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 because Figure 2 shows a reference numeral “200” that is displayed over two lines (see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
96
124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 2: “are configured to cooperate maintain” appears to contain a typo.
Claim 14, line 2: “the base” lacks antecedent basis and should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burnley (US 7461995).
Re Clm 1: Burnley discloses a socket retainer assembly (title) configured to retain a ball (100) connected to a support post (col 1, line 64), the socket retainer assembly comprising: a ball-receiving body (1) including a channel (6) to receive the ball of the ball assembly and configured to retain the ball in the channel (top curved portion); and a slidable locking pin (30) configured to slide in the ball-receiving body (via hole 3) and configured to lock the ball in the channel in a locked position (pin is inserted) and configured to slide to an unlocked position from which the ball can be removed from the channel (see column 4).
Re Clm 5: Burnley discloses wherein in the locked position, the slidable locking pin is trapped and cannot slide without being pushed by a user, securing the ball in the channel (see fig 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2-4, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnley (US 7461995) in view of Vegunta et al. (US 10,030,368).
Re Clm 2-4: Burnley fails to disclose wherein the socket retainer assembly produces an audible sound to indicate when the slidable locking pin moves between the locked position and the unlocked position (clm 2); wherein the ball-receiving body includes a visible indicator that the slidable locking pin is in the locked position and the unlocked position (clm 3); and wherein the visible indicator comprises a first symbol indicating the locked position and a second symbol indicating the unlocked position (clm 4).
Vegunta et al. teach the use of a locking pin assembly for the secure connection between two articulating members, wherein the assembly produces an audible sound to indicate when the slidable locking pin moves between the locked position and the unlocked position (top of column 14); and also wherein a receiving body includes a visible indicator including a first symbol indicating the locked position and a second symbol indicating the unlocked position (see top of column 11 for visual reference indicators). This is taught for the purpose of providing an indication of when the locking pin is properly in the seated locked position (see both top of col 11 and top of col 14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the assembly of Burnley with indicators (audible or visual) as taught by Vegunta et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an indication of when the locking pin is properly in the seated locked position.
Re Clm 18: Burnley discloses socket retainer assembly (1) configured to retain a ball (100) of a ball assembly, the socket retainer assembly comprising: a ball-receiving body (1) including a channel (6) to receive the ball of the ball assembly and configured to retain the ball in the channel; and a slidable locking pin (30) configured to lock and unlock the ball in the channel (see columns 3-4).
Burnley fails to disclose a visible indicator configured to indicate when the slidable locking pin is in a locked and an unlocked position and an audible indicator configured to indicate when the slidable locking pin moved between a locked position and an unlocked position.
Vegunta et al. teach the use of a locking pin assembly for the secure connection between two articulating members, wherein the assembly produces an audible sound to indicate when the slidable locking pin moves between the locked position and the unlocked position (top of column 14); and also wherein a receiving body includes a visible indicator including a first symbol indicating the locked position and a second symbol indicating the unlocked position (see top of column 11 for visual reference indicators). This is taught for the purpose of providing an indication of when the locking pin is properly in the seated locked position (see both top of col 11 and top of col 14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the assembly of Burnley with both visual and audible indicators, as taught by Vegunta et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing an indication of when the locking pin is properly in the seated locked position to alert a user to potential uncoupling issues.
Re Clm 20: Burnley as modified above discloses a base (bottom portion of assembly 1) including a first base portion (proximate to left mount hole 2) and a separate second base portion (proximate right mount hole 2), configured to enable the socket retainer assembly to be assembled.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burnley (US 7461995) in view of Shearer et al. (US 11378114).
Re Clm 6: Burnley discloses wherein the ball-receiving body comprises a hollow lower portion, but fails to disclose a base configured to mount within the hollow lower body portion.
Shearer et al. disclose a socket retainer assembly wherein the assembly comprises a body with a hollow lower portion (18), and a base (10) configured to mount within the hollow lower body portion.
This is taught for the purpose of providing a hidden connection between the assembly and a boat deck.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have provided the lower hollow body portion of Burnley to receive a base configured to mount within the hollow lower body portion, as taught by Shearer et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a hidden connection between the assembly and a boat deck.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-17 and 19 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:
Re Clms 7-9, 15-17, and 19: the prior art fails to disclose or otherwise be combinable to suggest wherein the slidable locking pin comprises a locking channel having a channel width, and the locking channel is configured to engage a locking post on the base, the locking post having a post width that is less than the channel width to allow the slidable locking pin to slide between the locked position and the unlocked position.
Re Clms 10-14: the prior art fails to disclose or otherwise be combinable to suggest a base spring configured to bias the slidable locking pin upwardly to ensure the slidable locking pin is retained in the up position in a receiving slot formed in the ball-receiving body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN PETER MASINICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a-5p 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/JONATHAN P MASINICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678