DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office action in response to the amendment filed 07/24/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-7 are pending;
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are currently amended; claim 2 has been cancelled; claim 4 was previously presented;
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected herein.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of a different interpretation of Johnsen (US 8,353,070 B1) set forth below in the current Office action. Note that the different interpretation of Johnsen is necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 07/24/2025 are objected to because the line quality in the drawings, especially Figure 6, is poor for reproduction for publication purposes. Note that the reference numbers in Figure 6 are blurry for recognition.
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 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, it is advised that "plurality of" be removed for consistency.
Claim 1, line 14, "with" appears to be --from--.
Claim 5, line 11, "with" appears to be --from--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-7 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 1, the limitations "the central locking mechanism comprises a lock control element comprising a stop inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck and a rod extending through an inside of the longitudinal frame of the support deck" in lines 4-6 are indefinite because they are amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions. For example, do the instant limitations mean --the central locking mechanism comprises a lock control element, wherein the lock control element comprises a stop inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck and a rod extending through an inside of the longitudinal frame of the support deck-- or --the central locking mechanism comprises a lock control element and a rod, wherein the lock control element comprises a stop inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck, wherein the rod extends through an inside of the longitudinal frame of the support deck--? "[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim… indefinite." Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation "the locking element of the control lever" in claim 3 (lines 2 and 3) is indefinite because claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, does not recite the control lever comprising the locking element. Note that claim 1 merely recites "the latch is coupled to a locking element and a sliding element by the rod, the locking element and the sliding element being controlled by a control lever" in lines 8-11. Also, as shown in Figure 6, the locking element (8) does not appear to be a structural component of the control lever (5). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation "the vertical control braces" in lines 4 and 5 is indefinite because it is not clear as to whether the limitation "the vertical control braces" in lines 4 and 5 and the limitation "a plurality of vertical braces" in line 2 refer to the same vertical braces or different vertical braces. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations "the bottom end of at least one of the vertical control braces being coupled to a lock control element and to a stop through which a rod comprising a latch goes" in lines 4-7 are indefinite. As shown in Figure 5, the lock control element (7) comprises the stop (12). It is not clear as to why the "lock control element" and the "stop" are recited as two separate elements as if the "stop" is completely separately from the "lock control element." For the purpose of examination, the Examiner considers that the "lock control element" comprises the "stop." Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 4-7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnsen (US 8,353,070 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Johnsen discloses a central locking mechanism (24, 38, 40, 48, fig 4) of a side rail (20, fig 4), the side rail comprising a plurality of vertical braces (30, fig 4, excluding the catch members 38) each having a bottom end (35, fig 4) coupled for articulation in relation to a longitudinal frame (24, fig 4) of a support deck (12, 24, 50, fig 1), the central locking mechanism comprises a lock control element (38, fig 4) comprising a stop (38, fig 4, the catch member 38 itself is a stop) inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figures 1 and 4) and a rod (40a, fig 4, see annotation below, the central rod of the lock plate 40 between the left locking element 40b and the right locking element 40c, e.g., between two dashed lines as annotated below) extending through an inside (29, fig 4) of the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figures 1 and 4), the lock control element coupled to the bottom end of one of the plurality of vertical braces (see Figure 4), the rod comprising a latch (45, fig 4), wherein the latch is engageable with the stop of the lock control element (see Figure 4) and the latch is coupled to a locking element (40b, fig 4, see annotation below, the left locking element of the lock plate 40, which locks the first handle 43 to the lock plate 40 and is adjacent to the first end 42 of the lock plate 40) and a sliding element (42, fig 4) by the rod (see Figure 4), the locking element and the sliding element being controlled by a control lever (43, fig 4), which is supported in relation to the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figures 1 and 4), wherein the control lever is operable to control the locking element to operate the sliding element to move the rod in a first direction to disengage the latch with the stop to unlock the vertical braces, permitting the vertical braces to be collapsed down (see Figure 5, the first handle 43 is capable of performing the above intended use), and in a second direction, opposite the first direction, to engage the latch with the stop to lock the vertical braces in an upright raised position (see Figures 1 and 4, the first handle 43 is capable of performing the above intended use).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (40b – Locking Element)][AltContent: textbox (40c – Locking Element)]
PNG
media_image1.png
542
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (40a – rod)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (24a – Bottom Side)]
Regarding claim 4, wherein the bottom end of at least one of the vertical braces is coupled inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck to the lock control element on a bottom side (24a, fig 4, see annotation above, the bottom side wall of the lower rail 24) of the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, Johnsen discloses a central locking mechanism (24, 38, 40, 48, fig 4) of a side rail (20, fig 4), the central locking mechanism comprises a plurality of vertical braces (30, fig 4, excluding the catch members 38) each having a bottom end (35, fig 4) coupled to a longitudinal frame (24, fig 4) of a support deck (12, 24, 50, fig 1) on a bottom side (24a, fig 4, see annotation above, the bottom side wall of the lower rail 24) of the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figures 1 and 4), the bottom end of at least one of the vertical control braces being coupled to a lock control element (38, fig 4; alternatively, 38, fig 4, the catch member 38 on the far left side) and to a stop (38, fig 4, the catch member 38 itself is a stop, also see interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112 above; alternatively, the catch member 38 on the far right side) through which a rod (40a, fig 4, see annotation above, the central rod of the lock plate 40 between the left locking element 40b and the right locking element 40c, e.g., between two dashed lines as annotated below) comprising a latch (45, fig 4; alternatively, the latch member 45 on the far right side) goes, wherein the rod is coupled to a locking element (40b, fig 4, see annotation above, the left locking element of the lock plate 40, which locks the first handle 43 to the lock plate 40 and is adjacent to the first end 42 of the lock plate 40) and a sliding element (42, fig 4) operatively controlled by a control lever (43, fig 4), wherein the control lever is located outside the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figures 1 and 4), wherein the control lever is operable to control the locking element to operate the sliding element to move the rod in a first direction to disengage the latch with the stop to unlock the vertical braces, permitting the vertical braces to be collapsed down (see Figure 5, the first handle 43 is capable of performing the above intended use), and in a second direction, opposite the first direction, to engage the latch with the stop to lock the vertical braces in an upright raised position (see Figures 1 and 4, the first handle 43 is capable of performing the above intended use).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the vertical braces and the control lever of the central locking mechanism are located outside the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the lock control element, the rod and the locking element are located inside the longitudinal frame of the support deck (see Figures 1 and 4).
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.
Claim 3, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnsen (US 8,353,070 B1), alone.
Regarding claim 3, Johnsen is silent with respect to the material of the locking element of the control lever. In other words, Johnsen does not explicitly disclose the central locking mechanism, wherein the locking element of the control lever is made of plastics or metal alloys.
Johnsen is analogous art because it is at least from the same filed of endeavor, i.e., locking mechanisms. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to form each of the locking element (40b, fig 4, see annotation above) and the control lever (43, fig 4) from metal alloys, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The motivation would have been to provide a metallic locking element and a metallic control lever with strength and durability for repeated uses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Johnsen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 PM).
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights