DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on February 20, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 11-16, 18-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-10 and 17 are examined; Claim 17 is a linking claim.
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-10 and 17) in the reply filed on 02/20/202 is acknowledged.
Applicant traverses on the grounds:
PNG
media_image1.png
271
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because restriction was not made “between the species” and search an examination burden has been established pursuant to MPEP § 808.02 (Examiner respectfully points to the established burden in the prior action at page 3). Examiner notes that Applicant’s quoted section of the MPEP is not applicable because as set forth in the prior action, Inventions I, II and III each require a different field of search. Specifically, each invention requires a different search strategy, including employing different search terms and queries to cover the distinct features of the inventions as noted in the prior action. Applicant’s argument implying that a same classification necessarily indicates there is no serious burden is in conflict with MPEP 808.02 (C), which is clear that where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. Additionally, the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to the other species. Applying additional reference material and/or providing further discussion of each additional species examined, including prior art and non-prior art issues, would present a serious examination burden (pages 5-6 of the prior action).
Applicant further traverses on the additional grounds:
PNG
media_image2.png
262
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because serious burden was established pursuant to MPEP 808.02 in the prior action. The distinct inventions each necessitate a different field of search as previously set forth (see prior action page 3). In this case, it is necessary to employ different search queries and search strategies to cover the differences between the distinct aspects of the patentably distinct inventions, as discussed at pages 2-3 of the prior action. It is necessary to search for the elected invention in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other inventions. For example, non-elected invention II would require additional searches to cover the input device and computing system and non-elected Invention III would require additional searches to cover a brace defining a first and a second strike plate portion, an anchor portion that a position plate is coupled to.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 6-8 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to Claim 6, the recitation of “ a second boom question” is not clear whether it: (i) refers to the aforementioned second boom section (claim 1, line 4); or (ii) introduces an additional “second boom section”.
As to Claim 7, it is not clear if “the second boom section” refers to: (i) the second boom set forth in Claim 1 at line 4; and/or the second boom section set forth in Claim 6 at line 4.
Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected definite claim 6.
As to Claim 17, the recitation of “ a second boom question” is not clear whether it: (i) refers to the aforementioned second boom section (claim 1, line 4); or (ii) introduces an additional “second boom section”.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Interpretation
The term “coupled” is construed in keeping with Applicant’s disclosure at paragraphs ¶0022, encompassing direct and indirect coupling through intermediate elements (¶0020).
The term “operably coupled” is construed in keeping with Applicant’s disclosure at paragraphs ¶¶0022-0023. The term therefore encompasses a relationship/interaction between elements that are associated such that some functionality is achieved, including physical and nonphysical relationships/interactions (¶0023).
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-20020109016-A1
“GUESDON”
US-4595140-A
“HARDEN”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
[continued on next page]
Claims 1-2, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GUESDON.
Re Claim 1, GUESDON teaches a system for a boom assembly 1 comprising:
a first strike plate 14 operably coupled with a first boom section 3, the first strike plate rotatable between a first position (position in which pin 8 is not in contact with plate 14; e.g., see Figure 3) and a second position (position in which pin 8 is in contact with plate 14; e.g., see Figure 2) (¶¶0021-0022);
a first catch [bracket end and corresponding pin 8] (See Image 1 Below) operably coupled with a second boom section 2,
wherein the first strike plate is free of the first catch when the first strike plate is in the first position to define an unlocked position (See e.g., Figure 3; ¶¶0017-0018, first position is one in which holding device 12 exerts no force on end section 2 thereby forming a unlocked position) and
the first strike plate interacts with the first catch when the first strike plate is in the second position to define a locked position (See e.g., Figure 2; ¶¶0017-0018, 0020, position in which holding device 12 locks end section 2 into position until a triggering threshold is exceeded), and
wherein the first boom section and the second boom section are movable relative to one another (See Figure 2 & 3; ¶¶0013, 0015); and
a brace 6 operably coupled with the first boom section and the first strike plate (¶¶0014, 0019).
PNG
media_image4.png
1033
924
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, GUESDON teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a latch actuator [annotated in Image 2] (coil of spring 17, see Image 2 Below) operably coupled with the first strike plate and configured to rotate the first strike plate between the first position and the second position (spring tension of the latch actuator closes strike plate 14 about articulation 16, against pin 8 in Figure 2 and against the guide rail in Figure 3; ¶¶0019, 0022).
PNG
media_image5.png
1910
1150
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 10, GUESDON teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising:
a guide pin 8 (pin 8 forming part of the first catch) positioned through a channel [annotated in Image 3 below] defined by the first strike plate and into a guide opening 10 of the brace (See location in Figure 2) to guide the first strike plate as the first strike plate is moved between the first position and the second position (¶0023, claim 8 and ¶0018).
.
PNG
media_image6.png
736
1137
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 17, GUESDON teaches the system for a boom assembly 1 comprising:
a first strike plate 13 operably coupled with a first boom section 3, the first strike plate rotatable between a first position [unhooked position where pin 7 has been released, non-illustrated] and a second position [Figure 2 position] (rotated positions about articulation 15; ¶¶0017-0018, 0020-0021);
a first catch [end bracket and corresponding pin 7] operably coupled with a second boom section 2, the first strike plate configured to interact with the first catch when the first strike plate is in the second position (Figure 2 position);
a second strike plate 14 operably coupled with the first boom section, the second strike plate rotatable between a first position [Figure 3 position] and a second position [Figure 2 position] (rotated positions about articulation 16; ¶¶0017-0018, 0020-0021); and
a second catch [end bracket and corresponding pin 8] operably coupled with a second boom section 2, the second strike plate configured to interact with the second catch when the second strike plate is in the second position (Figure 2 position).
PNG
media_image7.png
673
930
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUESDON in view of HARDEN.
Re Claim 3, GUESDON teaches the system of claim 2, further comprising: a link assembly [assembly including elements annotated “LINK B” and “HOOK B” in Image 2] (assembly of elements for linking coil portion of spring 17 to 14 and providing spring tension) operably coupled with the latch actuator and the first strike plate (Image 2). GUESDON further notes that spring tension for the latches 13, 14 may be provided in the form of two respective springs rather than a single spring connected to both latches (¶0026), which suggests to those of ordinary skill each respective spring would have one end connected to the respective latch recesses 19 of its jaw 13/14 and one end connected to brace 6 rather than the other jaw (See Fig. 2 and ¶0026). However, GUESDON fails to teach the link assembly including a position plate rotatably coupled with an anchor portion of the brace.
HARDEN teaches a link assembly (assembly of elements for linking coil portion of spring 54 to corresponding structure) including a position plate 58 rotatably coupled (about 60) with an anchor portion 60 provided on a brace 18 to which the spring is coupled, such that spring tension is provided (Figure 1-2, 6-7; 4:5-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide boom 1 of GUESDON such that the first strike plate 14 is attached via an individual spring and corresponding link assembly to the brace 6, wherein the link assembly takes the form, at one end, of a position plate (coupler bar) rotatably coupled with an anchor portion (protrusion) provided on the brace in the manner taught by HARDEN, in order to provide a separately adjustable spring tension for the first strike plate, i.e., adjustable without impacting spring tension of strike plate 13 (GUESDON Fig. 2, ¶0026). Specifically, referring to Image 2 below, by connecting “HOOK A” and “LINK A” portions annotated in Image 2 to brace 6 via further link assembly elements including a position plate rotatably coupled with an anchor portion provided on the brace 6 [in the manner by HARDEN] (and providing a separate spring and attachment for strike plate 13).
It has been held that [when] all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (in the instant case, a position plate rotatably coupled with an anchor portion of a brace) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (attached an end of a spring to a position plate rotatably cooled to an anchor portion of a brace) with no change in their respective functions (holding a spring creating spring tension in place), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (two respective springs, each connected to the brace at a respective anchor portion via a respective position plate), it would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976). See MPEP § 2143 (I) A. The known arrangement provides ease of assembly and disassembly and spring replacement through use of an installation pin to extend through anchor portion 60 (see Figure 1 HARDEN) and in the give case would facilitate install and replacement of the spring for strike plate 14 in GUESDON.
PNG
media_image5.png
1910
1150
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Rather that attachment of HOOK A and LINK A to the strike plate 13 of GUESDON as shown above, HOOK A and LINK A are instead coupled to the brace itself via a coupler bar and pin arrangement as shown in HARDEN.
Re Claim 4, GUESDON in view of HARDEN teaches the system of claim 3. GUESDON further teaches wherein the link assembly further comprises: a first link [“LINK A” or “LINK B” in Image 2 above] operably coupled with the position plate and the first strike plate (see Claim 3 above; each of these links would be operably coupled with the position plate and the first strike plate by Applicant’s definition of ‘operably coupled’ because they interact together to achieve pivoting functionality of the boom assembly). Further, it is noted that all elements “Link A”, “Link B”, latch actuator (spring coil), position plate, anchor portion, brace 6, strike plate 14, articulation 16, pin 8 and so on are all “operably coupled” with one another because they interact together to achieve pivoting functionality of the boom assembly
Re Claim 5, GUESDON in view of HARDEN teaches the system of claim 3. GUESDON further teaches wherein the link assembly further comprises: a latch actuator link [“LINK B” in Image 2 above] operably coupled with the latch actuator (spring coil) and the position plate (see Claim 3 above; “LINK B” is ‘operably coupled’ with the latch actuator by an operable coupling directly to the latch actuator and an operable coupling to the position plate through intermediate elements such as the latch actuator (spring coil), “LINK A” and “HOOK A”). Further, it is noted that all elements “Link A”, “Link B”, latch actuator (spring coil), position plate, anchor portion, brace 6, strike plate 14, articulation 16, pin 8 and so on are all “operably coupled” with one another because they interact together to achieve pivoting functionality of the boom assembly
Re Claim 6, GUESDON in view of HARDEN teaches the system of claim 5. GUESDON further teaches the system further comprising: a second strike plate 13 operably coupled with the first boom section (interact to achieve pivoting function of boom), the second strike plate rotatable between a first position and a second position (about articulation 15); and a second catch (end bracket and corresponding pin 7; consonant with that first catch shown in Image 1 but for the other end bracket) operably coupled with a second boom section 2 (interact to achieve pivoting function of boom), wherein the second strike plate is free of the second catch when the second strike plate is in the first position to define an unlocked position (position in which pin 7 is not in contact with plate 13; e.g., see Figure 3 for reference but reversed such that plate 13 is the one not connected as described) and the second strike plate interacts with the second catch when the second strike plate is in the second position to define a locked position (See e.g., Figure 2; ¶¶0017-0018, 0020, position in which holding device 12 locks end section 2 into position until a triggering threshold is exceeded).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system with a second strike plate operably coupled with the first boom section, the second strike plate rotatable between a first position and a second position; and a second catch operably coupled with a second boom section, wherein the second strike plate is free of the second catch when the second strike plate is in the first position to define an unlocked position and the second strike plate interacts with the second catch when the second strike plate is in the second position to define a locked position, in order to facilitate breakaway pivoting in both directions as taught by GUESDON (¶¶0013-0015). Note, attaching the second strike plate with a separate spring, e.g., in the manner discussed with respect to the first strike plate in Claim 3, would have been obvious for like reasons.
Re Claim 7, GUESDON in view of HARDEN teaches the system of claim 6 as discussed above. GUESDON further teaches wherein the first strike plate is positioned on a first side [annotated in Image 5] of an end panel [annotated in Image 5] of the second boom section and the second strike plate is positioned on a second, opposing side [annotated “second side” in Image 5] of the end panel of the second boom section.
PNG
media_image8.png
723
918
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 8, GUESDON in view of HARDEN teaches the system of claim 6, which includes the latch actuator link [“LINK B” in Image 2 above] (see claim 5 above, extending between spring coil and outer side recess 19 of 14) and the second strike plate 13 (see Claim 6 above). GUESONDON as modified (see Claim 3) teaches the link assembly further comprises: a second link [“LINK A” in Image 2 above] (“LINK A” attached to first strike plate 14) operably coupled with the position plate and the second strike plate (the link is attached with the position plate, see claim 3 above and interacts with the second strike plate to facilitate pivoting in both directions of the boom assembly). Further, it is noted that all elements respective “Link A”, “Link B”, latch actuator (spring coil), position plate & anchor portion, as well as brace 6, strike plates 13, 14, articulations 15, 16, pins 7, 8 and so on are all each “operably coupled” with other element because they interact together to achieve pivoting functionality of the boom assembly described by GUESDON.
Re Claim 9, GUESDON in view of HARDEN teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the first strike plate is pivotably coupled with the brace through an articulation 16. However, GUESDON in view of HARDEN as discussed so far fails to teach the articulation is a pivot pin (though Figures 2-3 are consistent with a pivot pin).
HARDEN teaches an articulation formed by a pivot pin 28 (3:11-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the articulation so that it is formed by a pivot pin as taught by HARDEN, since it has been held that [when] all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (in the instant case, a pivot pin) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming an articulating connection point by a pivot pin) with no change in their respective functions (guiding pivoting motion of a connected element), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (strike plate articulated connection to the brace in GUESDON), it would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976). See MPEP § 2143 (I) A.
Conclusion
The additional prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and discussed below, but not relied upon in a rejection at this time, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 592,718 shows a strike plate and catch coupling arrangement.
PNG
media_image9.png
824
862
media_image9.png
Greyscale
US-20100146735-A1shows a strike plate and catch coupling for hinged boom sections.
PNG
media_image10.png
1264
878
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
422
810
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
May 16, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights