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 February 24, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Pat No 4,858,969 to Lee.
PNG
media_image1.png
627
992
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an apparatus that comprises a housing (1); a cover (2) that is opened and closed on the housing; a detection part (8) that is configured to detect opening and closing of the cover using ON and OFF; a rotating part (5) that is rotatably supported and turns on and off the detection part; a pushing portion (front portion of element 3, see above for example) that comes into contact with the rotating part to rotate the rotating part in a case where the cover is closed; and a rotation applying part (12) that applies a rotational force to the rotating part rotated by the pushing portion in a direction in which the detection part is turned on in a case where the cover is closed.
As shown above, Lee illustrates that in a case where the rotating part turns on the detection part, the pushing portion is not in contact with the rotating part.
As to claim 2, Lee discloses that a cumulative tolerance between the rotating part, the detection part, and the rotation applying part is configured to be smaller than a cumulative tolerance between the pushing portion and the rotating part.
As to claim 3, Lee discloses that the detection part, the rotating part, and the rotation applying part are provided in the housing and the pushing portion is provided on the cover.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US Pat No 4,745,250 to Mayo.
PNG
media_image2.png
645
1460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Mayo discloses an apparatus that comprises a housing (92); a cover (96) that is opened and closed on the housing; a detection part (26a,b) that is configured to detect opening and closing of the cover using ON and OFF; a rotating part (34) that is rotatably supported and turns on and off the detection part; a pushing portion (front surface of 19, as shown above for example) that comes into contact with the rotating part to rotate the rotating part in a case where the cover is closed (from fig 1 to fig 3); and a rotation applying part (42) that applies a rotational force to the rotating part rotated by the pushing portion in a direction in which the detection part is turned on in a case where the cover is closed.
PNG
media_image3.png
415
988
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As shown above, Mayo illustrates that in a case where the rotating part turns on the detection part, the pushing portion is not in contact with the rotating part.
As to claim 2, Mayo discloses that a cumulative tolerance between the rotating part, the detection part, and the rotation applying part is configured to be smaller than a cumulative tolerance between the pushing portion and the rotating part.
As to claim 3, Mayo discloses that the detection part, the rotating part, and the rotation applying part are provided in the housing and the pushing portion is provided on the cover.
As to claim 4, Mayo discloses that the rotation applying part is an elastic body (42) that extends in a longitudinal direction and one end of the elastic body is connected to the rotating part (at 80), the rotating part is rotated about a rotating shaft (62), and the detection part, the rotating shaft, and the other end of the elastic body are held by an identical member (12).
As to claim 5, Mayo discloses that the rotating part includes a push-down portion (82, 84, 86) that is provided at one end of the rotating part and pushes down the detection part and a receiving portion (by 118) that is provided at the other end of the rotating part and receives a pushing force from the pushing portion.
As to claim 6, Mayo discloses that the receiving portion is moved in a direction intersecting a direction in which the pushing portion is moved, and retreats in a case where the rotation applying part applies the rotational force to the rotating part.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat No 4,745,250 to Mayo in view of US Pat No 4,858,969 to Lee.
Mayo fails to disclose that the detection part includes a push button that is turned on by being pushed down and an operation arm that is elastically deformed to push the push button. Mayo discloses that the detection part includes a push button (104).
Lee teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a detection part (8) that includes a push button and an operating arm (8a).
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 detection part described by Mayo with an operating arm, as taught by Lee, in order to provide a surface closer to the rotating arm to activate the detection part.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the drawing objection and the 112 2nd paragraph rejection, the current amendment to the drawings overcomes the previous issues.
With respect to the prior art rejection in view of Collins, the current amendment overcomes the rejection.
With respect to the prior art rejection in view of Mayo or Lee, the rejection is maintained. With the current interpretation, Mayo and Lee both shows that in a case where the rotating part turns on the detection part, the pushing portion is not in contact with the rotating part.
The current claim just requires a pushing portion, and both shows a pushing portion that is not in contact with the rotating part.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Until the invention is clearly defined, the current interpretation by the examiner is maintained.
Prosecution has been closed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
March 16, 2026