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 .
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 5, 6, 7, and 8 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.
Regarding claim 5, lines 10-11, “the first elastic body” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “a first elastic body” was recited in claim 3 but claim 5 does not pend from claim 3. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “the second elastic body” as claimed in claim 4 from which claim 5 pends.
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 8, they are rejected because they pend from claim 5.
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, 2, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennon et al., US 7066549 B2 (hereinafter Dennon).
Regarding claim 1, Dennon teaches a locking mechanism (seatback system 20; Figs 1; 10) for coupling a vessel to a trailer on which the boat is loaded (In re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore the intended use “for coupling a vessel to a trailer on which a boat is loaded” does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from prior art apparatus of Dennon which teaches all the structural limitations of the claim), comprising:
a base (mounting clip 90) including a notch (slot 98) into which an engaged member (pin portion 80) is configured to be inserted (movement between Fig 10 and Fig 11 depicts 80 being inserted into 98)
a latching member (rotatable cam body 102) including a hook (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Dennon) and a first receiving surface (minor recess 108) and rotatably coupled to the base about a first rotation axis (Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Dennon depicts the first rotation axis to be defined by shaft 134); and
a locking member (pawl 116) including a lever (exposed portion 118) and a regulation portion (major finger 122) and rotatably coupled to the base about a second rotation axis (Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Dennon depicts the second rotation axis to be defined by shaft 136), wherein
the latching member is rotatable between:
an engagement position (Fig 11) in which the notch is partially closed by the hook and the engaged member inserted into the notch is surrounded by a wall surface of the notch and the hook (Fig 11 depicts 98 partially closes by the hook and 80 inserted into 98 and surrounded by wall surface of 98 and the hook); and
an engagement release position (Fig 10) in which closure of the notch by the hook is released (Fig 10 depicts the closure of 98 by the hook is released),
the locking member is rotatable between:
a lock position (Fig 11) in which the regulation portion abuts on the first receiving surface of the latching member in the engagement position and a rotation of the latching member toward the engagement release position is regulated (Fig 11 depicts 122 abutting and engaging 108; the engagement of 122 and 108 helps fix 102 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 3 or regulate and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term); and
an unlock position (Fig 10) in which the first receiving surface of the latching member in the engagement position and the regulation portion are spaced apart from each other (Fig 10 depicts 108 and 122 spaced apart from each other), and
when the locking member is rotated from the lock position toward the unlock position, the regulation portion does not interfere with the locking member (movement from Fig 11 to Fig 10 depicts 122 rotating clockwise and does not interfere with 116).
PNG
media_image1.png
634
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Dennon
Regarding claim 2, Dennon teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1, wherein when the latching member (102) is in the engagement position (Fig 11), the first receiving surface (108) is an arcuate curved surface with the second rotation axis (Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Dennon depicts the second rotation axis to be defined by shaft 136) being a center (Fig 11 depicts 108 to be an arcuate curved surface with 136 being a center in the same manner as the instant invention as depicted in Fig 5).
Regarding claim 4, Dennon teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1, further comprising: a second elastic body (spring 132) urging the locking member (116) toward the lock position (Fig 11 depicts 132 urging 116 into the lock position).
Regarding claim 5, Dennon teaches the locking mechanism of claim 4, wherein the latching member (102) further includes an actuation arm (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Dennon) opposed to the hook (Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Dennon depicts the actuation arm opposed to the hook), when the latching member is in the engagement release position (Fig 11), the actuation arm partially closes the notch (Fig 11 depicts the actuation arm partially closing 98 in the same manner as the instant invention depicted in Fig 5), and when the engaged member (80) is inserted into the notch, the actuation arm is pressed by the engaged member to rotate the latching member toward the engagement position against an urging force of the second elastic body (see claim interpretation under the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection of claim 5; Fig 11 depicts the actuation arm pressed by 80 to rotate 102 into engagement position against the bias of 132; col 7, lines 23-36).
Regarding claim 6, Dennon teaches the locking mechanism of claim 4, wherein the latching member (102) further includes a second receiving surface (groove 110) against which the regulation portion (122) is pressed by the urging force of the second elastic body (132) when the latching member is in the engagement release position (Fig 10) and the locking member is in the unlock position (Fig 10), and when the latching member rotates from the engagement release position toward the engagement position, the regulation portion slides the second receiving surface, and when the regulation portion finishes sliding the second receiving surface, the locking member (116) is rotated to the lock position by the urging force of the second elastic body (movement from Fig 10 to Fig 11 depicts 102 rotating to the engagement position and 122 sliding out of 110 into 108 and 116 is rotated into the lock position by 132; col 7, lines 23-36).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennon, US 7066549 B2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ui, US 5286073 A.
Regarding claim 3, Dennon teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1.
Dennon does not teach further comprising: a first elastic body urging the latching member toward the engagement release position.
Ui teaches it is known in the art for locking mechanisms to comprise a first elastic body (torsion spring 24) urging the latching member (hook 22) toward the engagement release position(Fig 5; col 3, lines 1-12).
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 Dennon’s unbiased latching member structure with the spring biased latching member structure of Ui. The prior art contains a “base” device (Dennon’s apparatus) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” and a “comparable” device (Ui’s apparatus) 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 latch member biasing spring in order to improve apparatus operation by providing individual member movement assistance (Dennon teaches the use of biasing springs for his locking member). 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 locking mechanism with biasing springs for the latching and locking members configured to operate in the same manner as Dennon alone.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennon, US 7066549 B2, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tolley, GB 1278699 A.
Regarding claim 7, Dennon teaches the locking mechanism of claim 4, further comprising: a limit stop (retainer 100) attached to the base (90; Fig 10), wherein the locking member (116) includes an engagement portion (ball extension 130) engaged with the limit stop while being in the unlock position (Fig 10), and the rotation of the locking member toward the lock position (Fig 11) by the urging force of the second elastic body (132) is regulated by the limit stop being engaged with the engagement portion (100 provides a stop which fixes the rest position of 116 which it moves into a locked position thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 3 of regulate and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term; col 7, lines 23-36).
Dennon does not teach the limit stop to be a plunger.
Tolley teaches it is known in the lock art for plungers (plunger 42) to be used as a limit stop (Fig 3; page 2, lines 61-70).
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 E, to modify Dennon’s movement limit stop with the limit stop plunger structure of Tolley. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art to limit the movement of rotating members. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to limit or stop member movement (e.g. a hard limit stop as taught by Dennon or a movable limit stop as taught by Tolley). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change limit stop design and structure in order to improve apparatus form, fit, or function. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success resulting in a predictable change of limit stop structure configured to limit the movement of a locking member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, while Dennon in view of Tolley teaches it is known in the art for a locking mechanism, wherein the locking member (Dennon, 116) further includes a release arm (Dennon, minor finger 124) provided to be spaced from the regulation portion (122) in a rotational direction of the locking member (Dennon, Fig 10 depicts 122 spaced from 124 is a rotational direction of 116), the latching member (Dennon, 102) further includes a protrusion (Dennon, portion 114) located between the regulation portion and the release arm in the rotational direction of the latching member while being in the engagement position (Dennon, Fig 11 depicts 114 to be located between 122 and 124 in a rotational direction of 102), one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Dennon in view of Tolley as claimed in the instant application wherein when the latching member rotates from the engagement position toward the engagement release position, the latching member rotates by the protrusion pressing the release arm, and the engagement between the plunger and the engagement portion is released; without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for locking mechanisms.
Hidding et al., US 20060006668 A1, teaches a latch assembly with a base, a latching member with a biasing spring, and a locking member with a biasing spring.
Bacon, US 20050206172 A1, teaches a rotary latch for vehicles and the like and method for making same with a base, a latching member with a biasing spring, and a locking member with a biasing spring.
Yamazaki, US 9500012 B2, teaches a lock device with a base, a latching member, a locking member, and a biasing spring.
Thorp, GB 1099649 A, teaches locks with a base, a latching member, a locking member, and a biasing spring.
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