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 Amendments filed September 30, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawing and Specification Objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 14, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant's arguments, pages 20-24, about the teachings of Min, US 20080314100 A1 (hereinafter Min-4100), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2125 I. states “When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art”. Instant Fig 1 depicts the “falling block assembly” to be reference character 15 comprising head 151, rod portion 152, and an unnumbered spring surrounding 152. Min-4100 Fig 6 is essentially instant Fig 1 rotated 180 degrees which depicts a structure comprising the same head and rod portions as instant Fig 1. Given the “falling block assembly” is given minimal structure and functionality in the claims, it is the Examiner’s position that MPEP 2125 supports the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the “falling block assembly” of Min-4100 is structurally identical to the instant invention, not a “subjective interpretation” as argued on page 22 or “grafting functional features” as argued on page 23.
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, 8, 9, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min, US 20080314100 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Min teaches an anti-impact rotating tongue type storage device (anti-impact lock 1; Note: for clarity, reference characters and figures from other embodiments may be used when they perform the same function across the embodiments), comprising:
a box body (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the box body to be the box type storage device upon which the locking mechanism and lock body are mounted as discussed in instant specification [0054]);
a locking mechanism arranged in the box body (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the locking mechanism to be located relative to the rotating tongue similar to where a known in the art strike would be located as the feature discussed on instant speciation pages 6-7 is best understood); and
a lock body that selectively cooperates with or separates from the locking mechanism (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min), wherein
the lock body comprises:
a lock shell (lock shell 14) that remains stationary relative to the locking mechanism in a working state (movement between Fig 1 and Fig 2 depicts 14 remaining stationary relative to the locking mechanism in a working state);
a rotating tongue (keeper 2) that selectively cooperates with or separates from the locking mechanism and rotates relative to the lock shell (movement between Fig 1 and Fig 3 depicts 12 rotating relative to 14 and Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts 2 engaged with the locking mechanism);
a blocking assembly (block bar 20) that selectively blocks or avoids the rotating tongue within a rotation travel of the rotating tongue (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts 20 blocking the rotation of 2; Fig 2 depicts 7, an equivalent of 20, avoiding the rotation of 2);
an actuating assembly (6-x denotes the motor and transmission actuating assembly) that selectively blocks the avoidance of the blocking assembly at a first position within an avoidance travel of the blocking assembly (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts block pin 6-1 blocking 20 at a first position); [0033-0039]); and
a falling block assembly (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the court held features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the falling block in the prior art is structurally identical to the falling block in the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art they would to work the same; the general inventive concept of US 20080314100 A1 is prevention of impact induced movement of the blocking assembly, the embodiment of Figs 2-3 blocks movement of blocking pin 7 downward thereby stopping rotation of 2; it is the Examiner’s best understanding the embodiment of Fig 6 blocks movement of blocking pin 20 rightward thereby stopping the rotation of 2) arranged at a second position different from the first position within the avoidance travel of the blocking assembly (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the falling block at a second position different from the first position), that supplements a blocking function of the actuating assembly when the lock shell is subjected to an impact force (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts 1 at a rest position, an impact force would cause the falling block to move away from 14, where the upper rod shaped portion would obstruct and additionally block rightward movement of 20 thereby supplementing any blocking function as a result of the actuation assembly structure; the falling block assembly would fall back into the rest position afterwards).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min
Regarding claim 8, Min teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type storage device according to claim 1, wherein the actuating assembly comprises: a motor body (motor body 6-9); and a shaft body (shaft 6-2) that selectively blocks the avoidance of the blocking assembly under the driving of the motor body [0033-0039].
Regarding claim 9, Min teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type storage device according to claim 1, wherein the actuating assembly (6-x denotes the motor and transmission actuating assembly) comprises: an electromagnetic field body (motor body 6-9; [0049] discusses 6-9 being an improved upon electromagnetic lock due to the spring accumulator depicted in Fig 5a); and a core body (shaft 6-2) that selectively blocks the avoidance of the blocking assembly under the driving of the electromagnetic field body [0033-0039].
Regarding claim 10, Min teaches an anti-impact rotating tongue type lock body (anti-impact lock 1; Note: for clarity, reference characters and figures from other embodiments may be used when they perform the same function across the embodiments), comprising:
a lock shell (lock shell 14);
a rotating tongue (keeper 2) that rotates relative to the lock shell (movement between Fig 1 and Fig 3 depicts 12 rotating relative to 14);
a blocking assembly (block bar 20) that selectively blocks or avoids the rotating tongue within a rotation travel of the rotating tongue (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts 20 blocking the rotation of 2; Fig 2 depicts 7, an equivalent of 20, avoiding the rotation of 2);
an actuating assembly (6-x denotes the motor and transmission actuating assembly) that selectively blocks the avoidance of the blocking assembly at a first position within an avoidance travel of the blocking assembly (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts block pin 6-1 blocking 20 at a first position); [0033-0039]); and
a falling block assembly (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the court held features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the falling block in the prior art is structurally identical to the falling block in the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art they would work the same; the general inventive concept of US 20080314100 A1 is prevention of impact induced movement of the blocking assembly, the embodiment of Figs 2-3 blocks movement of blocking pin 7 downward thereby stopping rotation of 2; it is the Examiner’s best understanding the embodiment of Fig 6 blocks movement of blocking pin 20 rightward thereby stopping the rotation of 2) arranged at a second position different from the first position within the avoidance travel of the blocking assembly (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the falling block at a second position different from the first position), that supplements a blocking function of the actuating assembly when the lock shell is subjected to an impact force (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts 1 at a rest position, an impact force would cause the falling block to move away from 14, where the upper rod shaped portion would obstruct and additionally block rightward movement of 20 thereby supplementing any blocking function as a result of the actuation assembly structure; the falling block assembly would fall back into the rest position afterwards).
Regarding claim 17, Min teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type lock body according to claim 10, wherein the actuating assembly (motor body 6-9) comprises: a motor body (motor body 6-9); and a shaft body (shaft 6-2) that selectively blocks the avoidance of the blocking assembly under the driving of the motor body [0033-0039].
Regarding claim 18, Min teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type lock body according to claim 10, wherein the actuating assembly (6-x denotes the motor and transmission actuating assembly) comprises: an electromagnetic field body (motor body 6-9; [0049] discusses 6-9 being an improved upon electromagnetic lock due to the spring accumulator depicted in Fig 5a); and a core body (shaft 6-2) that selectively blocks the avoidance of the blocking assembly under the driving of the electromagnetic field body [0033-0039].
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min, US 20080314100 A1, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Min, US 20080073916 A1 (hereinafter Min-3916).
Regarding claim 2, Min teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type storage device according to claim 1, wherein the falling block assembly (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min) comprises a head (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min), a rod portion extending from the head (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min).
Min depicts in Fig 6 but is silent on what appears to be a redesigned support column 9 with a head, rod, and reset member that surrounds the rod portion and presses against the head.
Min-3916 teaches an electromagnetic lock with strong anti-impact ability comprising a reset member (spring 11) that surrounds the rod portion and presses against the head (Fig 1 depicts supporting block 10 comprising a head, a rod portion extending from the head, and a reset member that surrounds the rod portion and presses against the head)
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(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 (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale C, to modify Min with Min-3916. The prior art contains a “base” device, the lock apparatus of Min, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” and a “comparable” device, the lock apparatus of Min-3916, that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a reset spring in order to improve lock apparatus efficacy by designing in reset and return spring thereby adding a multiple use functionality and multiple installation orientation capability. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” in the same way to the “base” device with a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable, namely a lock apparatus with multiple orientation capability with a block assembly with reset capability.
Regarding claim 3, Min in view of Min-3916 teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type storage device according to claim 2, wherein the blocking assembly (20) has an end surface facing the rod portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min); the end surface is inclined relative to the rod portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the end surface inclined relative to the rod portion); and when the head moves towards the blocking assembly, a distance between the rod portion and the end surface is reduced (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the apparatus such that when head moves towards 20, the distance between the head and the end surface would reduce).
Regarding claim 4, Min in view of Min-3916 teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type storage device according to claim 2, wherein the falling block assembly (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min) is distributed on a first side of the blocking assembly (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the falling block assembly distributed on a first side of the blocking assembly); and the actuating assembly (6-x denotes the motor and transmission actuating assembly) is distributed on an opposite side, opposite to the first side, of the blocking assembly (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the falling block assembly on an opposite side from the actuating assembly).
Regarding claim 5, Min in view of Min-3916 teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type storage device according to claim 2, wherein an angle from the rod portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min) to the blocking assembly (20) is greater than 90 degrees (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the angle from the rod portion to 20 to be greater than 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 6, Min in view of Min-3916 teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type storage device according to claim 2, wherein a side of the rotating tongue (2) is buckled inwards in an arc shape to form a hook portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min); an arc-shaped groove is formed on a side of the hook portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts an arc shaped groove formed on a side of the hook portion), and the hook portion is provided with an opposite side, opposite to the arc-shaped groove, to form an unloading surface facing the blocking assembly (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts an unloading surface facing 20 formed on the opposite side from the arc shaped groove); and the blocking assembly is provided with a lap surface corresponding to the unloading surface (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min).
Regarding claim 7, Min in view of Min-3916 teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type storage device according to claim 2, wherein the lock body (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min) further comprises a compression assembly (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min); the blocking assembly (20) is provided with a sliding groove (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min); and the compression assembly presses against the sliding groove (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the compression assembly pressing against the sliding groove).
Regarding claim 11, Min teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type lock body according to claim 10, wherein the falling block assembly (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min) comprises a head (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min), a rod portion extending from the head (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min).
Min depicts in Fig 6 but is silent on what appears to be a redesigned support column 9 with a head, rod, and reset member that surrounds the rod portion and presses against the head.
Min-3916 teaches an electromagnetic lock with strong anti-impact ability comprising a reset member (spring 11) that surrounds the rod portion and presses against the head (Fig 1 depicts supporting block 10 comprising a head, a rod portion extending from the head, and a reset member that surrounds the rod portion and presses against the head).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale C, to modify Min with Min-3916. The prior art contains a “base” device, the lock apparatus of Min, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” and a “comparable” device, the lock apparatus of Min-3916, that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a reset spring in order to improve lock apparatus efficacy by designing in reset and return spring thereby adding a multiple use functionality and multiple installation orientation capability. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” in the same way to the “base” device with a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable namely a lock apparatus with multiple orientation capability with a block assembly with reset capability.
Regarding claim 12, Min in view of Min-3916 teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type lock body according to claim 11, wherein the blocking assembly (20) has an end surface facing the rod portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min); the end surface is inclined relative to the rod portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the end surface inclined relative to the rod portion); and when the head moves towards the blocking assembly, a distance between the rod portion and the end surface is reduced (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the apparatus such that when head moves towards 20, the distance between the head and the end surface would reduce).
Regarding claim 13, Min in view of Min-3916 teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type lock body according to claim 11, wherein the falling block assembly (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min) is distributed on a first side of the blocking assembly (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the falling block assembly distributed on a first side of the blocking assembly); and the actuating assembly (6-x denotes the motor and transmission actuating assembly) is distributed on an opposite side, opposite to the first side, of the blocking assembly (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the falling block assembly on an opposite side from the actuating assembly).
Regarding claim 14, Min in view of Min-3916 teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type lock body according to claim 11, wherein an angle from the rod portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min) to the blocking assembly (20) is greater than 90 degrees (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the angle from the rod portion to 20 to be greater than 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 15, Min in view of Min-3916 teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type lock body according to claim 11, wherein a side of the rotating tongue (2) is buckled inwards in an arc shape to form a hook portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min); an arc-shaped groove is formed on a side of the hook portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts an arc shaped groove formed on a side of the hook portion), and the hook portion is provided with an opposite side, opposite to the arc-shaped groove, to form an unloading surface facing the blocking assembly (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts an unloading surface facing 20 formed on the opposite side from the arc shaped groove); and the blocking assembly is provided with a lap surface corresponding to the unloading surface (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min).
Regarding claim 16, Min in view of Min-3916 teaches the anti-impact rotating tongue type lock body according to claim 11, wherein the lock body (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min) further comprises a compression assembly (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min); the blocking assembly (20) is provided with a sliding groove (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min); and the compression assembly presses against the sliding groove (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Min depicts the compression assembly pressing against the sliding groove).
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 STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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 on (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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675