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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of the abstract, a period (.) should be inserted between “actuator body” and “The actuator arm”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
In parag. [0062], lines 3-4, of the original disclosure, “an flexible material” should be replaced with --a flexible material--.
In parag. [0068], line 1, of the original disclosure, “portions of gripping material 58” should be replaced with --portions of gripping material 58--.
In parag. [0077], line 8, of the original disclosure, “actuator body 14” should be replaced with --actuator body 12--.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. No such petition has been filed or granted and thus the use of photographs is not acceptable. The following drawings are objected to because they are either photographs or they contain excessive shading such that their reproduction in unclear upon publication (see US Patent Application Publication 2023/0304517):
Figs. 2-9
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Re Claim 1: Lines 15-17 of claim 1 should be amended as follows:
--wherein the first locking end of the locking element is engaged with or engageable with the first element end of the circumferentially extending element;--
Re Claim 6: Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
In this case, claim 6 is an exact duplicate of claim 5. Perhaps claim 6 should be amended to depend from claim 4, rather than claim 3.
Clarification and correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re Claim 9: Claim 9 recites the limitation "the adapter arm lock" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as referring to the “actuator lock arm” of claim 1.
It is not clear if the “actuator body” meant to be positively claimed as part of the claimed “actuator arm lock” or if it is meant only as a functional limitation related to an intended use of the “actuator arm lock”. The “actuator body” is first introduced in the preamble of claim 1 as a functional limitation, which appears to indicate that it is not meant to be positively claimed, but rather is only meant as an intended use limitation. However, further limitations in claim 9 related to the “actuator body” appear to indicate that perhaps the “actuator body” is meant to be positively claimed as part of the “actuator arm lock”. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined because the scope of the claim is unclear.
For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret the claims as though the “actuator body” is NOT positively claimed as part of the “actuator arm lock”, but rather is recited only as a functional limitation related to an intended use of the “actuator arm lock”.
If the above interpretations are correct, claim 9 should be amended as follows:
--9. An actuator arm lock according to claim 1, wherein the actuator arm lock further comprises one or more second latch elements, each second latch element is configured to be fixed to or integral with the actuator body, and each second latch element is adapted to reversibly enter a latching engagement with the lock ring.--
Clarification and correction are required.
Re Claim 10: Claim 10 recites the limitation "the adapter arm lock" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as referring to the “actuator lock arm” of claim 1. Clarification and correction are required.
Further, claim 10 recites the limitation "the first latch elements" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret claim 10 as though it depends from claim 7, rather than claim 1, since claim 7 introduces “one or more first latch elements”.
If the above interpretations are correct, claim 10 should be amended as follows:
--10. An actuator arm lock according to claim 7 claim 1, wherein the actuator arm lock further comprises a latch plate, in which the latch plate is adapted to be fixed to an actuator body and one or both of (i) the latch plate comprises one or more second latch elements, and each second latch element is adapted to reversibly enter a latching engagement with the lock ring, and/or (ii) the latch plate comprises one or more latch means adapted to latch with the first latch elements, and each latch means is adapted to reversibly enter a latching engagement with a first latch element on the lock ring.--
Clarification and correction are required.
Re Claim 11: Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second latch elements" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret claim 11 as though it depends from claim 10, rather than claim 7, since claim 10 provides proper antecedent bases for both first and second latch elements.
If the above interpretations are correct, claim 10 should be amended as follows:
--11. An actuator arm lock according to claim 10 wherein the engagement of at least one of the first latch elements with the actuator body, and/or the engagement of at least one of the second latch elements with the lock ring, and/or the engagement of at least one of the first latch elements with at least one of the second latch elements is achieved by rotating the lock ring around the actuator arm.--
Clarification and correction are required.
Re Claim 14: It is not clear if the limitation “or” in line 4 of claim 14 is meant to modify to remainder of the entire claim (each of the remaining steps) or just to the next phrase (the next step only). As such, it is not clear how many of the steps recited are cumulatively required by the claim and how many are only alternatively required.
