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 .
SET I:
PNG
media_image1.png
828
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
781
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
819
733
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
844
813
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-8, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wells, Jr. et al. (6203075)).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Wells teaches a base defining a cavity; a lid coupled to the base and movable between a first position in which the cavity is enclosed and a second position in which the cavity is exposed (note that the container has a lid and base as shown above and the cavity is inherently within the base for holding contents); and a latch configured to be transitioned between a latched position that maintains the lid in the first position and an unlatched position that allows the lid to be transitioned to the second position, the latch comprising: a handle (30) pivotable between the latched position and the unlatched position (via hinge 31); a guide member (13) pivotably coupled to the handle (via 34), the guide member including a cam path (36); and a latching member (38) pivotably coupled to the handle (via 32), the latching member including a cam (32) disposed within the cam path, wherein the cam path is configured such that, when the latch is in the unlatched position, the cam is disposed at a position in the cam path such that the latch is maintained in the unlatched position in fig. 10 absent a force applied to the latch (note the position in fig. 10 requires a force to push down the latch structure).
Regarding claim 2, note handle and the latching member are configured such that pivoting the handle from the latched position to the unlatched position forces the cam 32 to move through the cam path 36.
Regarding claim 3, note the latching member are configured such that pivoting the handle from the latched position to the unlatched position forces at least a portion of the latching member away from the base in fig. 5 (note portion 38 moving downward).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, note a triggering member (144); and a resilient member (174), wherein the triggering member is pivotably coupled to the handle and the resilient member is disposed between the triggering member and the handle.
The apparatus of claim 5, and 19 wherein the triggering member includes a first protrusion (140), wherein the guide member includes a second protrusion (142), and wherein the triggering member and the guide member are configured such that, when the latch is in the latched position, the lid is maintained in the first position based on the first protrusion contacting the second protrusion in fig. 16.
Regarding claims 6, and 20 the handle and the trigger member are configured such that applying a force to the triggering member 144 towards the handle causes the first protrusion to move away from the second protrusion.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, note that there is another cam path on the opposed side, and the cam is comprised of the two protrusions on two ends of 38a/b, with respect to the when the latch is in the unlatched position, the first cam is disposed at a position in the first cam path, and the second cam is disposed at a position in the second cam path, such that the latch is maintained in the unlatched position absent a force applied to the latch (Note the cam comprises two protrusions disposed at the two positions on the cam patch in close and open positions in figs. 2 and 5 and the latch is maintained in the closed position in fig. 2 absent a force applied).
Regarding claim 8, note the handle and latch on the lid portion in fig. 3.
Regarding claim 13, note the latching member comprises first and second components and comprises a first component and the two cams (as cited above).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the first component comprises a distal end (hook) configured to engage the first member (base) when the latch is in the latched position.
Regarding claim 15, note the second member is maintained in the first position based on the latching member contacting the first member.
Regarding claim 17, note wherein the handle and the latching member are configured such that pivoting the handle from the latched position (fig. 13) to the unlatched position (fig. 10) forces the first cam to move through the first cam path, the second cam to move through the second cam path, and at least a portion of the latching member away from the guide member.
Regarding claim 21, regarding the new limitation in claim 21, note that “declined” is broad and including bending downward portions, and there are declined portion and inclined portion in the cam path as claimed.
PNG
media_image5.png
740
850
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
798
924
media_image6.png
Greyscale
SET II:
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swanson (3174784).
PNG
media_image7.png
941
664
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Swanson teaches a base defining a cavity; a lid coupled to the base and movable between a first position in which the cavity is enclosed and a second position in which the cavity is exposed (note the teaching of a packing case with inherently has a lid and base for the attachment of the latch structure and the base inherently has a cavity as claimed); and a latch configured to be transitioned between a latched position that maintains the lid in the first position and an unlatched position that allows the lid to be transitioned to the second position, the latch comprising: a handle (32) pivotable between the latched position and the unlatched position (via hinge 29); a guide member (30) pivotably coupled to the handle (via 29), the guide member including a cam path (48); and a latching member (34+16) pivotably coupled to the handle (at 36), the latching member including a cam (44) disposed within the cam path, wherein the cam path is configured such that, when the latch is in the unlatched position, the cam is disposed at a position in the cam path such that the latch is maintained in the unlatched position absent a force applied to the latch in fig. 2.
Regarding claim 2, note handle and the latching member are configured such that pivoting the handle from the latched position to the unlatched position forces the cam 44 to move through the cam path 48.
Regarding claim 3, note the latching member 14 are configured such that pivoting the handle from the latched position to the unlatched position forces at least a portion of the latching member away from the base in fig. 5 (note portion 44 and 14 moving upward.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, note that there is another cam path on the opposed side, and the cam is comprised of the two protrusions on two ends of 44.
Regarding claim 8, note that Swanson teaches a packing case with two portions 20 and 22, and there is no structural difference between the lid and the base. Also note that a luggage can be positioned and opened on opposed major sides.
Regarding claim 13, note the latching member comprises first and second components and comprises a first component 16 and the two cams (two protrusions of 44 extend from the second component 34.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the first component comprises a distal end (hook) configured to engage the first member (lid) when the latch is in the latched position.
Regarding claim 15, note the second member is maintained in the first position based on the latching member contacting the first member.
Regarding claim 17, note wherein the handle and the latching member are configured such that pivoting the handle from the latched position (fig. 3) to the unlatched position (fig. 5) forces the first cam to move through the first cam path, the second cam to move through the second cam path, and at least a portion of the latching member away from the guide member.
Regarding claim 21, note the declining portions and inclining portions (on two sides).
PNG
media_image8.png
433
748
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson or Wells rejections, as set forth above, in view of Cnockaert (5924533). Swanson meets all claimed limitations except for a second latch of the same as the latch cited in claim 1. Cnockaert teaches that it is known in the art to provide a container with two latches 24/23. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the container of Swanson with another latch of the same as taught by Swanson to provide added security.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson or Wells rejections, in view of Cook (2920802) or Fiore (5176281). Swanson meets all claimed limitations except for the hinge portion and is configured such that a surface of the base configured to contact the lid is disposed in a first plane and the hinge portion is disposed in a second plane that is parallel to and spaced apart from the first plane. Cook or Fiore teaches that it is known in the art to provide a container with a hinge portion and is configured such that a surface of the base configured to contact the lid is disposed in a first plane and the hinge portion is disposed in a second plane that is parallel to and spaced apart from the first plane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the hinge portion is disposed in a second plane that is parallel to and spaced apart from the first plane to allow one to access certain area of the container easily.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that: none of the applied references teaches the limitation "the cam path is configured such that, when the latch is in the unlatched position, the cam is disposed at a position in the cam path such that the latch is maintained in the unlatched position absent a force applied to the latch." Applicant asserts that this feature requires that the cam path geometry itself maintains the latch in the unlatched position without any continued application of force.
The examiner submits that this limitation merely requires the latch is in the unlatched or unlocked position, the cam (the protrusion) is disposed at a position in the cam path (the slot) such that the latch is maintained in the unlatched or unlocked position without any external force applied to the latch. Basically, this limitation only requires the protrusions to be in the cam slot in the unlocked position. With respect to the assertion that the cam path geometry itself maintains the latch in the unlatched position without any continued application of force. Note that there is nothing the claim reciting any specific orientation of the cam path or the slot.
With respect to the recitation “absent of a force applied to the latch”, note that the term “force”, as argued by applicant, by definition in mechanics or physics, is a push or pull on an object. Force is a vector quantity, with both magnitude and direction. In this case, there are forces acting on the latch that can not be absent, i.e., gravity on the inclined latch. Thus, applicant’s own assertion “absent of force” while the device itself relies on the force of gravity contradict this limitation. Therefore, the functional limitation “absent of a force applied to the latch” is interpreted as requires no external force. Note that the spring is part of the latch itself and “absent of force applied to the latch” does not impart any functional or structural differences to the applied latch in Wells. Also, applicant’s latch has a force of the same resilient force of spring 890 applied to at least to a part of the claimed latch.
PNG
media_image9.png
292
343
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Applicant also assert that, in Well, the L-shaped groove 36 provides over-center geometric retention only in the latched state. Wells, Jr. et al. state that pin 32 is "just over-center of cam surface 33 when the latch is in the closed position." Note that there is nothing the claim 1 that read over the Well, Jr. The claim broadly recites “a cam disposed within the cam path, wherein the cam path is configured such that, when the latch is in the unlatched position, the cam is disposed at a position in the cam path such that the latch is maintained in the unlatched position absent a force applied to the latch.” As set forth above, Well, Jr. teaches a cam disposed within the cam path, wherein the cam path is configured such that, when the latch is in the unlatched position, the cam is disposed at a position in the cam path such that the latch is maintained in the unlatched position absent a force applied to the latch.
Regarding Swanson, applicant asserts that the specification of Swanson attributes open- position retention to gravity and friction, not cam path geometry. As set forth above, there is nothing the claim reciting any specific orientation of the cam path or the slot. Regarding the “absent of force applied to the latch”, note that this functional limitation does not impart any structure of functional differences over the Swanson. Also note that this argument contradicts applicant’s own invention since it relies on gravity force which is an applied physical force on the latch. Also, applicant’s own latch has a force acting on the latch at the 890.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRI M MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4541. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Mon-Friday).
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
TRI M. MAI
Examiner
Art Unit 3733
/TRI M MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights