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 .
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 mechanism for simultaneous displacement of the first and second locking dogs with mechanical advantage” in claim 1;
“the mechanism” in claim 1; and
“a mechanism selectively moving each of the first and second locking dogs simultaneously” in 36.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 15-16, 18-19, 22-23, 25, 36, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rose (US 2662712 A).
Regarding claim 1, Rose teaches a locking dog assembly (Figs 2-5), comprising: a body 12 including an inner cavity with a lower opening (Fig 4); a first locking dog 54 at least partially extending through a first cylindrical cavity (inside of 46, Figs 4-5) on a first side of the body 12 and displaceable into and out of the inner cavity (Fig 4, Col 3 lines 73-75, Col 4 lines 1-2); a second locking dog 54 at least partially extending through a second cylindrical cavity (inside of 46, Figs 4-5) on a second side of the body 12 and displaceable into and out of the inner cavity (Fig 4, Col 3 lines 73-75, Col 4 lines 1-2); a mechanism for simultaneous displacement of the first and second locking dogs 54 with mechanical advantage (Figs 2-3, lever 66 and cam pieces 76,78); a first locking dog extension (portion of 52 extending through and outward of the slot in 48, shown in the annotated figure below) having a first end extending through a slot in a side of the first cylindrical cavity (slot in the distal end of the cavity through 48, Figs 4-5) connected to the first locking dog 54 and a second end coupled to the mechanism (Fig 5), wherein the mechanism displaces the first locking dog via the first locking dog extension (Col 4 lines 49-54); and a second locking dog extension (portion of 52 extending through and outward of the slot in 48, shown in the annotated figure below) having a first end connected to the second locking dog 54 and a second end coupled to the mechanism (Fig 5), wherein the mechanism displaces the second locking dog via the second locking dog extension (Col 4 lines 49-54).
PNG
media_image1.png
158
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rose teaches the locking dog assembly of claim 1, wherein the mechanism includes a cam assembly (76,78) rotatable about a cam axis (through 62, Fig 5), the cam assembly selectively displacing each of the first and second locking dogs 54 simultaneously upon rotation (Col 4 lines 49-54).
Regarding claim 3, Rose teaches the locking dog assembly of claim 2, further comprising a lever 66 on an exterior of the body 12 to actuate the cam assembly (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 4, Rose teaches the locking dog assembly of claim 4, wherein the lever 66 is rotatable about the cam axis (Figs 2,5).
Regarding claim 5, Rose teaches the assembly of claim 2, wherein the cam assembly includes a first cam 76 displacing the first locking dog 54 and a second cam 78 displacing the second locking dog 54.
Regarding claim 15, Rose teaches the assembly of claim 1, where in the first and second locking dogs 54 are both displaceable along a locking dog axis (Figs 2-5, longitudinal axis running through the center of both locking dogs).
Regarding claim 16, Rose teaches the assembly of claim 15, wherein the mechanism includes a cam assembly (66,76,78) rotatable about a cam axis (through 62, Fig 5), wherein the cam axis is perpendicular to the locking dog axis (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 18, Rose teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second locking dogs 54 are spring biased towards the inner cavity (Figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 19, Rose teaches the assembly of claim 18, further comprising a first housing 46 comprising the first locking dog 54 and a first spring 56 (right side, Figs 4-5), and a second housing 46 comprising the second locking dog 54 and a second spring 56 (left side, Figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 22, Rose teaches the assembly of claim 19, wherein each of the first locking dog and the second locking dog has a distal portion 52, a central portion 54, and a proximal portion (smaller portion of 54 that extends into the inner cavity), wherein the central portion 54 has an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the distal portion 52 (Figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 23, Rose teaches the assembly of claim 22, wherein the first spring 56 acts against a distal surface of the central portion 54 of the first locking dog (Figs 4-5) and the second spring 56 acts against a distal surface of the central portion 54 of the second locking dog (Figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 25, Rose teaches the assembly of claim 19, wherein each of the first housing and the second housing 46 includes a stop 48 limiting a range of movement of the respective first and second locking dogs 54 out of the inner cavity (Figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 36, Rose teaches a locking dog assembly (Figs 2-5), comprising: a body 12 including an inner cavity (Fig 2), a first cylindrical cavity (inside of 46, Figs 4-5) with a first opening 44 into the inner cavity (Fig 4, Col 3 lines 73-75, Col 4 lines 1-2) on a first side of the body 12, and a second cylindrical cavity (inside of 46, Figs 4-5) with a second opening 44 into the inner cavity (Fig 4, Col 3 lines 73-75, Col 4 lines 1-2) on a second side of the body 12; a first locking dog 54 at least partially extending through the first opening 44 in the body and moveable into and out of the inner cavity along a locking dog axis (Fig 4); a second locking dog 54 at least partially extending through the second opening 44 in the body and moveable into and out of the inner cavity along a locking dog axis (Fig 4); a mechanism selectively moving each of the first and second locking dogs simultaneously ((Figs 2-3, lever 66 and cam pieces 76,78); a first locking dog extension (portion of 52 extending through and outward of the slot in 48, shown in the annotated figure below Claim 1) having a first end extending through a slot in a side of the first cylindrical cavity (slot in the distal end of the cavity through 48, Figs 4-5) connected to the first locking dog 54 and a second end coupled to the mechanism (Fig 5), wherein the mechanism displaces the first locking dog via the first locking dog extension (Col 4 lines 49-54); and a second locking dog extension (portion of 52 extending through and outward of the slot in 48, shown in the annotated figure below Claim 1) having a first end connected to the second locking dog 54 and a second end coupled to the mechanism (Fig 5), wherein the mechanism displaces the second locking dog via the second locking dog extension (Col 4 lines 49-54).
Regarding claim 45, Rose teaches the locking dog assembly of claim 1, wherein slot in the side of the first cylindrical cavity (slot in the distal end of the cavity through 48, Figs 4-5) extends axially in a direction of displacement of the first locking dog 54 (the slot begins at an inner surface of 48 connected to the inner cavity and extends in the axial direction of displacement of the locking dog to the outer surface of 48), and wherein slot in the side of the first cylindrical cavity (slot in the distal end of the cavity through 48, Figs 4-5) extends axially in a direction of displacement of the first locking dog 54 (the slot begins at an inner surface of 48 connected to the inner cavity and extends in the axial direction of displacement of the locking dog to the outer surface of 48).
Claim(s) 1, 15-16, 18-20, 22-23, 28, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burtelson et al. (US 4580795 A, hereinafter ‘Burtelson’).
Regarding claim 1, Burtelson teaches a locking dog assembly (Figs 2-4), comprising: a body 34 including an inner cavity 36 with a lower opening (Fig 2); a first locking dog 60 at least partially extending through a first cylindrical cavity 46 on a first side of the body and displaceable into and out of the inner cavity 36 (Figs 2-4); a second locking dog 60 at least partially extending through a second cylindrical cavity 46 on a second side of the body and displaceable into and out of the inner cavity 36 (Figs 2-4); a mechanism 62 for simultaneous displacement of the first and second locking dogs 60 with mechanical advantage (Col 6 lines 35-39); a first locking dog extension (shown in the annotated figure below) having a first end extending through a slot in a side of the first cylindrical cavity (slot is the aperture extending from outer wall of 52 to the cavity 50) and connected to the first locking dog 60 and a second end engaged with the mechanism 62 (Figs 2-4), wherein the mechanism displaces the first locking dog via the first locking dog extension (Figs 2-4); and a second locking dog extension (shown in the annotated figure below) having a first end extending through a slot in a side of the second cylindrical cavity (slot is the aperture extending from outer wall of 52 to the cavity 50) and connected to the second locking dog 60 and a second end engaged with the mechanism 62 (Figs 2-4), wherein the mechanism displaces the second locking dog via the first locking dog extension (Figs 2-4).
PNG
media_image2.png
316
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Burtelson teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the first and second locking dogs 60 are both displaceable along a locking dog axis D-D (Figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 16, Burtelson teaches the assembly of claim 15, wherein the mechanism includes a cam assembly 62 rotatable about a cam axis (through 64), wherein the cam axis is perpendicular to the locking dog axis (Figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 18, Burtelson teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second locking dogs 60 are spring biased toward the inner cavity 36 (Figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 19, Burtelson teaches the assembly of claim 18, further comprising a first housing 48 comprising the first locking dog 60 and a first spring 58, and a second housing 48 comprising housing the second locking dog 60 and a second spring 58.
Regarding claim 20, Burtelson teaches the assembly of claim 19, wherein the first housing 48 is removably secured in the first cylindrical cavity 50 on the first side of the body and the second housing 48 is removably secured in the second cylindrical cavity 50 on the second side of the body (Figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 22, Burtelson teaches the assembly of claim 19, wherein each of the first locking dog 60 and the second locking dog 60 has a distal portion 60a, a central portion 60b, and a proximal portion 60c, wherein the central portion 60b has an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the distal potion 60a (Figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 23, Burtelson teaches the assembly of claim 22, wherein the first spring 58 acts against a distal surface of the central portion 60b of the first locking dog 60 and the second spring 58 acts against a distal surface of the central portion 60b of the second locking dog 60 (Figs 2-4).
Regarding claim 28, Burtelson teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the body has an upper end with a flange 26 receiving a rotational force from a driver (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 36, Burtelson teaches a locking dog assembly (Figs 2-4), comprising: a body 34 including an inner cavity 36; a first cylindrical cavity 50 with a first opening 42a into the inner cavity 42 on a first side of the body 34 (Figs 2-4), and a second cylindrical cavity 50 with a second opening 42a into the inner cavity 42 on a second side of the body 34 (Figs 2-4); a first locking dog 60 at least partially extending through a first opening in the body and moveable into and out of the inner cavity 36 along a locking dog axis (Figs 2-4); a second locking dog 60 at least partially extending through a second opening in the body and moveable into and out of the inner cavity 36 along a locking dog axis (Figs 2-4); and a mechanism 62 selectively moving each of the first and second locking dogs 60 simultaneously (Col 6 lines 35-39); a first locking dog extension (shown in the annotated figure below Claim 1) having a first end extending through a slot in a side of the first cylindrical cavity (slot is the aperture extending from outer wall of 52 to the cavity 50) and connected to the first locking dog 60 and a second end engaged with the mechanism 62 (Figs 2-4), wherein the mechanism displaces the first locking dog via the first locking dog extension (Figs 2-4); and a second locking dog extension (shown in the annotated figure below Claim 1) having a first end extending through a slot in a side of the second cylindrical cavity (slot is the aperture extending from outer wall of 52 to the cavity 50) and connected to the second locking dog 60 and a second end engaged with the mechanism 62 (Figs 2-4), wherein the mechanism displaces the second locking dog via the first locking dog extension (Figs 2-4).
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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burtelson.
Regarding claim 21, Burtelson teaches the assembly of claim 20. Burtelson also teaches each of the first and second housings 48 are removably secured in the first and second cylindrical cavities 50, via a set screw 54 engaging against a complementary surface on the respective first or second housing (Figs 2-4) and preventing axial and rotational movement of the respective first or second housing (Col 5 lines 11-17).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the set screw by Burtelson with a dowel pin in order to retain the first and second housings against rotational and translational movement and reduce the cost by utilizing cheaper materials and manufacturing methods and/or as simple substitution of one known element for another leading to the predictable result of retaining the first and second housings against rotational and translational movement. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting the rationale of simple substitution of one known element to another to obtain predictable results to support a finding of obviousness).
Claim(s) 24 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burtelson as applied to at least claims 1, 19, and 22 above, and further in view of Miyanaga (US 20090139772 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Burtelson teaches the assembly of claim 22. Burtelson also teaches in each of the first housing and the second housing 48, the central portion has an inner diameter greater than an inner diameter of the distal portion (Figs 2-4), wherein the first spring 58 is positioned about the distal portion 60a of the first locking dog 60 and configured to extend into the central portion of the first housing 48 (Figs 2-4), wherein the second spring 58 is positioned about the distal portion 60a of the second locking dog 60 and configured to extend into the central portion of the second housing 48 (Figs 2-4).
Burtelson does not explicitly disclose the proximal portion has an inner diameter greater than an inner diameter of the central portion.
However, Miyanaga teaches the proximal portion having an inner diameter greater than an inner diameter of the central portion (Fig 1 shows the spring extending from the central portion making contact with the stop and extending into a larger diameter portion before engaging with the compressing portion).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bores of the housings in Burtelson to incorporate the larger inner diameter of the proximal portion in order to reduce friction and wear on the spring by removing a portion of the surface area that would be contacted when the spring expands and contracts.
Regarding claims 26-27, Burtelson teaches the assembly of claim 1. Burtelson also teaches the body 34 includes a first housing portion 48 having a proximal cavity (where the spring 58 engages 60) adjacent to a central cavity (where the spring engages the housing wall); wherein the first locking dog 60 is slidably engaged within the first housing portion 48; wherein the first locking dog 60 has a central portion 60b and a distal portion 60a, the central portion 60b having an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the distal portion 60a defining a second step between the central portion and the distal portion of the first locking dog 60. Burtelson also teaches the body 34 includes a second housing portion 48 having a proximal cavity (where the spring 58 engages 60) adjacent to a central cavity (where the spring engages the housing wall); wherein the second locking dog 60 is slidably engaged within the second housing portion 48; wherein the second locking dog 60 has a central portion 60b and a distal portion 60a, the central portion 60b having an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the distal portion 60a defining a fourth step between the central portion and the distal portion of the first locking dog 60.
Burtelson does not explicitly disclose the proximal cavity having an inner diameter greater than an inner diameter of the central cavity defining a first step between the proximal cavity and the central cavity in the first housing portion; the second step of the first locking dog is displaced toward the first step of the first housing portion as the first locking dog is displaced out of the inner cavity of the body, the first step defining an outer stop for the first locking dog. Burtelson also does not explicitly disclose the proximal cavity having an inner diameter greater than an inner diameter of the central cavity defining a third step between the proximal cavity and the central cavity in the second housing portion; the fourth step of the second locking dog is displaced toward the third step of the second housing portion as the second locking dog is displaced out of the inner cavity of the body, the third step defining an outer stop for the second locking dog.
However, Miyanaga teaches the proximal portion having an inner diameter greater than an inner diameter of the central portion (Fig 1 shows the spring extending from the central portion making contact with the stop and extending into a larger diameter portion before engaging with the compressing portion). In adopting the structure described above into the existing housing bore of Burtelson, the connected cavities would form a step that would provide a stop for the central portion of the locking dog as it is displaced distally. This structure would be utilized in both the first and the second housing portions.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bores of the housings in Burtelson to incorporate the larger inner diameter of the proximal portion in order to reduce friction and wear on the spring by removing a portion of the surface area that would be contacted when the spring expands and contracts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a different interpretation of the references than that applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE whose telephone number is (703)756-4729. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722