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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-35 have been examined. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 36-40 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 21-35) in the reply filed on February 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21,23-29,33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7,10,13-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,647,849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower claims 1-7,10,13-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,647,849 would encompass the broader claims 21,23-29,33-35 of the current application.
Current application
U.S. 11,647,849
21
1 in view of 13
22
1 in view of 13
23
2
24
3
25
4
26
5
27
6
28
7
29
10
30
31
32
33
14
34
15
35
16
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21,23-25,33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ungerman (US 3,749,279) in view of Voegeli (US 4,506,776).
Regarding claim 21, Ungerman discloses a security gate for a retail store shelf having one or more products (10, 13A, 138, 20A, 208, 24, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4; col 4, In 10-38, 'an article dispensing unit 10 .. .four compartments are provided, each having a lower shelf 24 and the front end of each shelf closed off by a gate. The upper two gates are identified as 13a and 13b and the lower two gates are identified as 20a and 20b'), the security gate comprising:
a header (11, 12, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4 - see header comprising the top sidewall of the unit 10, along with the right and left sidewalls 11 and 12; col 4, In 10-38);
at least one hinge arranged in a horizontal alignment with the header (15, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4 - see top horizontally aligned hinge along top cross-bar 15, with said hinge being arranged in horizontal alignment with the upper surface of the header; col 5, In 1-30, 'When both gates 13a and 13b are locked shut, these gates will have turned about their pivot bars 15');
a rigid frame connected to the header with the at least one hinge (14, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4 - see rigid frame formed by U-shaped bar 14; col 4, In 10-38, 'The gates are identical to each other and each gate includes a U-shaped bar 14');
a guard positioned across the rigid frame, the guard preventing a user from removing the products (16, 17, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4; col 4, In 10-38, 'The gates are identical to each other and each gate includes a U-shaped bar 14 having cross-bars 15, 16 and 17 fixed thereto'); and
a latching mechanism connecting the rigid frame to the header (18a, 18b, 21a, 21 b, 31a, 31 b, 33, 34, 53, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4 - see latching mechanism comprising pins 18a, 18b, 21a, 21b, plates 31a and 31b, channels 33 and 34, and buttons 53, and see how the latching mechanism securely connects the lower portion of the rigid frame 14 to the header side wall 12; col 4, In 10-38, 'The other end forms a pin 18a, 18b, 21a, and 21b on the gates 13a, 13b, 20a, and 20b, respectively, which pin is received in an opening 25'; col 4, In 39-59, 'two separate operating mechanisms are provided, an upper mechanism including, inter alia, operator plate 31a and a lower mechanism including, inter alia, lower operator plate 31b'; col 5, In 1-30, 'upper and lower closing channels 33 and 34'; col 5, In 31-60, 'the customer pushes a button 53').
Ungerman does not specifically teach the gate further comprising a pull handle separated and distinct from the latching mechanism.
However, Voegeli discloses a security gate for an article dispenser (10, 14, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7; col 2, In 35-41, 'a newspaper display machine 10 ... an access door 14') comprising a header (12, 20, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 - see header comprising container walls 12 and locking mechanisms 20; col 2, In 35-41; col 2, In 42-51 ); a hinge (15, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 - see hinge 15; col 2, In 35-41, 'the door 14 is hinged along its lower edge to the container by a horizontal rod 15'); a rigid frame (Fig. 1, 2 - see rigid perimeter frame of door 14) and a guard (28, Fig. 1, 2 - see guard 28; col 2, In 60-68); and a latching mechanism (16, 18, Fig. 1, 2 - see latching mechanism within header portion 20 associated with latch 16 on bracket 18; col 2, In 42-51, 'a latch 16 is carried by a bracket 18'); the gate further comprising a pull handle distinct from the latching mechanism (22, Fig. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 - see pull handle 22, and see how the pull handle 22 is distinct separate from the latching mechanism since the pull handle 22 functions to move the door, but does not control the latching mechanism; col 2, In 52-55,
'when the door 14 is opened by a customer who pulls upon a handle 22 on the bracket 18, access to the container is gained, whereby a newspaper can be removed by the customer').
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to have modified the gate of Ungerman's system by employing the handle member as taught by Voegeli, in order to have allowed for a more efficient and user friendly system for opening the security gate. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Ungerman discloses the security gate of Claim 21, and further teaches wherein the guard comprises a grate (16, 17, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4 - see grate formed by bars 16 and 17; col 4, In 10-38, 'The gates are identical to each other and each gate includes a Ushaped bar 14 having cross-bars 15, 16 and 17 fixed thereto').
Regarding claim 24, the combination meets the limitation of claim, but Ungerman does not explicitly mention the guard comprises a transparent shield.
Voegeli discloses the security gate of Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the guard comprises a transparent shield (28, Fig. 1, 2- see guard 28 comprising a transparent shield 28; col 2, In 60-68, 'a transparent window 28 is carried by the door 14').
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to the transparent shield as suggested by Voegeli to the security gate of Ungerman because it would allow transparent window for observation. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 25, Ungerman discloses the security gate of Claim 21, and further teaches the security gate further comprising a sensor connected with respect to an alarm (106, 107, 108, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-see how the security gate further comprises a sensor in form of-a· microswitch unit 106 having a leaf 108 and button 107, and see how the sensor is connected to an alarm unit via lines 111 that alert a cashier of cost information related to the dispensed articles; col 7, In 33-55, 'so that when rod 81 is actuated it will engage the leaf 108 depressing buttons 107 of microswitch 106. An identical solenoid unit, electrical system including a control master switch and an identical microswitch unit 106-108 is provided for the rod 80. When either of these microswitches 106 are actuated, they transmit electrical signal through the lines 111 for transmitting to the cashier or check-out area of the hotel cost information concerning the dispensed articles').
Regarding claim 26, Ungerman discloses the security gate of Claim 25, and further teaches wherein the alarm is activated when the sensor determines that an alarming condition is met (106, 107, 108, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5- see how the sensor transmits the alarm signal once a gate is opened, with said gate opening being the alarming condition; col 7, In 33-55, 'so that when rod 81 is actuated it will engage the leaf 108 depressing buttons 107 of microswitch 106. An identical solenoid unit, electrical system including a control master switch and an identical microswitch unit 106-108 is provided for the rod 80. When either of these microswitches 106 are actuated, they transmit electrical signal through the lines 111 for trans milling to the cashier or check-out area of the hotel cost information concerning the dispensed articles').
Regarding claim 27, Ungerman discloses the security gate of Claim 26, and further teaches wherein the alarming condition is at least one of: release of the latching mechanism one time (106, 107, 108, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5- see how the alarming condition is the releasing of the latching mechanism in order to open a gate; col 7, In 33-55, 'so that when rod 81 is actuated it will engage the leaf 108 depressing buttons 107 of microswitch 106. An identical solenoid unit, electrical system including a control master switch and an identical microswitch unit 106 108 is provided for the rod 80. When either of these microswitches 106 are actuated, they transmit electrical signal through the lines,111 for transmitting to the cashier or check-out area of the hotel cost information concerning the dispensed articles'); release of the latching mechanism X times; and a time delta t between when the latching mechanism is released and relatched (Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4; col 7, In 33-55).
Regarding claim 33, Ungerman in view of Voegeli disclose the security gate of Claim 21, and Ungerman modified by Voegeli further teach wherein the pull handle is located on the guard (Ungerman - Fig. 1 - see how the handle 22 of Voegeli would be placed on the rigid frame 14 or guard 16/17 of Ungerman, such that the handle would either be placed directly on the guard, or indirectly on the guard through the rigid frame); but do not specifically teach wherein the pull handle is located at an opposite edge of the guard as the latching mechanism. While Ungerman in view of Voegeli do not specifically teach wherein the pull handle is located at an opposite edge of the guard as the latching mechanism, it is well known in the art that rearrangement of parts and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at placing the pull handle on the left side edge, and thus the opposite edge of the guard as the latching mechanism. Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to have arrived at placing the pull handle on the opposite edge of the guard as the latching mechanism for Ungerman in view of Voegeli's security gate, in order to have allowed for a more efficient and user friendly system for opening the security gate. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.
Regarding claim 34, Ungerman discloses the security gate of Claim 21, and further teaches wherein for each header, a plurality of rigid frames (14, Fig. 1) and latching mechanism (18a, 18b, 21a, 21b, 31a, 31 b, 33, 34, 53, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4) are connected (Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4 - see how there are a plurality of rigid frames 14 and latching mechanism for the header).
Regarding claim 35, Ungerman discloses the security gate of Claim 21, and further teaches wherein the latching mechanism is configured to require a user to use two hands to open the security gate, one hand on the latching mechanism and the other hand to pull the rigid frame and/or the guard upward relative to the shelf (Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4 - see how the latching mechanism is configured such that a user uses one hand to push button 53 in order to open the latching mechanism, and the other hand to lift the guard 16/17 upward relative to the shelf 24; col 5, In 31-60; col 6, In 1-42).
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ungerman (US 3,749,279) in view of Voegeli (US 4,506,776), further in view of Halsey, Jr. et al. (US 2017/0140600).
As per claim 28, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim, but does not explicitly mention the alarm is at least one of a strobe; an audible alarm; an alert directed to a personal electronic device; and a public address announcement
Halsey shows the alarm is at least one of a strobe; an audible alarm; an alert directed to a personal electronic device; and a public address announcement (Para. 16,57,64,182, 44,46,48,50,62,69,175,179-182,186).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include the alarm is at least one of a strobe; an audible alarm; an alert directed to a personal electronic device; and a public address announcement as suggest by Halsey to the alarm as shown by Ungerman because it would provide alternative alarm feature. It would be an implementation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
As per claim 29, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim, but does not explicitly mention a central processor that collects security gate open/close events and sensor status for one or more security gates throughout a retail store
Halsey shows shows a central processor that collects security gate open/close events and sensor status for one or more security gates throughout a retail store (Para. 16,57,64,182, 44,46,48,50,62,69,175,179-182,186; Para. 7,9,10,12 shows retail store. Ungerman also shows vending machine in facility which could be retail store).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include the central processor as suggested by Halsey to the gate system of Ungerman because it would provide data processing power for the data in respect to the sensor and alarm of Ungerman, thereby increasing the security of the system. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ungerman (US 3,749,279) in view of Voegeli (US 4,506,776), further in view of US 2017/0301198 A1 to lnVue Security Products Inc. (hereinafter 'lnVue').
Regarding claim 28, Ungerman discloses the security gate of Claim 25, and further teaches wherein the alarm is an alert directed to a device (106, 107, 108, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - see how the alarm is an alert to a cashier device that sends cost information related to the dispensed articles; col 7, In 33-55, 'so that when rod 81 is actuated it will engage the leaf 108 depressing buttons 107 of microswitch 106. An identical solenoid unit, electrical system including a control master switch and an identical microswitch unit 106-108 is provided for the rod 80. When either of these microswitches 106 are actuated, they transmit electrical signal through the lines 111 for transmitting to the cashier or check-out area of the hotel cost information concerning the dispensed articles'); but does not specifically teach wherein the alarm is at least one of a strobe; an audible alarm; an alert directed to a personal electronic device; and a public address announcement.
However, lnVue discloses a security system for a display device (20, 37, 38, Fig. 1, 3; para [0036], 'the item of electronic merchandise 20 being in contact with or in close proximity to a holder, platform or the like, generically referred to herein as a cradle 37. Cradle 37 may stand alone, or alternatively, may be permanently attached to, removably attached to, or otherwise operably coupled with a display stand, alarm module, base or the like 38') comprising: a sensor connected with respect to an alarm (27, 42, Fig. 1, 3, 9; para[0041], 'when the threshold distance has been exceeded the controller 35 activates the output device 27 with a visual, an audible or haptic alarm. For example, the alarm may be an audible voice message requesting that the item of electronic merchandise 20 be returned to the cradle 37 within a limited period of time'; para [0047], 'A further sensor 42 may be carried by the housing 21 adjacent the battery packs 32 and coupled to the controller 35. The controller 35, based upon an unauthorized entry into the housing 21, such as an attempted access to the battery pack 32 through the battery door, may activate an alarm from the output device 27. The further sensor 42 may be any type of sensor, for example, a magnetic sensor, an optical sensor, a pressure or limit switch, or a contact switch. Activation of the alarm may advantageously indicate an unauthorized attempt to remove the battery pack 32 in an effort to disable the security system 10, and thereby provide an increased time for a response from security personnel. The controller 35 may perform other actions, for example, communications via the wireless communications circuitry 23 as previously described, based upon input from the further sensor 42'; , v para[0057], 'the wireless communications circuitry 23' of the sensor 50' communicates with wireless communications circuitry disposed within the base 38 to activate an additional output device, such as a visual indicator (e.g. LED) or an audio alarm, at the "home" location and/or a remote location'; para[0067], 'the security monitoring device 60" may activate an alarm at a remote location or transmit a security signal (e.g. send a text or email notification) to security personnel'); wherein the alarm is activated when the sensor determines that an • ,, alarming condition is met (Fig. 1, 3, 9; para[0063], 'Based upon the sensor detecting an unsecured state or condition, the controller 35" may activate an alarm'; para[0042], 'there may be more than one threshold, for example a first threshold and a second threshold. When the controller 35 determines that a first threshold distance has been exceeded, the controller may activate an initial "warning" via the output device 27'; para[0043], 'If the item of electronic merchandise 20 is not timely returned to the "home" location or to a location within the first threshold distance, and instead, the second threshold distance is exceeded, the controller 35 may activate a subsequent alarm, such as an audible siren, via the output device 27'; para[0043], 'The controller 35 may also cooperate with the wireless communications circuitry 23 to call a telephone number and/or send an email or text message to security or "loss prevention" personnel'); and wherein the alarm is at least one of a strobe; an audible alarm; an alert directed to a personal electronic device; and a public address announcement (Fig. 1, 3, 9 - see how the alarm is an audible alarm, a public address announcement and an alert directed to a personal electronic device; para[0042]; para[0043]; para[0057]; para[0067]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to have modified the sensor and alarm system of Ungerman's security gate by employing the controller and alarm arrangement as taught by lnVue, allowing for a controller to transmit different alarms to a personal electronic device indicating an amount of time the gate has been opened or an unauthorized opening of the gate, in order to have allowed for a more comprehensive and secure anti-theft security system.
Regarding claim 11, Ungerman discloses the security gate of Claim 21, and Ungerman further teaches a sensor connected to an alarm (106, 107, 108, Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - see how the security gate further comprises a sensor in form of a microswitch unit 106 having a leaf 108 and button 107, and see how the sensor is connected to an alarm unit via lines 111 that alert a cashier of cost information related to the dispensed articles; col 7, In 33-55, 'so that when rod 81 is actuated it will engage the leaf 108 depressing buttons 107 of microswitch 1.06. An identical solenoid unit, electrical system including a control master switch and an identical microswitch unit 106-108 is provided for the rod 80. When either of these microswitches 106 are actuated, they transmit electrical signal through the lines 111 for transmitting to the cashier or check-out area of the hotel cost information concerning the dispensed articles'); but does not specifically teach the security gate further comprising a central processor that collects security gate open close events and sensor status for one or more security gates 11 throughout a retail store (Note: see Box VIII).
However, lnVue discloses a security device for a display device (20, 37, 38, Fig. 1, 3; para[0036]. 'the item of electronic merchandise 20 r being in contact with or in close proximity to a holder, platform or the like, generically referred to herein as a cradle 37. Cradle 37 may stand alone, or alternatively, may be permanently attached to, removably attached to, or otherwise operably coupled with a display stand, alarm module, base or the like 38') comprising: a sensor connected with respect to an alarm (27, 42, Fig. 1, 3, 9; para[0041), 'when the threshold distance has been exceeded the controller 35 activates the output device 27 with a visual, an audible or haptic alarm. For example, the alarm may be an audible voice message requesting that the item of electronic merchandise 20 be returned to the cradle 37 within a limited period of time'; para[0047), 'A further sensor 42 may be carried by the housing 21 adjacent the battery packs 32 and coupled to the controller 35. The controller 35, based upon an unauthorized entry into the housing 21, such as an attempted access to the battery pack 32 through the battery door, may activate an alarm from the output device 27. The further sensor 42 may be any type of sensor, for example, a magnetic sensor, an optical sensor, a pressure or limit switch, or a contact switch. Activation of the alarm may advantageously indicate an unauthorized attempt to remove the battery pack 32 in an effort to disable the security system 10, and thereby provide an increased time for a response from security personnel. The controller 35 may perform other actions, for example, communications via the wireless communications circuitry 23 as previously described, based upon input from the further sensor 42'; para[0057). 'the wireless communications circuitry 23' of the sensor 50' communicates with wireless communications circuitry disposed , within the base 38 to activate an additional output device, such as a visual indicator (e.g. LED) or an audio alarm, at the "home" location and/or a remote location'; para[0067), 'the security monitoring device 60" may activate an alarm at a remote location or transmit a security signal (e.g. send a text or email notification) to security personnel'); and a central processor that collects events and sensor status for one or more security devices throughout a retail store (35, 41, Fig. 1, 3 - see controller 35 comprising a processor for processing algorithms, and see how the controller can collect events and sensor status for the devices throughout a store via the memory 41; para[0036], 'the controller 35 utilizes conventional motion processing algorithms to determine the distance traveled by the item of electronic merchandise 20 away from the "home" position'; para[0037], 'the controller 35 may use one or more motion sensors and motion processing algorithms to establish (i.e. map) a "safe" zone (also boundary, perimeter or area) with or without reference to one or more "home" positions. The controller can then determine, based on subsequent motion processing, whether an item of merchandise is moved from a location within the "safe" zone to a location outside or beyond the established "safe" zone'; para[0043], 'the controller 35 may activate the camera to take still photographs and/or activate the camcorder to record video footage. Regardless, the controller 35 may then further cooperate with the wireless communications circuitry 23 to transmit the video data to security or "loss prevention• personnel to be used to identify an alleged shoplifter'; para[0039], 'The item of electronic merchandise 20 illustratively includes a memory 41 for storing computer-executable instructions and data for processing. The controller 35 may cooperate with the computer-executable instructions in the memory 41, for example, an algorithm embodied in a software application, to perform the functions described herein'). Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to have modified the sensor and alarm system of Ungerman's security gate by employing the controller and alarm arrangement as taught by lnVue, allowing for a controller to communicate with multiple security gates and process events and sensor statuses for devices throughout a store, in order to have allowed for a more comprehensive and secure anti-theft security system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30-31 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.
Claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Prior art made of record fails to teach,
As per claim 22,
the latching mechanism comprises a pin having a knob at an outer end and an engageable detent at an inner end wherein a spring is positioned between the knob and the detent to permit release of the latching mechanism.
As per claim 30,
a securing element moveable from a first position to a second position; and an electromagnetic lock configured to lock the securing element in the first position.
The examiner found no suggestions or motivations to combine similar teachings from prior art made of record to overcome the limitations as discussed above individually and in combination in respect the claimed invention as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689