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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 Aug. 2025 has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, US 2017/0138087 A1, in view of Frolov, US 6,045,169 A1, Loperfido et al., WO 2019/197604 A1, and Engibarov et al., US 2019/0017293 A1.
Claim 1: Chen discloses a multifunctional strengthened lock structure, comprising:
a case (A), which is provided with a square latch (B), a lock-cylinder rotating axle (1), a handle rotating axle (4), and an own-axis rotating plate (5);
a strengthened triangular latch unit, which is arranged in the case (Fig. 2) and comprises a latching head (C), a rod pivotally connected to the latching head (depicted in Fig. 7), and a strengthening screw (depicted in Fig. 7); and
a bolt control unit, which comprises:
a first push plate (8) arranged at one side of the handle rotating axle (Fig. 7);
a second push plate (9) arranged at a lower side of the first push plate (depicted in Fig. 7, below);
a butterfly plate (11) arranged between the first push plate and the second push plate (Fig. 7, below);
a first spring mounted to the case and having upper and lower ends respectively supported on the second push plate and a lower wall surface of the case (Fig. 7 annotated below); and
a second spring and a third spring arranged at a lower side of the butterfly plate (Fig. 7 annotated below);
wherein by means of the triangular latch and the bolt control unit, the lock is strengthened and achieves a dual-locking effect to thereby improve effects of security and burglary resistance of the lock (the lock structure achieves a dual-locking effect as in the instant application).
PNG
media_image1.png
858
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen illustrates a rod and a strengthening screw connected to the latching head, but is silent to the structural details. Frolov teaches a strengthened triangular latch unit, which comprises a latching head (30), a rod pivotally connected to the latching head (34), and a strengthening screw (35) fastened to the latching head and the rod (col. 4 ln. 11-16; col. 5 ln. 45-46), and the strengthening screw penetrates through the rod and the latching head in a direction that is perpendicular to the axial direction to fix the latching head to the rod (Figs. 1 and 7a-d illustrate the strengthening screw perpendicular to the axial direction of the rod). 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 strengthened triangular latch unit disclosed by Chen to include a strengthening screw fastened to the latching head and the rod, the strengthening screw penetrates through the rod and the latching head in a direction that is perpendicular to the axial direction to fix the latching head to the rod as taught by Frolov, to make the lock structure adaptable by providing a reversible latch bolt (Frolov col. 5 ln. 40-65).
Chen, in view of Frolov, is silent to the strengthened triangular latch unit comprising a strengthening ring fit over the rod.
Loperfido teaches coupling components in a lock structure. Loperfido teaches a strengthening ring (10) fit over a rod (4), wherein the strengthening ring is received in a fitting recess formed in a head (Fig. 4 depicts the ring 10 in a fitting recess formed in a head 5) and is sandwiched between the rod and the head in an axial direction (Fig. 4 depicts the rod on one side of the ring in the axial direction and the head on the other side in the axial direction) and a radial direction perpendicular to the axial direction (Fig. 4 depicts the rod on one side of the ring in the radial direction and the head on the other side in the radial direction).
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 structure taught by Chen, in view of Frolov, to include a strengthen ring fit over the rod, wherein the strengthening ring is received in a fitting recess formed in the latching head and is sandwiched between the rod and the latching head in an axial direction and a radial direction perpendicular to the axial direction, as taught by Loperfido, in order to provide additional stabilization (Loperfido p. 2) and suppress vibrations (Loperfido p. 3).
Chen, in view of Frolov and Loperfido, is silent to the rod formed with a protrusion projecting in the radial direction from an outer circumference of the rod and the fitting recess has a wall surface facing the protrusion of the rod in the axial direction such that the strengthening ring is received in the fitting recess and is supported between the wall surface of the fitting recess and the protrusion of the rod in the axial direction to have the strengthening ring sandwiched between the rod and latching head in the axial direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify the rod taught by Chen, in view of Frolov and Loperfido to be formed with a protrusion projecting in the radial direction from an outer circumference of the rod and the strengthening ring is supported between a wall surface of the fitting recess and the protrusion of the rod in the axial direction. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference.
Engibarov teaches a rod (126) formed with a protrusion projecting in the radial direction from an outer circumference of the rod (Fig. 9B) and a wall surface (152) facing the protrusion of the rod in the axial direction (Fig. 9B). 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 rod taught by Chen, in view of Frolov and Loperfido, to be formed with a protrusion projecting in the radial direction from an outer surface of the rod, as taught by Engibarov, to ensure proper alignment of the rod with the fitting recess and latching head (Engibarov [0067]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely the strengthening ring received in the fitting recess and supported between the wall surface of the fitting recess and the protrusion of the rod in the axial direction to have the strengthening ring sandwiched between the rod and the latching head in the axial direction.
Claim 2: Chen, in view of Frolov, Loperfido, and Engibarov, teaches the multifunctional strengthened lock structure according to claim 1, wherein the first push plate comprises a plate in the form of an L-shape (Chen Fig. 1 depicts an L shape) and has a projection formed on a rear side thereof (Chen Fig. 4 depicts a projection 81 on a rear side).
Claim 3: Chen, in view of Frolov, Loperfido, and Engibarov, teaches the multifunctional strengthened lock structure according to claim 1, wherein the first spring comprises a ring portion for mounting to the case (Chen Fig. 8), and an upper supporting member and a lower supporting member extending from the ring portion (Chen. Fig. 8, annotated above with claim 1, shows an upper supporting member corresponding to an upper end and a lower supporting member corresponding to a lower end), the upper supporting member supporting on the second push plate (depicted in Chen. Fig. 8, annotated above with claim 1), the lower supporting member supporting on the lower wall surface of the case (depicted in Chen. Fig. 8, annotated above with claim 1).
Claim 4: Chen, in view of Frolov, Loperfido, and Engibarov, teaches the multifunctional strengthened lock structure according to claim 1, wherein the second spring comprises a ring portion for mounting to the case (Chen Fig. 1) and a retention portion extending from the ring portion (Chen Fig. 1)
Chen, in view of Frolov, Loperfido, and Engibarov, does not explicitly disclose the retention portion having a twisted shape. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the shape of the retention portion to have a twisted shape so as to achieve an optimal elastic force and efficient engagement with the member. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (holding that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.); 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 5: Chen, in view of Frolov, Loperfido, and Engibarov, teaches the multifunctional strengthened lock structure according to claim 1, wherein the third spring comprises a ring portion for mounting to the case (Chen Fig. 7, annotated below), and a retention portion extending from the ring portion and having a consecutively bent shape (Chen Fig. 7, annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
509
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 Aug. 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments that Loperfido fails to disclose the square pin 4 includes a radial protrusion that works with a wall surface that faces the radial protrusion to sandwich the friction ring, 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). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the strengthening ring is made from a particular material that is not rubber) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims 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 instant specification does not redefine the term “strengthening” so it is interpreted broadly using the plain meaning of the term. Loperfido teaches the ring suppresses vibrations and stabilizes the pin, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this as being a strengthening function because it improves reliability and lifespan of the components, which is a measure of strength. Furthermore, the resulting ring taught of Chen, in view of Frolov, Loperfido, is in the same position relative to the latching head and rod as the disclosed ring. The claim does not require the strengthening ring increases a certain type of strength, for example flexural strength or impact strength. Applicant also argues that rubber is not a “mechanically or physically tough and strong material” but does not provide further explanation of why rubber does not qualify as a strengthening material. Rubber is well known in the art to have high tensile strength and abrasion resistance, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the ring made of rubber disclosed by Loperfido can be considered a strengthening ring.
Conclusion
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