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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “208” has been used to designate both the slider lock (as shown in Fig. 2D of Applicant’s drawings) and the enclosure cap (as shown in Fig. 4B of Applicant’s drawings). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guth (DE 102015113243).
With respect to claim 1, Guth discloses a side-lock subassembly, including:
a base 1 defining a cavity and including an opening that extends through a first side and an opposing second side of the base (at location of bolt 2 as shown in Figs. 1-2 of Guth);
a slider lock 2 configured to extend out the opening of the first side in a first direction in an engaged position (as shown in Fig. 1 of Guth) and out the second side in a second direction in a retracted position (as shown in Fig. 2 of Guth), the second direction being 180 degrees from the first direction; and
a motor 4 (see bottom of pg. 4 of the machine translation of Guth) configured to move the slider lock in the first direction and in the second direction, the motor disposed within the cavity (see bottom of pg. 2 of the machine translation of Guth; Figs. 1-2).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (CN 201273086) in view of Zhang (CN 113685089).
With respect to claim 1, Ding discloses the claimed side-lock subassembly except that he is silent on whether the bse defines a cavity. Ding discloses a side-lock subassembly, including:
a base 12/7 including an opening that extends through a first side and an opposing second side of the base (at ends of guide rail 7 as shown in Fig. 1 of Ding);
a slider lock 8 configured to extend out the opening of the first side in a first direction in an engaged position (as shown in Fig. 1 of Ding) and out the second side in a second direction in a retracted position (as shown in Fig. 1 of Ding), the second direction being 180 degrees from the first direction; and
a motor 1 configured to move the slider lock 8 in the first direction and in the second direction, the motor 1 disposed within on the base 12 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Ding).
Zhang teaches a similar side-lock subassembly including a base 2 defining a cavity (as shown in Fig. 1 of Zhang). wherein a motor 3 configured to move a slider lock 5, is disposed in the cavity (see bottom of pg. 4 of the machine translation of Zhang).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Zhang with the side-lock assembly disclosed by Ding for the advantage of the housing 1/2 for protecting the components of the locking mechanism. .
With respect to claim 2, Ding discloses a worm 3 coupled to the motor 1; a rack 6; and a worm gear 4/5 coupled to the base 12, the worm gear 4/5 coupled to the worm 3 and the rack 6 and configured to translate a rotational motion of the worm to a linear motion of the slider lock (as shown in Fig. 1 of Ding). Zhang further teaches a cavity extending into a planar face of a slider lock 5 as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 3 of Zhang:
[AltContent: textbox (rack)]
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (cavity)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
241
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Ding discloses a coupler shaft having a first end and a second end, the first end coupled to the motor and the second end coupled to the worm as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 1 of Ding:
[AltContent: textbox (dowel pin)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (2nd end of coupler shaft)][AltContent: textbox (1st end of coupler shaft)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
299
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a dowel pin extending through the worm gear 4/5 and securing the worm gear to the base 12 (as shown above).
With respect to claim 7, Ding discloses that the slider lock 8 moves in the first direction in response to the motor 1 turning in a clockwise direction and the slider lock moves 8 in the second direction in response to the motor 1 turning in a fourth counterclockwise direction (as can be determined from the gearing structure shown in Fig. 1 of Ding).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (CN 201273086) in view of Zhang (CN 113685089), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tan et al. (CN 115680385).
With respect to claim 5, Ding in view of Zhang discloses the claimed side-lock subassembly except that they are silent on the inclusion of a screw securing the rack to the slider lock. However, Tan et al. teach a similar lock subassembly including a rack gear 62 and a sliding element 63/41 that are secured to one another by a screw (see bottom of pg. 4 and top of pg. 5 of the machine translation of Tan et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Tan et al. with the side-lock subassembly of Ding in view of Zhang because it would have been obvious to try. One of ordinary skill in the art would simply have to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for connecting the rack to the slider lock including using a screw, a bolt, welding, unitarily forming, and adhesive. One or ordinary could expect a reasonable expectation of success of using any of these method for combining the rack to the slider lock.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (CN 201273086) in view of Zhang (CN 113685089), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shoenfeld (US 2014/0167574).
With respect to claim 6, Ding in view of Zhang discloses the claimed side-lock subassembly except for the proximity sensor. However, Shoenfeld teach a similar side-lock subassembly including a rack 62 and a slider lock 60 (as shown in Fig. 10 of Shoenfeld). Shoenfeld further teach a proximity sensor 42 coupled to a base 14 and pointing in the first direction (Shoenfeld, Fig. 6A, paragraphs [0053] and [0022]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Shoenfeld with the side-lock subassembly disclosed by Ding in view of Zhang for the advantage of automatically locking the side-lock subassembly without requiring any user intervention.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 20120084251) in view of Jensen (US 5,000,635).
With respect to claim 8, Han discloses the claimed cargo handling system except for the rail. Han discloses a cargo handling system, including:
a side-lock subassembly 10, the side-lock subassembly 10 including:
a base defining a cavity and including an opening that extends through the base as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 13 of Han:
[AltContent: textbox (opening)][AltContent: textbox (cavity)][AltContent: textbox (base)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
263
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a slider lock 16 fixedly coupled to a rack 16a and configured to extend out from the opening of the base in a first direction (as shown in Fig. 14 of Han).;
a motor 17 configured to engage the rack 16a to move the slider lock 16 in the first direction and in a second direction that is 180 degrees opposite the first direction, the motor 17 deposed within the cavity (see bottom of pg. 5 and top of pg. 6 of the machine translation of Han; Figs. 13-14).
Jensen et al. teach a similar cargo handling system including a rail 14 and a slider lock 22. It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Jensen et al. with the cargo handling system disclosed by Han for the advantage of the rail which facilitates mounting and aligning of multiple side-lock assemblies for locking one or more containers.
With respect to claim 14, Han teaches that the slider lock 16 moves in the first direction in response to the motor 17 turning in a clockwise direction (as can be seen in Figs. 13-14 of Han) and the slider lock 16 moves in the second direction in response to the motor running in a counterclockwise direction (as can be seen in Figs. 13-14 of Han).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 20120084251) in view of Jensen (US 5,000,635), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shoenfeld (US 2014/0167574).
With respect to claim 13, Han in view of Jensen et al. disclose the claimed cargo handling system except for the proximity sensor. However, Shoenfeld teach a similar lock subassembly including a rack 62 and a slider lock 60 (as shown in Fig. 10 of Shoenfeld). Shoenfeld further teach a proximity sensor 42 coupled to a base 14 and pointing in the first direction (Shoenfeld, Fig. 6A, paragraphs [0053] and [0022]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Shoenfeld with the cargo handling system disclosed by Han in view of Jensen et al. for the advantage of automatically locking the side-lock subassembly without requiring any user intervention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the enclosure cap coupled to the base and enclosing the cavity, the enclosure cap including a second opening, wherein the second end of the coupler shaft extends through the second opening.
Claims 9-12 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the worm coupled to the motor; and the worm gear coupled to the base, the worm gear coupled to the worm and the rack.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 13-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the examiner has found new references to Ding, Zhang, and Han as applied above.
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 DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights