DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on September 4th, 2026 for application no. 18/605,327 filed on March 14th, 2024. Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 11-23 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13 and 21 are amended, claims 22-23 are new, and claims 7 and 10 are canceled.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 13 (line 2), please change the recitation of “the lock member has a lock member axis” to - - the lock member has [[a]] the lock member axis - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (last clause).
Regarding Claim 14 (lines 1-2), please change the recitation of “wherein the first engaging member is pivotable about a first axis” to - - wherein the first engaging member is pivotable about [[a]] the first axis - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (last clause).
Regarding Claim 16 (lines 1-2), please change the recitation of “wherein the first engaging member is pivotable about a first axis” to - - wherein the first engaging member is pivotable about [[a]] the first axis - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (last clause).
Regarding Claim 17 (lines 1-2), please change the recitation of “further comprising an actuation member that is movable between a first position and a second position” to - - further comprising [[an]] the actuation member that is movable between [[a]] the first position and [[a]] the second position - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-6, 14-15 and 22 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.
Regarding Claim 4 (lines 1-2), in the recitation of “wherein the first and second engaging members each have an end” the difference between the “distal end” of the first engaging member recited in claim 1 (last clause) and the “end” of the first engaging member recited in claim 4 (line 2) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Please provide an amendment that accounts for the distal end of the first engaging member recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 5 (lines 1-2), in the recitations of “wherein the first and second engaging members each have an end” the difference between the “distal end” of the first engaging member recited in claim 1 (last clause) and the “end” of the first engaging member recited in claim 5 (line 2) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Please provide an amendment that accounts for the distal end of the first engaging member recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 14 (line 3), in the recitation of “the first and second engaging members each have an end” the difference between the “distal end” of the first engaging member recited in claim 1 (last clause) and the “end” of the first engaging member recited in claim 14 (line 3) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Please provide an amendment that accounts for the distal end of the first engaging member recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 15 (lines 1-2), in the recitation of “wherein the first and second engaging members each have an end” the difference between the “distal end” of the first engaging member recited in claim 1 (last clause) and the “end” of the first engaging member recited in claim 15 (line 2) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Please provide an amendment that accounts for the distal end of the first engaging member recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 22 (lines 6-7), in the recitation of “are convergeable on a side of the rotatable member axis opposite the actuation member” the difference between the “side of the rotatable member axis” recited in claim 21 (last clause) and the “side of the rotatable member axis” recited in claim 22 (line 6) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “are convergeable on another side of the rotatable member axis opposite the actuation member” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Claim 6 is rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding Claim 17, claims 17 does not narrow the scope of the claim 1 (lines 11-15). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 18-19 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base 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 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 1-3, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chun (US 2004/0163869).
Regarding Claim 1, Chun teaches a locking mechanism (Fig. 4A, “electrically released locking mechanism” 400) comprising:
a lock member (“toothed lock ring” 404) having multiple projections (see Fig. 4A); and first and second engaging members (right and left “pawls” 402) that are each pivotable with respect to the lock member (404),
wherein the first engaging member (right 402) is engageable with the lock member (404) to inhibit relative rotation between the lock member (404) and the engaging members (both 402) in a first rotation direction (see [0030] below), and the second engaging member (left 402) is engageable with the lock member (404) to inhibit relative rotation between the lock member (404) and the engaging members (both 402) in a second rotation direction opposite the first rotation direction ([0030] – “More particularly, the locking mechanism 400 of the illustrated embodiment includes a pair of pawls 402 that interact with a toothed lock ring 404 on the motor shaft 406 of the drive 205. A spring 408, or some other biasing means, biases the pawls 402 to close on the lock ring 404 when the cam 410 is positioned by the servo-motor 409 to allow for movement of the driver 412 and linkage. To unlock the locking mechanism 400, the servo-motor 409 actuates the cam 410 to operate against driver 412 and open the pawls 402 away from the lock ring 404”),
wherein the first and second engaging members (both 402) are simultaneously engageable (see Fig. 4A) with the lock member (404) to provide a locked condition of the locking mechanism (400) in which the first and second engaging members (both 402) are each engaged with a respective one of the projections (see Fig. 4A and [0030]); and
an actuation member (“cam” 410) that is movable between a first position (locked position shown in Fig. 4A) and a second position (unlocked position not shown in Fig. 4A; see [0030]), wherein the first and second engaging members (both 402) are each engaged with the respective one of the projections (404) of the lock member (404) when the actuation member (410) is in the first position (locked position shown in Fig. 4A), and when the actuation member (410) is moved from the first position to the second position, the actuation member (410) causes the first and second engaging members (402) to disengage the lock member (404; see [0030]);
wherein the lock member (404) has a lock member axis (rotational axis of 404), the first engaging member (right 402) is pivotable about a first axis (pivot axis of right 402), and the first engaging member (right 402) has a distal end (see Fig. 4A) that is engageable with the lock member (404), and wherein, when the distal end is engaged with the lock member (404), a first line extending through the first axis (pivot axis of right 402) and the distal end (distal end of right 402) does not pass between the actuation member (410) and the lock member axis (rotational axis of 404).
Regarding Claim 2, Chun teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1,
wherein, when the locking mechanism (Fig. 4A, 400) is in the locked condition (position seen in Fig. 4A), the engaging members (both 402) are self-locking (see Fig. 4A).
Regarding Claim 3, Chun teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1,
wherein the first and second engaging members (Fig. 4A, both 402) are each engaged with another respective one of the projections (404) when the locking mechanism (404) is in the locked condition (see Fig. 4A).
Regarding Claim 8, Chun teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1,
further comprising a biasing member (not shown) that urges the actuation member (410) toward the first position (locked position shown in Fig. 4A; [0030] – “When the lock is engaged, no power is required. However, in some alternative embodiments, a spring applied brake may be used to facilitate locking the actuator shaft 406”).
Regarding Claim 9, Chun teaches the locking mechanism of claim 8,
wherein the biasing member is a spring (not shown; see [0030] – “When the lock is engaged, no power is required. However, in some alternative embodiments, a spring applied brake may be used to facilitate locking the actuator shaft 406” emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 11, Chun teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1,
wherein the second engaging member (Fig. 4A, left 402) is pivotable about a second axis (pivot axis of left 402),
the second engaging member (left 402) has a distal end (see Fig. 4B) that is engageable with the lock member (404), and
wherein, when the distal end of the second engaging member (left 402) is engaged with the lock member (404), a second line extending through the second axis (pivot axis of left 402) and the distal end of the second engaging member (left 402) does not pass between the actuation member (410) and the lock member axis (rotational axis of 404).
Regarding Claim 13, Chun teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1,
wherein the lock member (Fig. 4A, 404) has a lock member axis (rotational axis of 404), and
the actuation member (410) is located closer to the lock member axis (rotational axis of 404) when the actuation member (410) is in the second position (unlocked position not shown in Fig. 4A) as compared to when the actuation member (410) is in the first position (position seen in Fig. 4B; see [0030]; see cam lobe of 410 in Fig. 4A).
Regarding Claim 15, Chun teaches the locking mechanism of claim 13,
wherein the first and second engaging members (both 402) each have an end (distal ends of 402) that is engageable with the lock member (404),
the ends are spaced apart a first distance when the actuation member (410) is in the first position (distance between both distal ends of 402 in the locked position shown in Fig. 4A), and
the ends (distal ends of 402) are spaced apart a second distance when the actuation member (410) is in the second position (distance between both distal ends of 402 in the unlocked position not shown in Fig. 4A), and
wherein the first distance (distance between both distal ends of 402 in the locked position) is smaller than the second distance (distance between both distal ends of 402 in the unlocked position).
Regarding Claim 16, Chun teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1,
wherein the first engaging member (Fig. 4A, right 402) is pivotable about a first axis (pivot axis of right 402), and
the second engaging member (left 402) is pivotable about a second axis (pivot axis of left 402) spaced away from the first axis (pivot axis of right 402).
Regarding Claim 17, Chun teaches the locking mechanism of claim 16,
further comprising an actuation member (Fig. 4A, 410) that is movable between a first position (locked position shown in Fig. 4A) and a second position (unlocked position not shown in Fig. 4A),
wherein the first and second engaging members (both 402) are each engaged with the respective one of the projections (404) of the lock member (404) when the actuation member (410) is in the first position (locked position shown in Fig. 4A), and
when the actuation member (410) is moved from the first position (Fig. 4A) to the second position (not shown; see [0030]), the actuation member (410) causes the first and second engaging members (both 402) to disengage the lock member (404; see [0030]).
Regarding Claim 20, Chun teaches a system comprising:
a rotatable element (Fig. 4A, “shaft” 406); and
the locking mechanism (400) of claim 1,
wherein the lock member (404) of the locking mechanism (400) is rotatable with the rotatable element (406) or the engaging members of the locking mechanism are rotatable with the rotatable element, and
wherein the lock mechanism (400) is configured to inhibit or prevent rotation of the rotatable element (406; see Fig. 4A, see [0030]).
Regarding Claim 21, Chun teaches a locking mechanism (Fig. 4A, 400) comprising:
a rotatable member (404) having multiple projections (see Fig. 4A);
first and second pivotable engaging members (both 402),
wherein the first engaging member (right 402) is engageable with the rotatable member (404) to inhibit rotation of the rotatable member (404) in a first rotation direction (see [0030]), and the second engaging member (left 402) is engageable with the rotatable member (404) to inhibit rotation of the rotatable member (404) in a second rotation direction opposite the first rotation direction (see [0030]);
an actuation member (410) that is movable between a first position (locked position shown in Fig. 4A) and a second position (unlocked position not shown in Fig. 4A; see [0030]),
wherein the first and second engaging members (both 402) are each engaged with a respective one of the projections (404) of the rotatable member (404) when the actuation member (410) is in the first position (locked position seen in Fig. 4A), and
when the actuation member (410) is moved from the first position to the second position, the actuation member (410) causes the first and second engaging members (both 402) to disengage the rotatable member (404; unlocked position not shown in Fig. 4A); and
a biasing member (alternative embodiment not shown in Fig. 4A) that urges the actuation member (410) toward the first position ([0030] – “When the lock is engaged, no power is required. However, in some alternative embodiments, a spring applied brake may be used to facilitate locking the actuator shaft 406” emphasis added);
wherein the rotatable member (404) is rotatable about a rotatable member axis (rotational axis of 404), the first engaging member (right 402) is pivotable about a first axis (pivot axis of right 402), and the second engaging member (left 402) is pivotable about a second axis (pivot axis of right 402), and
wherein the actuation member (410), the first axis and the second axis (pivot axes of both 402) are located on a same side (upper side) of the rotatable member axis (rotational axis of 404; see Fig. 4A).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed September 4th, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed June 4th, 2026. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Objections
Regarding Claims 5-6, Applicant’s amendment addresses various minor informalities indicated in the previous Office Action. As such, the relevant claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant’s amendment has clarified the invention. As such, the 112(b) rejection indicated in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant’s argument that “As shown above, claim 1 has been amended to include features of claims 7 and 10, but the recitation of "the first engaging member has an end that is engageable with the lock member" has been changed to "the first engaging member has a distal end that is engageable with the lock member" (emphasis added). Support for that amendment may be found in Figure 1 of the application, for example. Referring to pages 7-8 of the Office Action, the Examiner rejected claim 10 over Merminod. The Examiner provided an annotated version of Figure 18B of Merminod on page 8 of the Office Action, and argued that it shows an "end" of ratchet arm 1840A (first engaging member) engaged with ratchet wheel 1830 (lock member). As shown in that annotated figure, however, ratchet arm 1840A does not have a distal end engaged with the ratchet wheel 1830, but rather a side portion engaged with the ratchet wheel 1830. Therefore, Merminod does not show each and every feature recited in amended claim 1. It is also noted that Chan does not show the above features in combination with the other features of claim 1 either” (p. 9) is persuasive. As such, both 102 rejections of claim 1, reliant upon Merminod and Chan, are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 21, Applicant’s argument that “By contrast, in each of the cited references, the "actuation member" and the pivot axes of the "engaging members" are located on opposite sides of the axis of the lock member or rotatable member. For example, referring to Figures 3-4 of Chan, driving portion 123 (which the Examiner refers to as an "actuation member" on page 16 of the Office Action) and pivot axes 131 of the reset brackets 13 (which the Examiner refers to as "engaging members") are located on opposite sides of the axis of interlocking gear 14 (which the Examiner refers to as a "lock member" or rotatable member)” (p. 10) is persuasive. As such, both 102 rejections of claim 21, reliant upon Merminod and Chan, are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding Claims 1 and 21, Applicant has recited features that distinguish from those taught by the prior art of Merminod and Chan; however, the claimed invention is still anticipated by the prior art of record. See detailed and relevant rejections presented above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is- allowed.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claims 4-6, 14 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office Action and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights