DETAILED ACTION
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 1-18 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.
The claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, in that the scope of invention has not been sufficiently defined, making the boundaries of the scope of claim language unclear. See MPEP 2173. The claims lack sufficient structural and/or functional language required to clearly define the scope of a distinct operable invention. Some examples of this lack of structural and/or functional language are directed to the following:
In claim 1, in the preamble, a “locking mechanism” is set forth, yet the type of locking mechanism and/or what it is intended for locking has not been clarified, making the scope of claim language unclear.
In claim 1, a “locking mechanism” has been set forth, yet no locking function is clearly discernable from the claim language. How does a locking function occur and by what means?
In claim 1, both “one side” and “the other side” appear to lack antecedent basis. One side and the other side of what particular claimed element(s)?
In claim 1, in “a first member… and is rotated about a rotating shaft…”, is this intended to mean that the first member rotates relatively about a shaft or is intended to rotated with the rotating shaft in a relatively fixed manner to the shaft?
In claim 1, the intended structural and/or functional purpose of “and comes into contact with the first member to rotate the first member” is unclear and not fully understood in the context of the claim language.
In claim 1, in “a restriction portion”, it is unclear what the restriction member is intended to be a portion of in the context of the claim language
In claim 1, it is unclear how, in what way, and by what means the restriction portion restricts movement in the manner claimed and for what structural and function purpose, in the context of the claim language.
The same or similar 112 issues as above are found throughout the remainder of claim 1 and throughout the remaining dependent claims.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Ala, US Patent Application Publication 2012/0126552A1. As in claim 1, a locking mechanism comprising a first member (including 11) that is provided on one side to lock and is rotated about a rotating shaft (including 12); a second member (including 6) that is provided on the other side to lock and comes into contact with the first member to rotate the first member; a rotation applying member (at least including 13) that further applies a rotational force to the first member rotated by the second member; a restriction portion is inherent (at least including part of 10, as seen engaging at 29 in the figures) that restricts movement of the first member to be rotated in a direction in which the first member is released from a locked state; and an elastic portion (at least including 28, 29, 30) that allows the first member and the restriction portion to be in elastic contact with each other and allows the first member and the restriction portion to start to be in elastic contact with each other before the first member rotated by the second member is further rotated by the rotation applying member in a release direction which is the direction in which the first member is released from the locked state. As in claim 2, deformation of the elastic portion is increased as the first member is rotated in the release direction.
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 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 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ala.
Regarding these claims, the prior art element performs the function specified in the claim in substantially the same manner as the function is performed by the corresponding element described in the specification, and such structure are considered art recognized equivalent structures and would have functional at least equally as well. It would have been obvious to modify the device in this way for the purpose of providing an alternative arrangement that would have functioned at least equally as well. In addition, (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; (c) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable have each been held as being obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Further, (e) it would be obvious to try such a modification, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success has been held as obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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.
/MARK A WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675