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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 6, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 has been amended to correct a typographical error. No claims have been canceled or added. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Specification have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 22, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Houde (US 6,888,461 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Houde teaches a theft protection system (see col. 2, lines 7-9) for a device (system 10) comprising: a cable having an inner optical waveguide and first and second ends (fiber loop 24); a locking mechanism (padlock 44) to releasably secure the cable (see col. 3, lines 6-8 describing how fiber loop 24 can be hidden within link 43 of padlock 44) to the device (10) and align the first end of the cable (24 or 43) to a light emitter (light emitter 25) in the device (10) and to align the second end of the cable (24 or 43) to a light detector (light detector 27) in the device (10) such that severing the cable (24 or 43) interrupts light transmission via the optical waveguide between the light emitter and light detector (see col. 2, lines 16-20 and col. 3, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 2, Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Houde further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the locking mechanism (44) includes a locking bolt actuated by a key (see Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 6-12) to lock the locking mechanism (44) to a chassis (casing 31) of the device (10) (when locked, the padlock is attached to the chassis of system 10 via cables 14 and 16 shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Houde further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the waveguide comprises an optical fiber (see col. 1, line 40).
Regarding claim 7, Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Houde further teaches the system of claim 1 and further comprising circuitry (logic detector system 18) coupled to the light detector (27) to detect the presence and absence of light from the light emitter (25) transmitted through the waveguide (24).
Regarding claim 8, Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as stated above. Houde further teaches the system of claim 7 wherein the circuitry (18) is configured to perform operations comprising: receiving a locked status (green LED 21) indicating the locking mechanism (44) is secured to the device; detecting the absence of a signal from the light detector (27); and performing an action in response to detecting the absence of a signal from the light detector (see col. 2, lines 30-39).
Regarding claim 9, Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Houde further teaches the system of claim 8 wherein performing an action in response to detecting the absence of a signal comprises sounding an alarm or transmitting an alarm message (see col. 2, lines 32-35 stating that logic detector system 18 can trigger an audible alarm).
Regarding claim 11, Houde teaches a theft protection system (see col. 2, lines 7-9) for a device (10) comprising: a cable having an inner optical waveguide and first and second ends (24 or 43); a container (casing 31) configured to securely couple to the device (10); a light emitter (25) supported within the container (31); a light detector (27) supported within the container (31); and a locking mechanism (44) to releasably securing the cable (24 or 43) to the container (31) to align the first end of the cable (24 or 43) to the light emitter (25) and to align the second end of the cable (24 or 43) to a light detector (27) such that severing the cable interrupts light transmission via the optical waveguide between the light emitter (25) and light detector (27) causing the light detector (27) to provide an electrical signal representative of the interruption of light transmission (see col. 2, lines 16-20 and col. 3, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 12, Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Houde further teaches the theft protection system of claim 11 wherein the container (31) is configured to couple to an outside of a chassis of the device (10).
Regarding claim 13, Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Houde further teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the locking mechanism (44) includes a locking bolt actuated by a key (see Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 6-12) to lock the locking mechanism (44) to a chassis of the device (10).
Regarding claim 17, Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Houde further teaches the system of claim 11 and further comprising circuitry (18) coupled to receive the electrical signal from the light detector (27) representative of the absence of light from the light emitter (25) transmitted through the waveguide (24), wherein the circuitry (18) is configured to perform operations comprising: receiving a locked status (green LED 21) indicating the locking mechanism (44) is secured to the device; detecting the absence of a signal from the light detector (27); and performing an action in response to detecting the absence of a signal from the light detector (see col. 2, lines 30-39).
Regarding claim 18, Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as stated above. Houde further teaches the system of claim 17 wherein performing an action in response to detecting the absence of a signal comprises sounding an alarm or transmitting an alarm message (see col. 2, lines 32-35 stating that logic detector system 18 can trigger an audible alarm).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houde as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Merrem et al. (US 7,204,106 B2), hereinafter Merrem.
Regarding claim 3, Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Houde fails to teach a pair of latches extending orthogonal to the locking mechanism that are insertable into an opening of the chassis of the device in an unlocked position and latching portions extending laterally from each other and moveable laterally to expand beyond the opening of the chassis of the device to lock the locking mechanism to the chassis of the device.
Merrem teaches a theft protection system for a device that includes a locking bolt (locking flange 210) comprising a pair of latches extending orthogonal to a locking mechanism (locking member 220) that are insertable into an opening of the chassis of the device (security aperture 150) in an unlocked position, and latching portions extending laterally from each other and moveable laterally to expand beyond the opening of the chassis of the device (150) to lock the locking mechanism (220) to the chassis of the device (see col. 5, lines 57-64 stating that locking flange 210 may have multiple legs that slide to transform from a first mode to engage with security aperture 150, to a second mode that is secured to security aperture 150, and then to a third mode to disengage from security aperture 150). Merrem further teaches a cable with an inner optical waveguide connected to the locking mechanism (see col. 5, lines 29-34 stating that localizer 180 may include an optic cable that initiates an alarm).
Houde and Merrem are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Houde to include the above-described features taught by Merrem. Providing a pair of latches that extend orthogonal to the locking mechanism would allow for the locking bolt to easily extend into the chassis. Latching portions extending laterally from each other and moveable laterally that expand beyond the opening of the chassis would allow the locking bolt to fasten to the chassis. Further, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the optical waveguide inside of the latches and couple one latch to the light detector and one latch to the light emitter so that an alarm can be triggered if the latches are severed.
Regarding claim 4, Houde in view of Merrem teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as stated above. Houde in view of Merrem further teaches the system of claim 3 wherein the first and second ends of the cable (Houde: 24 or 43) are coupled to respective ones of the pair of latches and the latches include waveguide portions (see above regarding claim 3) to optically align the waveguide portions with the light emitter (Houde: 25) and light detector (Houde: 27) in the locked position.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houde as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 4,878,045), hereinafter Tanaka.
Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Houde fails to teach that the cable comprises carbon steel strands arranged around the optical waveguide.
Tanaka teaches a theft protection system for a device that includes a cable (locking cable 2) comprising carbon steel strands (reinforcing cords 15; see col. 5, lines 30-32 stating that each of the reinforcing cords comprises a plurality of steel strands) arranged around an optical waveguide (optical fiber 3).
Houde and Tanaka are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious on one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cable taught by Houde to include carbon steel strands arranged around the optical waveguide. Doing so would make the cable more difficult to sever and protect the optical waveguide from damage (see Tanaka col. 5, lines 41-45).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houde as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Busby et al. (US 9,916,744 B2), hereinafter Busby.
Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as stated above. Houde fails to teach that the action in response to detecting the absence of a signal is encrypting data stored on the device or destroying data stored on the device.
Busby teaches a method of tamper detection wherein a sensor is configured to destroy data if tripped (see col. 15, lines 56-60).
Houde and Busby are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the data protection action of destroying data stored on the device in response to detecting the absence of an optical signal. Doing so would ensure that a thief would not be able to access data stored on the device if they got away with the device.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houde as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Merrem.
Regarding claim 14, Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as stated above. Houde fails to teach a pair of latches extending orthogonal to the locking mechanism that are insertable into an opening of the chassis of the device in an unlocked position and latching portions extending laterally from each other and moveable laterally to expand beyond the opening of the chassis of the device to lock the locking mechanism to the chassis of the device.
Merrem teaches a theft protection system for a device that includes a locking bolt (locking flange 210) comprising a pair of latches extending orthogonal to a locking mechanism (locking member 220) that are insertable into an opening of the chassis of the device (security aperture 150) in an unlocked position, and latching portions extending laterally from each other and moveable laterally to expand beyond the opening of the chassis of the device (150) to lock the locking mechanism (220) to the chassis of the device (see col. 5, lines 57-64 stating that locking flange 210 may have multiple legs that slide to transform from a first mode to engage with security aperture 150, to a second mode that is secured to security aperture 150, and then to a third mode to disengage from security aperture 150). Merrem further teaches a cable with an inner optical waveguide connected to the locking mechanism (see col. 5, lines 29-34 stating that localizer 180 may include an optic cable that initiates an alarm).
Houde and Merrem are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Houde to include the above-described features taught by Merrem. Providing a pair of latches that extend orthogonal to the locking mechanism would allow for the locking bolt to easily extend into the chassis. Latching portions extending laterally from each other and moveable laterally that expand beyond the opening of the chassis would allow the locking bolt to fasten to the chassis. Further, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the optical waveguide inside of the latches and couple one latch to the light detector and one latch to the light emitter so that an alarm can be triggered if the latches are severed.
Regarding claim 15, Houde in view of Merrem teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Houde in view of Merrem further teaches the system of claim 14 wherein the first and second ends of the cable (Houde: 24 or 43) are coupled to respective ones of the pair of latches and the latches include waveguide portions (see above regarding claim 14) to optically align the waveguide portions with the light emitter (Houde: 25) and light detector (Houde: 27) in the locked position.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houde as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tanaka.
Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as stated above. Houde further teaches that the waveguide comprises an optical fiber (see col. 1, line 40). Houde fails to teach that the cable comprises carbon steel strands arranged around the optical waveguide.
Tanaka teaches a theft protection system for a device that includes a cable (locking cable 2) comprising carbon steel strands (reinforcing cords 15; see col. 5, lines 30-32 stating that each of the reinforcing cords comprises a plurality of steel strands) arranged around an optical waveguide (optical fiber 3).
Houde and Tanaka are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious on one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cable taught by Houde to include carbon steel strands arranged around the optical waveguide. Doing so would make the cable more difficult to sever and protect the optical waveguide from damage (see Tanaka col. 5, lines 41-45).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houde as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Busby.
Houde teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 as stated above. Houde fails to teach that the action in response to detecting the absence of a signal is encrypting data stored on the device or destroying data stored on the device.
Busby teaches a method of tamper detection wherein a sensor is configured to destroy data if tripped (see col. 15, lines 56-60).
Houde and Busby are considered to be analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the data protection action of destroying data stored on the device in response to detecting the absence of an optical signal. Doing so would ensure that a thief would not be able to access data stored on the device if they got away with the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that Houde fails to disclose the limitation in independent claims 1 and 11 that the light emitter and light detector are “in the device” that is to be protected. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner is interpreting the device as system 10 shown in Fig. 2. A light emitter 25 and a light detector 27 are in the box of system 10 (see Fig. 1; see also col 2, lines 23-42). Although Houde contemplates its security system protecting an external device 101 or 111, the security system disclosed also protects system 10 from theft in the same way. If a thief tries to steal system 10 by severing fiber loop 24, light transmission in the fiber loop between the light emitter and light detector would be interrupted.
Second, Applicant argues that Houde fails to disclose the limitation in claim 2 that the locking mechanism is locked "to a chassis of the device." Examiner respectfully disagrees. Houde discloses the locking mechanism as described in claim 2 including the limitation that a locking bolt "lock[s] the locking mechanism to a chassis of the device." When padlock 44 is locked, it is attached to the chassis of system 10 via cables 14 and 16, and therefore in the opinion of the Examiner, considered to be locked to the chassis of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Pate et al. (US 6,389,853 B2); Mills (US 2012/0144885 A1); Dalaba et al. (US 4,776,188).
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 ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/JERRY WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights