises metal
Scanlon teaches a plurality of discrete ceramic particles, wherein the outer cover layer further comprises a second material in which the plurality of discrete ceramic particles are embedded, and wherein the second material comprises metal for the purpose of increasing the strength of the base metal material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asquith et al. with a plurality of discrete ceramic particles, wherein the outer cover layer further comprises a second material in which the plurality of discrete ceramic particles are embedded, and wherein the second material comprises metal as taught by Scanlon for the expected benefit of increasing the strength of the base metal material
Regarding claim 21, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the portable lock apparatus of claim 1, wherein the outer cover layer comprises a first cover layer portion (140) and a second cover layer portion (115) separate from the first cover layer portion; wherein the first cover layer portion is secured to a first side (right side) of the rigid shackle core; and wherein the second cover layer portion is secured to a second side (left side) of the rigid shackle core opposite the first side.
Regarding claim 22, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon as applied to claim 21 above the method wherein the plurality of separate cover layer portions comprises a first cover layer portion and a second cover layer portion separate from the first cover layer portion; and wherein the method further comprises: securing the first cover layer portion to a first side of the shackle core; and securing the second cover layer portion to a second side of the shackle core opposite the first side.
Regarding claim 23, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the portable lock apparatus of claim 1, wherein the rigid shackle core is formed of steel ([0034] making the shackle form steel, iron, titanium, polymer, ceramic is discussed).
Regarding claim 24, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the portable lock apparatus of claim 1, wherein the outer cover layer (115) is of a single-piece construction (coating applied to portable lock once applied is finish formed as a single element with layers) as a protective layer that covers the rigid shackle core.
Regarding claim 25, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the portable lock apparatus of claim, wherein the outer cover layer comprises a plurality of separate cover layer portions (annotated Fig.1) that are secured to and cover the rigid shackle core.
Regarding claim 26, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the portable lock apparatus of claim 25, wherein the plurality of separate cover layer portions are adhered to the rigid shackle core (Fig.2; Asquith et al.).
Regarding claim 27, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the portable lock apparatus of claim 25, wherein the plurality of separate cover layer portions are the rigid shackle core.
Asquith et al. discloses the claimed invention except for welded or brazed . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify welded or brazed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known spring on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Note: welding and brazing are process claim limitations and as such can be given little to no patentable weight as the reference of Asquith et al. is capable of being welded or brazed.
Regarding claim 28, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon the method of claim 14, wherein the securing comprises adhering the outer cover layer to the shackle core (Fig.2; Asquith et al.).
Regarding claim 29, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the securing the outer cover layer to the shackle core.
Asquith et al. discloses the claimed invention except for welded or brazed . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify welded or brazed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known spring on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 30, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the method of claim 14, wherein at least one of the plurality of cover layer portions are formed.
Asquith et al. discloses the claimed invention except for welded or brazed . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify welded or brazed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known spring on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.26. (New) The portable lock apparatus of claim 25, wherein the plurality of separate cover layer portions are adhered to the rigid shackle core.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 10, 11, 16-17,19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asquith et al. (US 2014/0109631) in view of Scanlon (US 2007/0207186) further inview of Becker (US 2005/0092038.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses he portable lock apparatus of claim 3, wherein the ceramic particles comprise at least 50% of a total volume (outer layer is ceramic) of the outer cover layer (115; Asquith et al.) .
Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the claimed invention except for the ceramic particles comprise at least 50% of a total volume.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify the ceramic particles comprise at least 50% of a total volume, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 7, 10, and 19 The portable lock apparatus of claim 1.
Asquith et al. does not disclose: ceramic material comprises alumina and/or zirconia
Becker teaches ceramic material comprises alumina and/or zirconia for the purpose of providing a particularly suitable cut resistant material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asquith et al. with ceramic material comprises alumina and/or zirconia as taught by Becker for the expected benefit of providing a particularly suitable cut resistant material.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the method of claim 8,.
The portable lock apparatus of claim 15, wherein the ceramic particles have an average diameter of one millimeter or greater.
Asquith et al. does not disclose: cut-resistant particles have an average dimension of one millimeter or greater.
Becker teaches cut-resistant particles have an average dimension of one millimeter or greater for the purpose of selecting an aspect ratio suitable for structural reinforcement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asquith et al. with cut-resistant particles have an average dimension of one millimeter or greater as taught by Becker for the expected benefit of selecting an aspect ratio suitable for structural reinforcement.
Regarding claim 17, Asquith et al. as modified by Scanlon discloses the portable lock apparatus of claim 15.
Asquith et al. does not disclose: cut-resistant particles have an average dimension of one millimeter or greater.
Becker teaches the ceramic particles have an average diameter of one centimeter or less for the purpose of selecting an aspect ratio suitable for structural reinforcement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asquith et al. with , wherein the ceramic particles have an average diameter of one centimeter or less.as taught by Becker for the expected benefit of selecting an aspect ratio suitable for structural reinforcement.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asquith et al. (US 2014/0109631) in view of as modified by Scanlon further in view of Hoffman (US 2010/01054163) .
Regarding claim 13, Asquith et al. discloses the method of claim 8, wherein forming the outer cover layer (115) comprises forming the outer cover layer in a mold or die.
Asquith et al. does not disclose: forming the outer cover layer in a mold or die.
Hoffman teaches forming ceramic in a mold for the purpose of producing in particular as a powder metallurgical molded part composed of ceramic, hard metal, petroleum coke, metal chips or combinations of these improving mechanical properties of the element.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Asquith et al. with forming ceramic in a mold as taught by Hoffman for the expected benefit of producing in particular as a powder metallurgical molded part composed of ceramic, hard metal, petroleum coke, metal chips or combinations of these improving mechanical properties of the element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as it may affect the patentability of applicant’s claimed invention is listed on the attached PTO-892.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas L. Neubauer whose telephone number is 571.272.4864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina R. Fulton can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T. L. N./
Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights