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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious and/or examination search burden. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries), in this case, the system of two objects with magnets of claims 1-16, classified in H01F 7/0252, would not overlap with the aircraft stairway, classified in B64C 1/24; similarly, the system of claims 1-16 with a hinge such that the first and second object are rotated relative to one another about the hinge would not overlap with a search of two connecting magnets of claim 20, not requiring a hinge or any sort of pivot or rotational translation.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giacalone et al. (US 2015/0322980 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Giacalone teaches a system for securing a first object and a second object (Fig. 1, panel 1 secured to structure 3) the system comprising:
a first magnet (Fig. 2, magnet 16) on an abutting face of the first object (Figs. 1-2 shows magnet 16 abutting a face of panel 2);
a second magnet (Fig. 2, magnet 116) on an abutting face of the second object (Figs. 1-2 shows magnet 116 abutting a face of structure 3);
a hinge (Figs. 1 & 12, pivot joint 6) by which one or more of the first object and the second object rotate relative to the other (as shown by ROT in Figs. 1 & 12);
a relative position established between the first and second magnets when first and second objects are in a secured mode (Position shown in Fig. 1), the relative position established between the first and second magnets creating a desired holding strength (“The first magnetization means are then strongly magnetically attracted to the second magnetization means in order to hold the panel in position.”, Para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Giacalone teaches wherein the magnets nearly or directly contact another when the first object is in a secured configuration relative to the second object (As shown in Figs. 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Giacalone teaches wherein the first and second magnets are configured to have an extent of overlap required to meet a force required to hold the first object in position relative to the second object (As shown in Figs. 1, 6, and 8).
Regarding claim 6, Giacalone teaches wherein each of the first and second magnets are included in recesses formed into each of the first and second abutting faces, respectively (Figs. 2-11 shows first magnet 15/16 housed in hollowed-out section 22: “The first magnetization means 15 are then housed in the hollowed-out section 22.”, Para. [0132]; further shows second magnet 115/116 recessed in ball joint 200/truncated ball 221; “the arm carries an outer cage 220 of the ball joint in which a truncated ball 221 carrying the second magnetization means 115 is free to move in rotation”, Para. [0138]).
Regarding claim 7, Giacalone teaches wherein each of the first and second recesses formed into each of the first and second objects make the first and second magnets flush with each of the first and second abutment surfaces, respectively (Figs. 2-11 shows first magnet 15/16 housed in hollowed-out section 22, flushed with abutting surface of first object: “The first magnetization means 15 are then housed in the hollowed-out section 22.”, Para. [0132]; further shows second magnet 115/116 recessed in ball joint 200/truncated ball 221, flushed with abutting surface of second object; “the arm carries an outer cage 220 of the ball joint in which a truncated ball 221 carrying the second magnetization means 115 is free to move in rotation”, Para. [0138]).
Regarding claim 8, Giacalone teaches wherein an adjustment system exists for at least one of the first and second magnets, the adjustment system configured to create the relative positions of the first and second magnets (As shown in Figs. 5-8, POS1 and POS2 with different relative positions of the first magnet 15/16 with respect to the second magnet 115/116).
Regarding claim 13, Giacalone teaches wherein an adjustment system comprises one or more slots (Fig. 2, receptacle 150) into which a linker on the first magnet (Fig. 2, ball-lock pin 53, shown on housing 11 of first magnet 15/16) is secured to create a position resulting in desired overlap with the second magnet (As shown in Figs. 5-8, POS1 and POS2 with different relative positions of the first magnet 15/16 with respect to the second magnet 115/116; “This ball-lock pin is insertable manually and in reversible manner in a receptacle 150 that is secured to the second casing 111 of the stationary stud 100.”, Para. [0146]).
Regarding claim 15, Giacalone teaches wherein the relative positions establish a degree of overlap between the first and second magnets (As shown in Figs. 5-8, POS1 and POS2 with different, overlapping relative positions of the first magnet 15/16 with respect to the second magnet 115/116).
Regarding claim 16, Giacalone teaches wherein the relative positions establish an offset distance between the first and second magnets (As shown in Figs. 5-8, POS1 and POS2 with different, offset relative positions of the first magnet 15/16 with respect to the second magnet 115/116; “With reference to FIG. 7, having the magnetization means arranged on a ball joint 200 makes it possible to accommodate an angular offset between the panel 2 and the structure 3. In the same way, and with reference to FIG. 8, this arrangement makes it possible to accommodate an axial offset between the panel 2 and the structure 3.”, Paras. [0188]-[0189]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacalone et al. (US 2015/0322980 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Giacalone is silent on the shape of the magnet.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Giacalone wherein the first and second magnets are circular or wherein the first and second magnets are oval, with a reasonable expectation for success, because it would have been an obvious matter of preference to make the different portions of the magnets or magnetization mean of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Upon inspection of Applicant’s specification, the shape of the magnets does not appear to be critical. In contrast, it appears the magnets may be any shape: “As illustrated in FIG. 7C, in some embodiments first object 402 may comprise one or more slots 414 a, 414 b. Slots 414 a, 414 b may be configured to receive a portion of first magnet 406 and secure first magnet 406 therein. Similar to the description above, in some embodiments, the shape of slot 414 a, 414 b is configured to receive a portion of first magnet 406 (e.g., rod 418). In these embodiments, slot 414 a, 414 b may comprise any shape other than a circle, such that rod 418 may be inserted and turned, fastening first magnet 406 thereto. For example, slot 414 a, 414 b may comprise an oval, rectangle, star, square, trapezoid, triangle, diamond, etc.”, Para. [0136].
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacalone et al. (US 2015/0322980 A1) in view of Seeley et al. (US 12,454,338).
Regarding claim 9, Giacalone does not expressly disclose wherein an adjustment system comprises one or more pathways on which the first magnet slides to create the relative positions of the first and second magnets.
However, in an analogous magnetic coupling for vehicle art, Seeley discloses wherein an adjustment system comprises one or more pathways on which the first magnet slides to create the relative positions of the first and second magnets (Figs. 8-11A shows first and second magnets 1706/2010 or 1708/1700 polarity and position may be adjusted sliding on pathways or track guides 2000; Further described in Col. 13, Line 61 – Col. 14, Line 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Giacalone wherein an adjustment system comprises one or more pathways on which the first magnet slides to create the relative positions of the first and second magnets, as taught by Seeley, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure the panel of the first object remains secured to the structure of the second object when the vehicle of Giacalone is in motion or flight.
Regarding claim 10, Seeley further discloses wherein the pathways include channels on which the first magnet can slide (As shown in Figs. 9-10 with “track guides” 2000 on which the magnets 1706/2010 or 1708/1700 translate in a sliding manner along the surface and described: “…Detachable element 1704 secures to vehicle 100 by inserting pins 1708 in the guides 2000. The detachable element assembly is slid in track guide 2000 until element magnet 1706 is of substantial opposite polarity to a magnet 2010 located on the interior of vehicle 100 and proximate element 1704. The attractive force holds element 1704 in place…”, Col. 13, Line 61 – Col. 14, Line 32).
Regarding claim 11, Seeley further discloses wherein a linker mounted on a side of the first magnet is configured to be received within the channels enabling slidable adjustment (As shown in Figs. 9-10 with “track guides” 2000 receiving linkers or locking pins 1708 of magnets 1706/2010 or 1708/1700 such that it translates in a sliding manner along the surface; Further described in Col. 13, Line 61 – Col. 14, Line 32).
Regarding claim 12, Seeley further discloses wherein the linker includes a fastening mechanism on a distal end of the linker, the fastening mechanism retaining the first magnet into the channels (As shown in Figs. 9-10 with “track guides” 2000 receiving linkers with fastening locking pins 1708 of magnets 1706/2010 or 1708/1700 such that it translates in a sliding manner along the surface to fasten onto the surface; Further described in Col. 13, Line 61 – Col. 14, Line 32).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giacalone et al. (US 2015/0322980 A1) in view of Parmar et al. (US 2021/0323673 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Giacalone does not expressly disclose wherein the relative positions of the first and second magnets are created by positioning the first magnet using one or more of snaps, Velcro®, suction, or additional magnets.
However, in an analogous mounting for air vehicles art, Parmar discloses wherein the relative positions of a first object and a second object are created by positioning using one or more of snaps, Velcro®, suction, or additional magnets (“The mounting assembly may be fastened by non-permanent means such as magnetic couplings, releasable latches, releasable buckles, hooks, snaps, or velcro.”, Para. [0067]; “The connection hardware may comprise posts, pins, brackets, magnets, loops, grommets, hooks, couplings, or fittings. Connection hardware may have a particular shape or aspect, such as cylindrical, square, hexagonal or star-shaped. The connection hardware may be cylindrical with a flat face such that the flat face is gripped by a locking mechanism.”, Para. [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Giacalone wherein the relative positions of the first and second magnets are created by positioning the first magnet using one or more of snaps, Velcro®, suction, or additional magnets, as disclosed by Parmar, with a reasonable expectation for success, since these were art-recognized alternatives for fastening or securing two objects together before the effective filing date of the claim invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights