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 filed 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner agrees that there are structural differences between Applicant’s disclosure regarding the “at least one mounting tab” and the prior art’s disclosure of the “at least one mounting tab”. However, it is the Examiner’s position that the claim language does not sufficiently recite these differences. First, the discussion of element 25 of Detweiler is traversed. As Applicant notes in his Remarks, element 25 is disclosed as “an offset surface” which requires an offset from body panel 27 and a surface. Therefore, to those of ordinary skill in the art, it is entirely appropriate to use a single reference number to refer to both the “recess” (the offset) and the “interior mounting portion” (the lower surface of 25) in the context of the prior art disclosure as compared to the broadly recited claim limitations. Furthermore, the limitation “extending downwardly form the door frame” is considered too broad to traverse the Examiner’s interpretation. In fig. 1, The door frame is clearly the basal element in the structural subassembly between element 27 and 26. Although element 14 is an intermediate member, element 26 ultimately extends from element 27 while proximately extending from elements 14 and 25 (clearly a sub-element of 27). Narrower limitations are required to traverse the Examiner’s interpretation. It is further noted that although the structural joining/fastening between elements 27 and 14 are not explicitly discussed in the prior art, it is abundantly clear to those of ordinary skill in the art that one of the many methods of joining (fasteners or adhesives, for instance) known to those of ordinary skill in the art are available to complete the disclosed assembly. Absent these notoriously old and well-known joining methods the elements shown in fig. 1 would not constitute the assembly (as is clearly disclosed), but would be a disparate pile of parts.
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, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Detweiler, U.S. Patent 5,044,678.
Regarding Claim 1, Detweiler teaches:
a door frame (27) comprising:
a top surface (see below);
a recess (see void created by offset of 25); and
an interior mounting portion (see surface of 25) comprising:
at least one mounting tab (see 26, see below) extending downwardly from the door frame; and
at least one mounting tab aperture (see 26, see below) on the at least one mounting tab, whereby
the door frame is secured to a security compartment (14);
a door (20) shaped to be received within the recess of the door frame wherein a top surface
of the door is coplanar with the top surface of the door frame; and
a gooseneck (22) comprising:
a pivot connection whereby the gooseneck is rotatable about the pivot
connection and connected to the door frame;
a connecting portion whereby the gooseneck is fixed to the door; and
a gooseneck channel connecting the pivot connection to the connecting portion (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
490
835
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Detweiler teaches:
wherein the pivot connection is positioned below the door frame (see drawing selection above)
Regarding Claim 9, Detweiler teaches:
wherein the gooseneck is shaped to receive a portion of the door frame in the gooseneck channel when the door is rotated into an open position (see drawing selection above)
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) 2-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler ‘678 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sanderson, U.S. Patent 4,704,970.
Regarding Claim 2, Detweiler teaches:
A first wall portion connected to the connecting portion
A lower portion connected to the first wall portion
And a second wall portion connected to the lower portion (see below)
PNG
media_image3.png
406
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Detweiler does not teach:
A first interior angle or a second interior angle.
Sanderson teaches:
First, second and lower wall portions analogous to those of Detweiler and Applicant’s device
First and second interior angles (see below)
PNG
media_image4.png
384
470
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Detweiler with the features of Sanderson because that would permit the use of sheet metal forming to produce the structure which is notoriously old and well-known economic method of manufacturing.
Regarding Claims 3-5, Detweiler and Sanderson are silent with regard to the explicit angles claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Detweiler-Sanderson with the claimed angles because the lengths of the wall and lower portions and the angles can achieve the necessary geometry for the function with a wide variety of permutations and applicant has not stated that the claimed geometry solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding Claim 10, see rejections of Claims 1-2 above and note the pivot connection on element 26 of Detweiler and elements 12 and 21 of Sanderson.
Claim(s) 7-8, 12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonvissuto, U.S. Patent 12,084,143.
Regarding Claim 7, Detweiler teaches a latch mechanism, but is silent with regard to the details of the claim limitations.
Bonvissuto teaches:
a latch (800, 850) positioned beneath and rotatable with respect to a bottom surface of the door;
a front wall (501) extending downwardly from the bottom surface of the door having a latch slot (872) wherein the latch is rotatable to extend through the latch slot in the front wall in a locked position; and
a latch (see fig. 10, see U-shaped channel between 871, 873), channel secured to the door frame into which the front wall is received when the door is rotated about the pivot connection of the gooseneck into a closed position
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Bonvisutto structures on the Detweiler structure because the latch structure of Bonvissuto would be more secure and would not require electricity to operate the solenoid of Detweiler.
Regarding Claim 8, Bonvisutto, in the Detweiler-Bonvissuto combination, further teaches:
an upper portion secured to the door frame (see below);
a first vertical portion (see below) connected to the upper portion and having a first latch slot (873);
a lower portion (not visible, but apparent) connected to the first vertical portion; and
a second vertical portion (see below) connected to the lower portion and having a second latch slot (871), wherein the first and second vertical portions and lower portions form a channel (see below) into which the front wall of the door is received when the door is rotated about the pivot connection of the gooseneck into a closed position
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the further details of Bonvissuto on Detweiler because the multiple latch slots would provide increased security and the combination would not require electricity to operate the solenoid of Detweiler.
PNG
media_image5.png
508
434
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Detweiler teaches the door comprising a top surface, a bottom surface (see fig. 1) and the gooseneck having a first hinge barrel set (see below), a hinge plate (26) with second hinge barrel complimentarily formed with respect to the first hinge barrel of the gooseneck and a hinge pin connecting the first and second hinge barrel sets whereby a pivot connection is formed between the gooseneck and the hinge plate (see below). The remained of the limitations are taught by the prior art in the rejections of Claims 1, 7-8 and 10 above.
PNG
media_image6.png
352
436
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, see rejections of Claim 11 above in light of the rejection of Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 17, the first wall of the gooseneck comprises a cutout for the hinge pin which is interpreted to mee the limitations of this claim.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler-Bonvissuto as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sanderson ‘970.
Detweiler-Bonvissuto is silent with regard to these specific angles claimed. However, Sanderson teaches interior angles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Detweiler-Bonvissuto-Sanderson with the claimed angles because the lengths of the wall and lower portions and the angles can achieve the necessary geometry for the function with a wide variety of permutations and applicant has not stated that the claimed geometry solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05)
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 MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677