For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret this claim as though the “or” modifies the remainder of the entire claim (each of the remaining steps).
Clarification and correction are required.
Re Claim 15: Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first and or second latch elements" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, for this Office Action only, the Examiner will interpret claim 15 as though it requires the “actuator arm lock” according to claim 10, rather than claim 5, since claim 10 provides proper antecedent bases for both first and second latch elements.
If the above interpretations are correct, claim 15 should be amended as follows:
--15. A method of locking an actuator arm of an actuator, the method comprising:
locating an actuator arm lock according to claim 10 on the actuator arm with the locking element in the unlocked configuration;
moving the actuator arm to a desired degree of extension out of the actuator body;
moving the locking ring along the actuator arm to a position adjacent to and in contact with the actuator body;
engaging one or both of the first and/or second latch elements; and
reconfiguring the locking element into the locked configuration.--
Clarification and correction are required.
Examiner notes that any prior art rejections made in this Office Action are made in view of the claims, as best understood by the Examiner, in view of the above indefiniteness rejections.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Language
From the outset, it should be noted that some of the language in the claims is functional in nature. For example, in claims 1-11 the language related to an “actuator” and its “actuator arm” and “actuator body” is functional in nature and limited patentable weight is given to this section of the claim. Additionally, Examiner notes that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does and thus, a prior art device must only be capable of performing the stated function in order to read on the functional limitation. In this instance, the prior art discloses every structural limitation of the claim and thus this limitation fails to distinguish the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. Please see MPEP 2114.
[Examiner notes that this section of the Office Action does not constitute a rejection or objection, but is merely meant to indicate the manner in which the claims have been interpreted by the Examiner.]
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daghe (US Patent 4,381,020).
Re Claim 1: Daghe discloses an actuator arm lock suitable for use with an actuator (see note above related to this functional element) which has an actuator arm and an actuator body, the actuator arm lock comprising:
a lock ring (10) suitable for clamping around an actuator arm (for example, as shown for pipe P; Figs. 2-3), the lock ring comprises:
a circumferentially extending element (12); and
a locking element (24);
wherein the circumferentially extending element (12) comprises:
first and second element ends (14, 16) and an inner surface which faces towards the actuator arm (for example, as shown for pipe P; Figs. 2-3) when the actuator arm lock is in use;
wherein the circumferentially extending element (12) is configured to partially extend around the actuator arm;
wherein the locking element (24) comprises first and second locking ends (at 42 and 38; Fig. 3) and is configured to extend at least between the first and second element ends (14, 16) of the circumferentially extending element;
wherein the first locking end (42) of the locking element is engaged with or engageable with the first element end (14) of the circumferentially extending element (12);
wherein the locking element (24) is engaged with or engageable with the second element end (16) of the circumferentially extending element; and
wherein the locking element (24) may be reversibly reconfigured between a locked configuration (upon tightening the bolt means 24) in which the actuator arm lock clamps onto the actuator arm, and an unlocked configuration (upon loosening the bolt means 24) in which the actuator arm lock is loose on the actuator arm.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2: Daghe discloses an actuator arm lock, in which the locking element (24) comprises a bar (38), a bearing element (22) and a nut (46);
wherein the bar (38) comprises a first locking end (at 42) which is engaged with the first element end (14) of the circumferentially extending element (12) and a threaded portion (40) adjacent a second locking end (at 38; Fig. 4) of the bar,
wherein the bearing element (22) is engaged with the second element end (16) of the circumferentially extending element (12) and configured to allow the bar (38) to extend through at least part of the bearing element (22),
wherein the nut (46) is in threaded engagement with the threaded portion (40) of the bar, and
wherein the bearing element (22) is between the nut (46) and the first element end (14) of the circumferentially extending element (12).
Re Claim 3: Daghe discloses an actuator arm lock, wherein the circumferentially extending element (12) comprises:
a circumferentially extending band (12) and one or more portions of a gripping material (gasket member G), the gripping material (“gasket member G made of resilient or elastomeric material such as rubber”; see Col. 5, lines 31-32) has a surface of a higher coefficient of friction than the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band (12), and the portions of gripping material are supported on the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band.
Re Claim 4: Daghe discloses an actuator arm lock, wherein the circumferentially extending element (12) comprises:
a circumferentially extending band (12) and one or more portions of a gripping material (gasket member G), in which the gripping material (“gasket member G made of resilient or elastomeric material such as rubber”; see Col. 5, lines 31-32) has a lower resistance to indentation than the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band, and the portions of gripping material are supported on the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band.
Re Claims 5 and 6: Daghe discloses an actuator arm lock, wherein the gripping material (G) is a rubber (“gasket member G made of resilient or elastomeric material such as rubber”; see Col. 5, lines 31-32).
Claims 1, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda (JP 2002-188666, a copy of which is attached herewith along with a machine-generated English translation).
Re Claim 1: Ikeda discloses an actuator arm lock (10) suitable for use with an actuator (see Fig. 1) which has an actuator arm (31) and an actuator body (30), the actuator arm lock (10) comprising:
a lock ring (13) suitable for clamping around an actuator arm (31), the lock ring comprises:
a circumferentially extending element (13); and
a locking element (14);
wherein the circumferentially extending element (13) comprises:
first and second element ends (13c, 13d) and an inner surface which faces towards the actuator arm (31) when the actuator arm lock is in use;
wherein the circumferentially extending element (13) is configured to partially extend around the actuator arm (31);
wherein the locking element (14) comprises first and second locking ends (14a, 14b) and is configured to extend at least between the first and second element ends (13c, 13d) of the circumferentially extending element;
wherein the first locking end (13a) of the locking element is engaged with or engageable with the first element end (13c) of the circumferentially extending element;
wherein the locking element (14) is engaged with or engageable with the second element end (13d) of the circumferentially extending element; and
wherein the locking element (14) may be reversibly reconfigured between a locked configuration in which the actuator arm lock clamps onto the actuator arm, and an unlocked configuration in which the actuator arm lock is loose on the actuator arm.
PNG
media_image2.png
403
1189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 9: Ikeda discloses an actuator arm lock (10), wherein the adaptor arm lock further comprises one or more second latch elements (mounting ring 10b and its fastening members; not shown), each second latch element is fixed to (at 30a) or integral with the actuator body (30), and each second latch element is adapted to reversibly enter a latching engagement with the lock ring (by way of housing body 10a).
Re Claim 12: Ikeda discloses an actuator (see Fig. 1) comprising an actuator arm (31), an actuator body (30), and an actuator arm lock (10) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim1 above).
Re Claim 13: Ikeda discloses an actuator (see Fig. 1), wherein a portion of the actuator arm (31) extends from the actuator body (30) when the actuator arm is in a fully retracted position (for example, see Fig. 1), the lock ring (13) is stored on the portion of the actuator arm (31) that extends from the actuator body (30) when the actuator arm (31) is in the fully retracted position, and the locking element (14) is in the locked configuration when the lock ring is being stored.
Re Claim 14, as best understood by the Examiner: Ikeda discloses a method of locking an actuator arm (31) of an actuator in a fully extended position, the method comprising: locating an actuator arm lock (10) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) on the actuator arm with the locking element in the unlocked configuration, or
moving the actuator arm to the fully extended position,
moving the lock ring along the actuator arm to a position adjacent to and in contact with the actuator body, and
reconfiguring the locking element into the locked configuration.
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.
Claims 2-7, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP 2002-188666), as applied to claims 1, 9, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Daghe (US Patent 4,381,020).
Re Claim 2: Ikeda, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses an actuator arm lock significantly as claimed except wherein the locking element comprises a bar, a bearing element and a nut; wherein the bar comprises a first locking end which is engaged with the first element end of the circumferentially extending element and a threaded portion adjacent a second locking end of the bar, wherein the bearing element is engaged with the second element end of the circumferentially extending element and configured to allow the bar to extend through at least part of the bearing element, wherein the nut is in threaded engagement with the threaded portion of the bar, and wherein the bearing element is between the nut and the first element end of the circumferentially extending element.
Daghe teaches the use of a lock ring (10) suitable for clamping around an actuator arm (for example, as shown for pipe P; Figs. 2-3), the lock ring comprises: a circumferentially extending element (12); and a locking element (24); and further wherein the locking element (24) comprises a bar (38), a bearing element (22) and a nut (46); wherein the bar (38) comprises a first locking end (at 42) which is engaged with the first element end (14) of the circumferentially extending element (12) and a threaded portion (40) adjacent a second locking end (at 38; Fig. 4) of the bar, wherein the bearing element (22) is engaged with the second element end (16) of the circumferentially extending element (12) and configured to allow the bar (38) to extend through at least part of the bearing element (22), wherein the nut (46) is in threaded engagement with the threaded portion (40) of the bar, and wherein the bearing element (22) is between the nut (46) and the first element end (14) of the circumferentially extending element (12), for the purpose of ensuring a firm grip on the actuator arm.
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 device of Ikeda, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the locking element comprises a bar, a bearing element and a nut; wherein the bar comprises a first locking end which is engaged with the first element end of the circumferentially extending element and a threaded portion adjacent a second locking end of the bar, wherein the bearing element is engaged with the second element end of the circumferentially extending element and configured to allow the bar to extend through at least part of the bearing element, wherein the nut is in threaded engagement with the threaded portion of the bar, and wherein the bearing element is between the nut and the first element end of the circumferentially extending element, as taught by Daghe, for the purpose of ensuring a firm grip on the actuator arm.
Re Claim 3: Ikeda, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses an actuator arm lock significantly as claimed except wherein the circumferentially extending element comprises: a circumferentially extending band and one or more portions of a gripping material, the gripping material has a surface of a higher coefficient of friction than the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band, and the portions of gripping material are supported on the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band.
Daghe teaches the use of a lock ring (10) suitable for clamping around an actuator arm (for example, as shown for pipe P; Figs. 2-3), the lock ring comprises: a circumferentially extending element (12); and a locking element (24); and further wherein the circumferentially extending element (12) comprises: a circumferentially extending band (12) and one or more portions of a gripping material (gasket member G), the gripping material (“gasket member G made of resilient or elastomeric material such as rubber”; see Col. 5, lines 31-32) has a surface of a higher coefficient of friction than the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band (12), and the portions of gripping material are supported on the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band, for the purpose of ensuring a firm grip on the actuator arm.
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 device of Ikeda, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the circumferentially extending element comprises: a circumferentially extending band and one or more portions of a gripping material, the gripping material has a surface of a higher coefficient of friction than the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band, and the portions of gripping material are supported on the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band, as taught by Daghe, for the purpose of ensuring a firm grip on the actuator arm.
Re Claim 4: Ikeda, as discussed for claim 1 above, discloses an actuator arm lock significantly as claimed except wherein the circumferentially extending element comprises: a circumferentially extending band and one or more portions of a gripping material, in which the gripping material has a lower resistance to indentation than the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band, and the portions of gripping material are supported on the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band.
Daghe teaches the use of a lock ring (10) suitable for clamping around an actuator arm (for example, as shown for pipe P; Figs. 2-3), the lock ring comprises: a circumferentially extending element (12); and a locking element (24); and further wherein the circumferentially extending element (12) comprises: a circumferentially extending band (12) and one or more portions of a gripping material (gasket member G), the gripping material (“gasket member G made of resilient or elastomeric material such as rubber”; see Col. 5, lines 31-32) the gripping material has a lower resistance to indentation than the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band, and the portions of gripping material are supported on the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band, for the purpose of ensuring a firm grip on the actuator arm.
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 device of Ikeda, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the circumferentially extending element comprises: a circumferentially extending band and one or more portions of a gripping material, in which the gripping material has a lower resistance to indentation than the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band, and the portions of gripping material are supported on the inner surface of the circumferentially extending band, as taught by Daghe, for the purpose of ensuring a firm grip on the actuator arm.
Re Claims 5 and 6: Daghe further teaches, wherein the gripping material (G) is a rubber (“gasket member G made of resilient or elastomeric material such as rubber”; see Col. 5, lines 31-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Ikeda, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the gripping material is a rubber, as taught by Daghe, for the purpose of ensuring a firm grip on the actuator arm.
Re Claim 7: Ikeda further discloses an actuator arm lock, in which the lock ring further comprises one or more first latch elements (for example, bushing 12), and the first latch elements are configured to reversibly enter a latching engagement (via mounting ring 10b) with the actuator body (30).
Re Claim 10: Ikeda further discloses an actuator arm lock, wherein the adaptor arm lock (10) further comprises a latch plate (10b) , in which the latch plate (10) is adapted to be fixed to (at 30a) an actuator body (30) and one or both of (i) the latch plate comprises one or more second latch elements (for example, the fastening members of the mounting ring 10b; not shown; see parag. [0017] of the attached translation), and each second latch element is adapted to reversibly enter a latching engagement with the lock ring, and / or (ii) the latch plate comprises one or more latch means adapted to latch with the first latch elements, and each latch means is adapted to reversibly enter a latching engagement with a first latch element on the lock ring.
Re Claim 15, as best understood by the Examiner: Ikeda, as modified in in view of Daghe for claim 5 above, discloses a method of locking an actuator arm (31) of an actuator (30), the method comprising:
locating an actuator arm lock (10) according to claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above) on the actuator arm (31) with the locking element in the unlocked configuration;
moving the actuator arm (31) to a desired degree of extension out of the actuator body (30);
moving the locking ring along the actuator arm to a position adjacent to and in contact with the actuator body (30; see Fig. 1);
engaging one or both of the first and or second latch elements; and
reconfiguring the locking element (14) into the locked configuration.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP 2002-188666) in view of Daghe (US Patent 4,381,020), as applied to claims 2-7, 10, and 15 above, and further in view of Baldwin (US Patent 3,817,564).
Re Claim 8: Ikeda, as modified in in view of Daghe for claim 7 above, discloses an actuator arm lock significantly as claimed except wherein each first latch element is substantially L shaped.
Baldwin teaches the use of a locking assembly for locking a first element (2) with a second element (3), the locking assembly comprising a lock ring (13) comprising one or more first latch elements (10), and the first latch elements are configured to enter a latching engagement with the second element (3), and further wherein each first latch element (10) is substantially L shaped (see Fig. 4), for the purpose of securely attaching the lock ring with the second element in an adjustable manner.
PNG
media_image3.png
448
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Ikeda, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that each first latch element is substantially L shaped, as taught by Baldwin, for the purpose of securely attaching the lock ring with the actuator body in an adjustable manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (as well as to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 11 set forth above).
Re Claim 11, as best understood by the Examiner: Claim 11, as best understood (depending from claim 10, rather than claim 7), requires that engagement of the first latch elements and/or second latch elements is “achieved by rotating the lock ring around the actuator arm.” None of Ikeda, Daghe, Baldwin, or any other prior art device of record teach or disclose an actuator arm lock that achieves a latching engagement in such a manner. Nor would it have been obvious to modify Ikeda or any other prior art device of record teach in such a manner since there would have been no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. For at least these reasons, claim 11 (as best understood) is considered allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MCMAHON whose telephone number is (571)270-3067. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571) 270-5281. 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.
/MATTHEW R MCMAHON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678