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 .
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 7/14/25.
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) 1-3 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 8,627,971 to Lancaster et al (Lancaster) in view of US Pat No 10,836,569 to Kalitta et al (Kalitta).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lancaster discloses a container (15) having a door (16) which swings to a closed position to prevent access to the container and a locking bar (10) for the container door. The container comprises a bottom portion.
The locking bar comprises a base (11) with a top surface, a blocking part (13) extending from the top surface of the base and a protrusion (12) extending at a location spaced from the blocking part.
The blocking part is located to prevent movement of the container door from the closed position when the container is situated over the top surface.
Wherein, the weight of the container and the protrusion prevent the locking bar from being removed from under the container when the container door is situated over the top surface of the locking bar base.
Lancaster fails to disclose that the protrusion extends from the top surface in a direction parallel to the blocking part, such that the container bottom can be received between the blocking part and the protrusion. Lancaster discloses protrusions that extend from a side of the base, not from the top surface of the base. These protrusions are used to engage a side of a under structure on the container to fix the device in place.
PNG
media_image2.png
564
1286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kalitta teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a locking member (59a, 59b) that comprises a base (252) that includes a blocking part (260) configured to be in contact with a surface (24) of a container (20) and extending from a top surface of the base and a protrusion (262) also extending from the top surface and parallel to the blocking part.
The bottom of the container can be received between the blocking part and the protrusion such that the weight of the container and the protrusion prevent the locking element from being removed from under the container when the container is situated over the top surface of the base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the locking bar described by Lancaster with a protrusion, as taught by Kalitta, in order to aid in fixing the locking bar in place.
As to claim 2, Lancaster illustrates that the blocking part extends from the base in a direction substantially perpendicular to the base.
As to claim 3, Lancaster illustrates that the base has an end and wherein the blocking part extends from the base proximate the end.
As to claim 22, the container illustrated by Lancaster is capable of being loaded on a railroad car.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 8,627,971 to Lancaster et al (Lancaster) in view of US Pat No 10,836,569 to Kalitta et al (Kalitta) and further in view of GB 2299826 to Barber.
Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta, fails to disclose that the blocking part and the base are two separate elements fastened together by means of welding process. Lancaster shows a one-piece member.
PNG
media_image3.png
465
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Barber teaches that it is well known in the art to manufacture a locking bar that comprises a base (27) and a blocking part (29) as two separate elements fastened together by a welding process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the locking bar described by Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta, as two elements fastened together by a welding process, as taught by Barber, since separate elements fastened together, in place of a one-piece construction, is a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 8,627,971 to Lancaster et al (Lancaster) in view of US Pat No 10,836,569 to Kalitta et al (Kalitta) and further in view of EP 2853317 to Okulla, DE 102015015388 to Tekkaya et al (Tekkaya) and GB 2537682 to Brise.
Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta, fails to disclose that the base or the blocking part is composed of a plurality of layers of different metals like stainless steel.
As to claims 5 and 8, Okulla teaches that it is well known in the art to manufacture a locking element (1) composed of a plurality of metal layers (2-5) to provide extra strength to the element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the base or the blocking part described by Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta, with a plurality of metal layer, as taught by Okulla, in order to provide more strength to the members.
PNG
media_image4.png
407
978
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claims 6 and 9, Tekkaya teaches that it is well known in the art to manufacture a metal body composed of spaced metal layers (1-3), wherein the middle layer is composed of a harder or stronger metal (2) surrounded by lighter metal layers (1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the metal body with a stronger core surrounded by lighter layers, as taught by Tekkaya, in order to allow the use of other metal while maintaining the concept of providing extra strength of the metal member.
Finally, as to claims 7 and 10, Brise teaches that it is well known in the art to use stainless steel as a manufacture material for a metal member composed of a plurality of metal layers stacked together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stainless steel as a manufacture material, as taught by Brise, since the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the level of skill of one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 11-17, 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 8,627,971 to Lancaster et al (Lancaster) in view of US Pat No 10,836,569 to Kalitta et al (Kalitta) and further in view of US Pat No 8,955,891 to Millsap.
As to claims 11-17, Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta, fails to disclose that the blocking part or the base comprises magnets.
PNG
media_image5.png
816
1240
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Millsap teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a locking element that prevents opening of a door, with magnets (24) at different surfaces, so as to aid in securing the locking element with respect to the structure where is used (door and door frame).
The magnets are recessed on the respective layer (32, col 5 line 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the locking bar described by Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta, with magnets, as taught by Millsap, in order to aid in securing the locking bar with the container.
As to claims 26 and 27, Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta and Millsap, will teach the method as claimed.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 8,627,971 to Lancaster et al (Lancaster) in view of US Pat No 10,836,569 to Kalitta et al (Kalitta) and further in view of US Pat No 5,388,876 to Saincome, US Pat No 5,462,321 to Osborn and GB 2299826 to Barber.
Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta, fails to disclose that the use of a cushion on the base (claim 18) or a cushion on a metal layer (claim 19).
PNG
media_image6.png
610
913
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Saincome teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a locking member (10) to prevent opening of a door, with a cushion pad (50) for protecting the surface where the locking member is attached to the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the locking bar described by Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta, with a cushion, as taught by Saincome, in order to provide a cushion effect between the locking member when in use or to provide protection to the area where the locking member is secured.
PNG
media_image7.png
637
1098
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Osborn teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a cushion pad (11) on a metal pad to be attached to a member (14) of a locking device (1).
Barber teaches that it is well known in the art to use a welding process to attach two parts together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the locking bar described by Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta, with a cushion attached to a metal pad, as taught by Osborn, and weld it to the locking member, as taught by Barber, in order to provide the cushion on a rigid surface mounted to the locking member.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 8,627,971 to Lancaster et al (Lancaster) in view of US Pat No 10,836,569 to Kalitta et al (Kalitta) and further in view of US Pat No 2,461,767 to Peyton and US Pat No 6,364,584 to Taylor.
Lancaster discloses that the base defines a bottom surface. However, Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta, fails to disclose that the locking bar has another protrusion extending from the bottom surface at a location spaced from the blocking part.
PNG
media_image8.png
334
369
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Peyton teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a brace (10) for use on stabilizing containers, where it comprises a base (13) defining a surface and a front surface (11) extending from the surface. Also, the device comprises a protrusion (14) that extends from the surface at a location spaced from the front surface, so as to either drive into the floor or a wall of a car, to secure the device in place.
PNG
media_image9.png
689
1395
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Taylor teaches that it is well known in the art to provide top and bottom protrusions (31) to secure a locking bar (10) between a container and a trailer (34) or between two containers (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the locking bar described by Lancaster, as modified by Kalitta, with another protrusion extending from the bottom surface, as taught by Peyton and Taylor, in order to fix the locking bar to another structure below the container, being a floor or other container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that there is no motivation for modified the device described by Lancaster with the teachings of Kalitta.
As mentioned above, Lancaster discloses that a container bottom can be received between the blocking part and the protrusion.
Kalitta teaches that a container bottom can be received between the blocking part and the protrusion such that the weight of the container and the protrusion prevent the locking element from being removed from under the container when the container is situated over the top surface of the base.
Providing the teachings of Kalitta, of having the protrusion extending from the top surface and parallel to the blocking part, into the device described by Lancaster will not change or affect the function or use of the device described by Lancaster, having a portion of the bottom between the protrusion and the blocking part.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Since the examiner will not change this position, in order to expedite prosecution, applicant can file an appeal brief as his next response to allow the Board of Appeals to decide.
Prosecution has been closed.
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 CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
November 6, 2025