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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 18, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “of its” on line 13 appears to be awkward and confusing. Appropriate correction is 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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites "at least two immobilization devices" (lines 6-7) associated with immobilization devices. The plural inclusion of "the other immobilization device" could lead to confusion as to whether subsequent recitations of "the immobilization device" are one and the same. Differentiation of the elements (e.g., a "first immobilization device", a "second immobilization device", etc.) would further enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 2 has the same defect.
Claim 3 is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 3 has the same defect.
Claim 4 is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 4 has the same defect.
Claim 5 is dependent from claim 4, which is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 5 has the same defect.
Claim 6 is dependent from claim 4, which is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 6 has the same defect.
Claim 7 is dependent from claim 5, which is dependent from claim 4, which is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 7 has the same defect.
Claim 8 is dependent from claim 4, which is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 8 has the same defect.
Claim 9 is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 9 has the same defect.
Claim 10 is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 10 has the same defect.
Claim 11 is dependent from claim 10, which is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 11 has the same defect.
Claim 12 is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 12 has the same defect.
Claim 13 is dependent from claim 12, which is dependent from claim 1, which has a 112 2nd paragraph issue. Therefore, claim 13 has the same defect.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the emergency actuator comprises at least a manual control, an electric motor, a jack or a pyrotechnic device." in lines 2-3. However, applicant has not written in the Markush claim format to properly limit the metes and bounds of the limitation— see MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2513646 A.
As to claim 1, GB 2513646 A discloses a double-locking hooking system, as illustrated in Figures 1-8B, comprising a structure (22), a hook (30) that is able to move in relation to the structure between a closed position (see Figure 4) and an open position (see Figure 6), and an immobilization system for immobilizing the hook in the closed position, the immobilization system comprising at least two immobilization devices (50,60), each immobilization device comprising at least one movable stop (52,65), the stops being in contact with the hook when the hook is in the closed position (see Figure 4 and page 9, lines 11-20), each immobilization device immobilizing the hook in the closed position (see Figure 4), by means of its at least one stop, independently of a second immobilization device, wherein each immobilization device comprises an actuator (63) (see page 9, lines 18-20 and page 10, lines 2-5) controlling the movement of at least one stop.
With claim 2, the stops are in contact with the hook separately for each immobilization device when the hook is in the closed position.
With claim 10, at least one of the immobilization devices comprises two stops (52,55) (Second latch arm 55, which is fixed to and rotates with first latch arm 52, extends from pivot point 51 and ends at a roller 56 – see page 9, lines 5-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tollenaere’976, Dietz, Hatfield, Hainsworth, and Tollenaere’658 are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses a double-locking hooking system comprising a structure and a hook.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/STEPHEN A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights