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 Objections
Claims 4, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, line 2, the limitation "the inner side of the bolt fixing ring" is recited. The “the” should likely be an “an” because the “inner side of the bolt fixing ring” has not previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “an inner side”.
Regarding claim 5, line 3, the limitation "the inner wall of the through hole" is recited. The “the” should likely be an “an” because the “inner wall of the through hole” has not previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “an inner wall”.
Regarding claim 6, line 5, the limitation "the inner surface of the locking concave portion" is recited. The “the” should likely be an “an” because the “inner surface of the locking concave portion” has not previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “an inner surface”.
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 11-14 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 11, line 4, the limitation “the quick-change nut” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is recited in claim 6 but claim 11 does not pend from claim 6. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a quick change nut”.
Regarding claim 11, line 5, the limitation "the inner surface of the locking concave portion" is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “locking concave portion” is recited in claim 6 but claim 11 does not pend from claim 6. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “an inner surface of a locking concave portion”.
Regarding claim 11, line 6, the limitation "the second anti-loosening teeth” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “second anti-loosening teeth” is recited in claim 6 but claim 11 does not pend from claim 6. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “second anti-loosening teeth”.
Regarding claim 14, line 5, the limitation "the nut assembly” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “a nut assembly” is recited in claim 6 but claim 11 does not pend from claim 6. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a nut assembly”.
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 14, they are rejected because they pend from claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao, CN 103314169 B.
Regarding claim 1, Yao teaches a quick-change lock assembly [0002], comprising:
a shell (base 4) with a hollow cavity formed therein (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Yao);
a quick-change bolt arranged in the cavity (lock cylinder 7), wherein the quick-change bolt comprises a guide section (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Yao), a threaded fixing section (threaded section 701), a flange portion (rib 704) and a tool matching section (key end of cylinder 702), a through hole is formed in the quick-change bolt along the axial direction (Fig 4 depicts the designed movement of button rod 10 along the through hole thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 3b of through and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), first anti-loosening teeth (tumblers 8) are formed on the guide section (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Yao depicts 8 in formation next to the guide section thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of form on and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and the first anti-loosening teeth are enabled to be locked to limit the rotation of the quick-change bolt (Figs 7;8 depict 8 structurally capable without modification of being locked to limit the rotation of 7);
an unlocking mandrel (button rod 10) configured to be inserted and retained in the through hole (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Yao and Fig 4 depict 10 inserted and retained in the through hole), wherein the length of the unlocking mandrel is greater than the length of the through hole (Fig 4 depicts the length of 10 to be greater than the length of the through hole), and when an external tool (key 13) is inserted into the tool matching section (Fig 10 depicts 13 being inserted into and onto 702), the external tool is capable of pushing the unlocking mandrel to move along the through hole and protrude from the guide section to remove the locking of the first anti-loosening teeth (Figs 4;5;10 depict 13 pushing 10 along the through hole resulting in 10 still protruding from the through hole and 8 being removed from locking 10); and
a bolt fixing ring (wire retaining ring 12) fixed to the shell (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Yao) and configured to stop the flange portion (Fig 4;6 depict 12, a retaining ring, structurally capable without modification of engaging and stopping the flange portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
253
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Yao
Regarding claim 3, Yao teaches the quick-change lock assembly according to claim 1, wherein, a boss (threaded section 401; Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Yao depicts 401 to be a protruberant body thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1c of boss and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) is formed at the top of the shell (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Yao depicts 401 formed at the top of 4), and the outer ring of the boss has a toothed structure (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Yao depicts the outer ring of 401 to have a toothed structure).
Regarding claim 5, Yao teaches quick-change lock assembly according to claim 1, wherein, the unlocking mandrel (10) is provided with a head portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 5-Yao) and a thin neck portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 5-Yao), wherein a protruding portion is formed on an (see claim interpretation for claim 5 Claim Objection) inner wall of the through hole (Annotated excerpt Fig 5-Yao depicts the protruding portion arranged on the inner wall of the through hole thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1b of formed and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), the head portion is configured to be matched with the protruding portion to retain the unlocking mandrel in the through hole (Annotated excerpt Fig 5-Yao depicts the head portion structurally capable without modification of being matched with the protruding portion to retain 10 in the through hole), and the thin neck portion is configured to move freely through the protruding portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 5-Yao depicts the thin neck portion structurally capable without modification of moving freely through the protruding portion in the same manner as the instant invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
307
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 5-Yao
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DiChiara et al., US 10330136 B2 (hereinafter DiChiara).
Regarding claim 6, DiChiara teaches a nut assembly (anchor 104), comprising:
a quick-change nut (nut 132; see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara for through threaded hole), comprising a nut body (132), a through threaded (internal female threads 140) hole being formed in the nut body (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara depicts the hole formed in 132);
a locker (anti-rotation lock plate 142), a locking concave portion (lock plate locking feature 204 is hollowed inward thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of concave and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) being provided on the side, opposite to the threaded hole, of the locker (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara depicts 204 provided on the side of 142 opposite the threaded hole), and second anti-loosening teeth (lock plate pawls 254) being formed on an (see claim interpretation for claim 6 Claim Objection) inner surface of the locking concave portion (Figs 6;7); and
an elastic structure (biasing element 166), matched with the locker to make the locker approach the quick-change nut (col 4, line 66-col 5, lines 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
639
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara
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, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duran, US 4191236 A, in view of Bengtsson et al., US 20200321572 A1 (hereinafter Bengtsson).
Regarding claim 1, Duran teaches a quick-change lock assembly, comprising:
a quick-change bolt (fastening sleeve 11), wherein the quick-change bolt comprises a guide section (terminal tapered end 46), a threaded fixing section (second threaded section 44), a flange portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Duran depicts head 39 comprising a flange portion) and a tool matching section (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Duran), a through hole is formed in the quick-change bolt along the axial direction (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Duran depicts the through hole formed in 11 along a vertical axial direction), first anti-loosening teeth (locking element 55) are formed on the guide section (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Duran depicts 55 in formation next to 46 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition of form on and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and the first anti-loosening teeth are enabled to be locked to limit the rotation of the quick-change bolt (col 3, line 50-col 4, line 2);
an unlocking mandrel (pin 50) configured to be inserted and retained in the through hole (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Duran depicts 50 structurally capable without modification of being inserted and retained in the through hole), wherein the length of the unlocking mandrel is greater than the length of the through hole (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device; Duran’s through hole and 10 perform the same function in the same manner as the unlocking mandrel and through hole of the instant invention which are therefore not patentably distinct from Duran), and when an external tool (tool 66) is inserted into the tool matching section (Fig 8), the external tool is capable of pushing the unlocking mandrel to move along the through hole and protrude from the guide section to remove the locking of the first anti-loosening teeth (movement from Fig 6 to Fig 8 depicts 66 being inserted into the tool matching section and causing 10 to protrude from the guide section and removing the locking of 55).
PNG
media_image4.png
549
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Duran
Duran doesn’t teach a shell with a hollow cavity formed therein; and a bolt fixing ring fixed to the shell and configured to stop the flange portion.
Bengtsson teaches it is known in the art for electric vehicles [Abstract] to comprise a battery pack [0006; 0041] to be mounted on a vehicle beam (chassis frame 30) using a locking device (fixing assembly 10) which further comprises a shell (casing 21) with a hollow cavity formed therein (Figs 1;2 depicts 21 to have a hollow cavity formed within); and a bolt fixing ring (stop end plate 28)fixed to the shell and configured to stop the flange portion [0054].
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 A, to modify Duran’s lock apparatus to have Bengtsson’s shell and bolt fixing ring. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add an enclosing shell and bolt fixing ring in order to facilitate the assembly of the locking apparatus as taught by Bengtsson in [0049]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely a locking apparatus with a quick change bolt and unlocking mandrel mounted inside a shell which functions in the same manner as Duran.
Regarding claim 2, Duran in view of Bengtsson teaches the quick-change lock assembly according to claim 1, wherein, the guide section (Duran, 46) is frustum-shaped (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Duran depicts 46 to be frustum shaped), and the first anti-loosening teeth (Duran, 55) are arranged on the conical surface of the guide section (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965),the court held "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice, Duran’s anti-loosening teeth are arranged directly adjacent the conical surface of the guide section and perform in a similar manner therefore Duran teaches it would be an obvious engineering choice to arrange 55 on the conical surface of the guide section).
Regarding 11, Duran in view of Bengtsson teaches a locking device, comprising: the quick-change lock assembly according to claim 1, wherein the quick-change bolt (Duran, 11) is configured such that, when the quick-change bolt is tightened with a (see claim interpretation under claim 11 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection) quick-change nut (receptacle assembly 15), the guide section (Duran, 46) passes through the threaded hole of the quick-change nut and abuts against an inner surface of a locking concave portion (see claim interpretation under claim 11 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection; Duran, Figs 8;9 depict the locking concave portion to be the hollowed inward center portion of member 24; Figs 8;9 depict 46 passing through the threaded hole of 15 and abutting an inner surface of the locking concave portion), and wherein second anti-loosening teeth (see claim interpretation under claim 11 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection; Duran, teeth 60) are adapted to be engaged with the first anti-loosening teeth for locking or disengaged from the same for unlocking (Duran, movement between Fig 6 and Fig 8 depict 55 engaging with and disengaging from 60 to lock 11).
Regarding claim 12, Duran in view of Bengtsson teaches the locking device according to claim 11, wherein, the first anti-loosening teeth (Duran, 55) and the second anti-loosening teeth (Duran, 60) are inclined toothed structures (Duran, Fig 9; col 4, lines 3-21).
Regarding claim 13, Duran in view of Bengtsson teaches the locking device according to claim 12, wherein, the angle of inclination of the first anti-loosening teeth (Duran, 55) and the second anti-loosening teeth (Duran, 60) is 30°-60° (Duran, col 4, lines 3-21 discusses the teeth angle to be 45°).
Regarding claim 14, Duran in view of Bengtsson teaches a vehicle (Bengtsson, [Abstract]), comprising: a battery pack beam (Bengtsson, housing member 50) with a hole formed therein (Bengtsson, Fig 3); a vehicle body beam (Bengtsson, 30) with a groove formed therein (Bengtsson, Fig 3); and the locking device according to claim 11, wherein a nut assembly (see claim interpretation under claim 11 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection; Duran, 15; cage 33) is fixed into the groove of the vehicle body beam (Bengtsson, Fig 3), and the quick-change lock assembly is fixed into the hole of the battery pack beam (Bengtsson, Fig 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao, CN 103314169 B.
Regarding claim 4, Yao teaches the quick-change lock assembly according to claim 1, wherein, a step portion is formed on an (see claim interpretation for claim 4 Claim Objection) inner side of the bolt fixing ring (Fig 6 depicts the step portion to be the rounded surface of 12 protruding into the through hole), and the step portion stops the flange portion (Figs 4;6 depict 12, a retaining ring, structurally capable without modification of engaging and stopping the flange portion; In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; Yao 12 performs the same retaining function as instant invention 127 of 107 therefore the configuration isn’t significant since it does not provide new or unexpected results).
Claims 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiChiara, US 10330136 B2.
Regarding claim 7, DiChiara teaches the nut assembly according to claim 6, further comprising:
a cover plate (bracket 184; In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), the court held the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice); and
a base (bottom wall 278), the cover plate being fixedly connected to the base (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara depicts 184 fixedly connected to 278 via tubular portion 180 of 172), and an accommodating space (nut plate receptacle 186) being formed between the cover plate and the base (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara depicts 186 formed between 184 and 278);
wherein the quick-change nut further comprises a cap portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara) connected to the nut body (132), the cap portion is arranged in the accommodating space (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara), an opening from which the nut body protrudes is formed in the base (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara and Fig 2 depicts 132 protruding upward through an opening), and
the accommodating space is configured to allow the quick-change nut to move within a predetermined range (movement between Fig 2 and Fig 3 depicts the accommodating space allowing the 132 to move a predetermined range).
Regarding claim 8, DiChiara teaches the nut assembly according to claim 7, wherein, a guide portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara) is formed on the side, opposite to the cover plate (184), of the locker (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara and Fig 2 depict the guide portion to be on 142 opposite 84), and a guide hole (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara) matched with the guide portion is formed in the cover plate (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara and Fig 2 depict the guide hole formed in 184 aligned and corresponding with the guide portion of 142 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 3a(2) definition of matched and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), the elastic structure (166) sleeves the guide portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara and Fig 2), and both ends of the elastic structure respectively abut against the cover plate and the locker (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), the court held claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device; DiChiara’s apparatus operates in the same manner as the instant invention therefore DiChiara teaches both ends of the elastic structure respectively abut against the cover plate and the locker).
Regarding claim 9, DiChiara teaches the nut assembly according to claim 7, wherein, a flanging (internal sidewall 188; 188 is a rim for guiding 132 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 for flange and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) is provided on the base (278) and/or the cover plate, and the flanging is configured to limit the rotation of the quick-change nut relative to the base and/or the cover plate (col 5, line 62-col 6, line 11).
Regarding claim 10, DiChiara teaches the nut assembly according to claim 7, wherein, protrusions (see Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara) are formed on the cap portion (182), and snap grooves (Fig 6 depicts the grooves to be the long narrow channels formed by 254 and 258) snapped with the protrusions are formed in the locker (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-DiChiara and Fig 2 depicts the protrusions snapped with the grooves via 132).
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 lock assemblies.
Cosenza, US 5082406 A, teaches a self-locking panel fastener with device for visually indicating whether fastener is locked with a quick change lock assembly and a nut assembly.
Hao, CN 211543304 U, teaches a battery box locking device for a pure electric vehicle with a quick change lock assembly and a nut assembly.
Cen et al., CN 212353586 U, teaches a lock body for quickly changing electricity of electric automobile with a quick change lock assembly and a nut assembly.
Hao, CN 106274434 A, teaches a battery box locking device and batter box including the battery box locking device with a quick change lock assembly and a nut assembly.
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
Prosecution Insights