DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 4-13 were previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 03/27/2026. Accordingly, the rejection to the claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2241437 to Worthington in view of US 2565636 to Tinnerman. (NOTE: The limitations of the claims have changed and therefore a rejection is made.)
Regarding claim 1, Worthington discloses:
A tension lock (fig 1) for assembly without tools on two components to be connected to one another, comprising: - a first fastening element (12) for connecting the tension lock to the first component, and - a tension lever (13) for actuating the tension lock, wherein the tension lever is movably connected to at least one of the two fastening elements (fig 2),- wherein the first fastening element is configured to create a positive- locking connection (between 12 and 13) with a cut-out (cutout for 17 and 47) provided in each the component, wherein each fastening element has a locking hook (47) and a mounting block with a spring element, and in that the locking hook and the mounting block (24) with the spring element (25) are arranged on opposite sides and in opposite directions to one another (47 and 25 are on opposite sides).
Worthington does not explicitly disclose:
- a second fastening element for connecting the tension lock to the second component; wherein the first fastening element and the second fastening element are configured to create a positive- locking connection; fixing the fastening elements in their position on two opposite sides of the cutouts respectively.
However, Tinnerman teaches that it is well known in the art a lock assembly to be mounted on both sides, have a first and second fastening elements on opposite sides. This would have a second fastening element for connecting the tension lock to the second component; the second fastening element also configured to create a positive- locking connection; and both fastening elements fixed on two opposite sides of the cutouts. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tinnerman into Worthington at least because doing so would provide additional security by adding a second fastening element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13 are 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.
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 Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights