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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 23-25, 27-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The previous 112(b) rejections are overcome by the present amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao CN 107419974 A (hereinafter Zhao) in view of Thomas US 1849775 A (hereinafter Thomas) and Lai CN 102587750 A (hereinafter Lai).
In regards to claim 21, Zhao teaches a locking device comprising: a body including: a rotatable locking cam (21) having a locked portion (a portion facing 42 in fig 8) and an unlocked portion (portion facing 42 once the locking pin is withdrawn), the rotatable locking cam being rotatable between a locked position (see fig 8) and an unlocked position (rotated from fig 8); a locking pin (4); a power supply (62) for supplying electrical power to circuit components of the locking device; and a limiting part (63): and a shackle (11) having two arms insertable into the body (see fig 7), a first arm of the two arms having (left arm wrt fig 8): a groove (111) in a bottom portion thereof (considering to the right wrt fig 8 as the bottom) to engage with the locking pin (see fig 8) when the locked portion of the rotatable locking cam directly engages the locking pin in the locked position and the shackle is in a closed position (see fig 8); and a raceway (112) positioned above the groove (with the right wrt fig 8 being the bottom), the raceway being sized and shaped to engage with the limiting part (63) and hold the first arm of the shackle in the body when the rotatable locking cam is in the unlocked position (see fig 7):
However, Zhao does not teach a ball plunger, Zhao teaches a limiting part (63) with a similar functionality.
Thomas teaches a similar device utilizing a ball and spring in a similar manner to Zhao’s 63, (see fig 2, seen engaging 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Zhao with a ball and plunger, such as in Thomas, in place of Zhao’s limiting part, in order to reduce friction.
Additionally, Zhao does not teach wherein the body also includes a first switch positioned to engage a second arm of the two arms of the shackle, the second arm of the two arms being free to be withdrawn from the body when the rotatable locking cam is in the locked position and the shackle is cut, the first switch indicating a tampering event has occurred when the rotatable locking cam is in the locked position and the second arm is withdrawn from the body.
Lai teaches a body also includes a first switch (5) positioned to engage a second arm of the two arms of the shackle, the first switch indicating a tampering event has occurred (para 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided McGinnis with a first sensor such as in Lai in order to provide for a known way of indicating tampering and prevent cutting of the lock (Lai para 5).
With the modifications above Zhao in view of Thomas and Lai teaches the second arm of the two arms being free to be withdrawn from the body when the rotatable locking cam is in the locked position and the shackle is cut (Zhao see fig 7) and when the rotatable locking cam is in the locked position and the second arm is withdrawn from the body (as Lai’s 5 would no longer be triggered; Lai para 7).
In regards to claim 24, Zhao in view of Thomas and Lai teaches the locking device of claim 21, wherein the body includes the first switch (Lai see fig 1).
However, Zhao does not teach a second switch, the second switch being configured to indicate if the shackle is in the open position or the closed position.
Lai teaches a second switch (8), the second switch being configured to indicate if the shackle is in the open position or the closed position (see the fig, as 8 is pressed when the chackle is closed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided Zhao with a second sensor in order to improve alarm accuracy (Lai para 3)
In regards to claim 25, Zhao in view of Thomas and Lai teaches the locking device of claim 24, wherein the first switch is positioned to engage a first end of the second arm of the shackle and the second switch is positioned to engage a first end of the first arm of the shackle to indicate if the shackle is in the open or the closed position (Lai, see fig).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Thomas and Lai as applied to claim 21 and 24-25 above, and further in view of McGinnis et al. US 20160312497 A1 (hereinafter McGinnis).
In regards to claim 27, Zhao in view of Thomas and Lai teaches the locking device of claim 21.
However, Zhao does not teach wherein the raceway is configured to provide for the shackle to be removed from the body.
McGinnis teaches a similar device where a raceway (208) is configured to provide for the shackle to be removed from the body (see fig 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Zhao’s raceway configured to provide for the shackle to be removed from the body, such as in McGinnis, in order to allow the replacement of damaged shackles with no tools or special skills required (McGinnis para 1).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajuch et al. US 6401501 B1 (hereinafter Kajuch) in view of Thomas, Lai, and Gengler et al. US 20160217637 A1 (hereinafter Gengler).
In regards to claim 21, Kajuch teaches a locking device comprising: a body including: a rotatable locking cam (146) having a locked portion (convex portion) and an unlocked portion (182), the rotatable locking cam being rotatable between a locked position and an unlocked position; a locking pin (144); a power supply (154) for supplying electrical power to circuit components of the locking device; and a retaining pin (220): and a shackle having two arms insertable into the body, a first arm (158) of the two arms having: a groove (166) in a bottom portion thereof to engage with the locking pin when the locked portion of the rotatable locking cam directly engages the locking pin in the locked position and the shackle is in a closed position (note fig 5; with 146 rotated); and a raceway (218) positioned above the groove (considering to the left wrt fig 5 as up), the raceway being sized and shaped to engage with the limiting pin and hold the first arm of the shackle in the body when the rotatable locking cam is in the unlocked position (see fig 5).
However, Kajuch does not teach a ball plunger, Zhao teaches a retaining pin (220) with a similar functionality.
Thomas teaches a similar device utilizing a ball and spring in a similar manner to Kajuch’s 63, (see fig 2, seen engaging 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Kajuch with a ball and plunger, such as in Thomas, in place of Zhao’s limiting part, in order to reduce friction.
Additionally, Kajuch does not teach wherein the body also includes a first switch positioned to engage a second arm of the two arms of the shackle, the first switch indicating a tampering event has occurred when the rotatable locking cam is in the locked position and the second arm is withdrawn from the body.
Lai teaches a body also includes a first switch (5) positioned to engage a second arm of the two arms of the shackle, the first switch indicating a tampering event has occurred (para 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing of the invention, to have provided McGinnis with a first sensor such as in Lai in order to provide for a known way of indicating tampering and prevent cutting of the lock (Lai para 5).
Additionally, Kajuch does not teach the second arm of the two arms being free to be withdrawn from the body when the rotatable locking cam is in the locked position and the shackle is cut. This is because Kajuch teaches the use of two pins (144).
Gengler teaches a similar device utilizing one pin in order to improve water proofing (para 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Modified Kajuch with only one pin in order to allow for improved water proofing (Gengler para 42).
With the modifications above Kajuch in view of Thomas, Lai, and Gengler teaches when the rotatable locking cam is in the locked position and the second arm is withdrawn from the body (as Lai’s 5 would no longer be triggered; see Lai para 7).
In regards to claim 23, Kajuch in view of Thomas, Lai, and Gengler teaches the locking device of claim 21, wherein the locking pin is configured to fall out of the groove of the shackle upon the shackle moving relative to the locking pin (Kajuch fig 5).
However, Kajuch fails to teach the locking pin is configured to fall out of the groove of the shackle upon the shackle moving upwardly. Due to previously interpreting to the left wrt fig 5 as up. In order to meet this limitation up wrt fig 5 must be up and therefore the raceway positioned above the groove wrt 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 have placed Kajuch’s raceway above the groove (at least partially) wrt his fig 5 as doing so would amount to a mere rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04 C) and involve only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 28, Kajuch in view of Thomas, Lai, and Gengler teaches the locking device of claim 21, wherein each of the unlocked portion and the locked portion extend from the rotatable locking cam towards a same arm of the shackle (Kajuch see fig 5).
In regards to claim 29, Kajuch in view of Thomas, Lai, and Gengler teaches the locking device of claim 21, wherein the locked portion is positioned vertically above the unlocked portion (at least when rotated to block 144).
In regards to claim 30, Kajuch in view of Thomas, Lai, and Gengler teaches the locking device of claim 21, wherein the rotatable locking cam is configured to rotate in a first direction to move the locking device from a locked state to an unlocked state and a second direction to move the locking device from an unlocked state to a locked state (Kajuch see figs 9-9a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2021221549 A1 – teaches a similar ball plunger.
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 PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675