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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-16, and 18-20 and the cancellation of claims 6, 13, and 17 filed April 13, 2026.
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.
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) 1-5, 7, 15, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcroft (GB 2130634 A) in view of Boesel et al. (US-8935944).
In regards to claim 1, Ashcroft discloses a hasp protector assembly comprising: a guard frame 21 (Figure 3) comprising a unitary structure having an elongated body (body at indicator line for reference character 21, Figure 3) extending between a first arm at a first frame end and a second arm at an opposing second frame end (see Figure 3 below), wherein the first frame end is operable as a rotatable end and the second frame end is operable as a locking end (the second frame end being locked by a padlock or fastener through staple 22, Figure 3), the rotatable end configured to be pivotally or rotationally coupled with a door 1 that is configured to be secured in a closed, locked state with a locking assembly 8, 18, 19, 20 of the door; and an anchor bracket configured to be coupled with the door in a position where the locking end of the guard frame is configured to be secured to the anchor bracket (see Figure 3 below), the guard frame configured to be pivoted or rotated at the rotatable end of the guard frame to a protective position while the locking assembly secures the door (Figure 3), wherein the locking end of the guard frame is configured to be secured to the anchor bracket by a fastener (padlock through staple 22), the locking assembly is disposed between the guard frame and the door (Figures 1 and 3), and the locking assembly is visible from opposite sides of the guard frame while the guard frame is in the protective position (Figure 3). Ashcroft fails to disclose that the hasp protector assembly is used with a seal that is coupled with a hasp locking mechanism of the door. Boesel et al. teaches a door having a hasp protector assembly 10 used with a seal 12 that is coupled with a hasp locking mechanism 5, 6 of the door (Figures 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to utilize the hasp protector assembly with a seal and hasp locking mechanism, with reasonable expectation of success, since the guard frame of Ashcroft would be located over the seal and hasp locking mechanism in the same manner that the guard frame is located over the locking assembly, thereby providing protection and visibility of the seal and hasp locking mechanism from opposite sides of the guard frame when the guard frame is in the protective position in Figure 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Ashcroft discloses that the guard frame is generally U-shaped from the first arm, along the elongated body, and to the second arm (Figure 3).
In regards to claim 3, Ashcroft discloses that the first arm and the second arm are each connected transversely to opposing ends of the elongated body of the guard frame (see Figure 3 on Page 4 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 4, Ashcroft in view of Boesel et al. teaches that the elongated body of the guard frame has a width that permits visibility of the seal from the opposite sides of the guard frame (Figure 3 of Ashcroft).
In regards to claim 5, Ashcroft discloses that the guard frame is open along directions that extend from one of the opposite sides to another of the opposite sides (Figure 3).
In regards to claims 7 and 18, Ashcroft in view of Boesel et al. teaches that the guard frame is configured to pivot or rotate at the rotatable end from the protective position, in which the seal and the hasp locking mechanism are disposed between the guard frame and the door (Figure 3 of Ashcroft), to an open position, where in which the guard frame is below the seal and the hasp locking mechanism, and such that the seal and the hasp locking mechanism are not disposed between the guard frame and the door. The guard frame of Ashcroft and associated anchor brackets are capable of being oriented and mounted on the door such that the second frame end is located above the locking assembly in Figure 3 of Ashcroft and the first frame end is located below the locking assembly in Figure 3 of Ashcroft, thereby allowing the guard frame to pivot or rotate to an open position, corresponding to a vertically flipped version of the position shown in Figure 4A, such that the guard frame is located below the seal and hasp locking mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to flip the orientation of the guard frame and associated anchor brackets in Figure 3 of Ashcroft, with reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
In regards to claim 15, Ashcroft discloses a method comprising: pivotally or rotationally coupling a rotatable end (first frame end in Figure 3 on Page 4 of the current Office Action) of a guard frame 21 (Figure 3), comprising a unitary structure (Figure 3), to a door 1 that is configured to be secured in a closed, locked state with a locking assembly 8, 18, 19, 20 of the door; and coupling an anchor bracket (see Figure 3 on Page 4 of the current Office Action) to the door in a position where a locking end (second frame end in Figure 3 on Page 4 of the current Office Action) of the guard frame that is opposite the rotatable end is configured to be secured to the anchor bracket by a fastener (fastener in the form of a padlock cooperating with staple 22), the guard frame configured to be pivoted or rotated at the rotatable end of the guard frame to a protective position (Figure 3), wherein the fastening end of the guard frame is configured to be secured to the anchor bracket by the fastener in the protective position, such that the locking assembly is disposed between the guard frame and the door (Figure 3) and the locking assembly is visible from opposite sides of the guard frame while the guard frame is in the protective position (Figure 3). Ashcroft fails to disclose that the hasp protector assembly is used with a seal that is coupled with a hasp locking mechanism of the door. Boesel et al. teaches a door having a hasp protector assembly 10 used with a seal 12 that is coupled with a hasp locking mechanism 5, 6 of the door (Figures 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to utilize the hasp protector assembly with a seal and hasp locking mechanism, with reasonable expectation of success, since the guard frame of Ashcroft would be located over the seal and hasp locking mechanism in the same manner that the guard frame is located over the locking assembly, thereby providing protection and visibility of the seal and hasp locking mechanism from opposite sides of the guard frame when the guard frame is in the protective position in Figure 3.
In regards to claim 16, Ashcroft in view of Boesel et al. teaches that the rotatable end of the guard frame is pivotally or rotationally coupled to the door (Figure 4A of Ashcroft) and the anchor bracket is coupled with to the door such that the seal is accessible from the opposite sides of the guard frame when the guard frame is in the protective position (accessible because of the open sides of the guard frame, Figure 3 of Ashcroft).
In regards to claim 19, Ashcroft in view of Boesel et al. teaches that the method includes locating a container that has the door, the container being previously-used for transporting cargo (the door of Boesel et al. being used on a container, Col. 1, lines 12-22), and determining, relative to the hasp locking mechanism, a coupling point for the rotatable end and coupling point for the anchor bracket (coupling points at which the rotating end is connected to the door and at which the anchor bracket is coupled to the door, Figure 3 of Ashcroft).
In regards to claim 20, Ashcroft in view of Boesel et al. teaches that the seal extends lengthwise along a central axis of the seal between two opposite arms of the guard frame (arms shown in Figure 3 on Page 4 of the current Office Action, with the seal extending lengthwise when a bolt style seal is used, Col. 2, lines 54-56 of Boesel et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 and 14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claim 8.
In regards to claim 8, Haber (US-9562374) fails to disclose that the rotatable end of the rigid elongated body is configured to rotate or pivot around or about an axis extending through a surface of the door that faces and is connected with the rigid elongated body and the anchor bracket. The rotatable end of the rigid elongated body of Haber is configured to rotate or pivot around or about an axis extending parallel to the surface of the door and not an axis extending through the surface of the door. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Haber without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
In regards to claim 8, Ashcroft (GB 2130634 A) fails to disclose that the rotatable end of the rigid elongated body is configured to rotate or pivot around or about an axis extending through a surface of the door that faces and is connected with the rigid elongated body and the anchor bracket. The rotatable end of the rigid elongated body of Ashcroft is configured to rotate or pivot around or about an axis extending parallel to the surface of the door and not an axis extending through the surface of the door. The rigid elongated body of Ashcroft cannot be modified to rotate or pivot around or about an axis extending through a surface of the door that faces and is connected with the rigid elongated body and the anchor bracket, since the staple 22 would prevent this rotation or pivoting movement. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Ashcroft without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Response to Arguments
20. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed April 13, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with Haber (US-9562374) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 15, 16, and 18-20 with Haber (US-9562374) been withdrawn.
After further review of the other cited prior art, new rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 15, 16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with Ashcroft (GB 2130634 A) in view of Boesel et al. (US-8935944) is set forth in the current Office Action.
In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Conclusion
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 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, Christine 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights