DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment, filed 12/6/2023, has been entered. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the container, particularly the corner fitting (claims 1 and 9), the gooseneck container (claims 1 and 9) and the vehicle (claims 1 and 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
It should be noted that showing at least a portion of the vehicle/container/gooseneck container corner fitting would not be considered new matter but should be included to show the general positional relationship of the locking device and the corner fitting.
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 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 1-10 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.
It should be noted that using pronouns (such as "its", “their”, “them”, “these”…) typically makes the limitation indefinite.
Claims 1 and 9 repeatedly use the pronouns “it” and “its”. These recitations cause confusion as to which claim element is being referred to. This confusion creates uncertainty and indefiniteness as to what exactly is being claimed.
Claim 1, line 1 and claim 9, line 1 recite “a vehicle (F)”. Further recitations of the “vehicle” do not include the “F” parenthetical. These recitations create indefiniteness as it is not clear whether the recited “Vehicle (F)” and the “vehicle” are the same structure. It is noted that in the claims when a structure is recited along with an element identifier, that identifier is used with each recitation. Thus, in this case, the lack of an identifier creates confusion as to whether the recited devices are the same.
Claims 1 and 8-10 recite the phrase “locked state” and/or “unlocked state”. These recitations, and therefore these claims, are indefinite as it is not made clear what the exactly is locked or unlocked. It appears that the phrase “locked state” and “unlocked state” refers to a general condition of the container locking device as a whole (i.e. the container is either in a locked state or an unlocked state. However, this is not clear as the phrases could also be referring to parts of the locking device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the unlocked state" in line 4.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the locked state" in lines 5-6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the unlocked state" in line 7.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the locked state" in lines 8-9.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claim 1 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
The examiner has attempted to point out indefiniteness and a lack of clarity. However, applicant is encouraged to carefully review the claims for further issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 appear to be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
It should be noted that if claim amendments made to overcome the 112 rejections are such that substantially change the scope of the invention, the examiner reserves the right to apply art based rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter based on the examiner’s understanding of the claimed invention.
Devices and methods for locking containers onto a loading surface of a vehicle, as well as their structures and operations are very well known in the art. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Metternich (US 6390743), Schultz et al. (US 6092967), Blanz (US 4108081), Newstead et al. (US 20210394666), Kroll et al. (US 5931617), Bertolini (US 4352613), Vaha-Piikkio et al. (US 20250128654), Johansson et al. (US 12515578), Lanigan et al. (US 20150232015), Conlee et al. (US 5575599), and Paulekuhn et al (US 20170267160). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a container locking device, locking housing, locking bolt, drive, locking shaft, locking head, presenting a locked and unlocked state, a wedge slide with an inclined support, engaging a recess of the and a double acting cylinder. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined structure and steps as being claimed in the instant application. Specifically, the combinations of the locking structure, wedge, locking bolt, additional horizontal locking bolt, and the specifically recited structure positions in the locked and unlocked state are not easily conceived from the prior art. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural relationships, steps, and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
1/24/2026