DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a FINAL office action on the merits. Claims 1, 2, 6-13 and 15-23, as filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 8, 9, and 16-19 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.
Claims 8 and 9 appear to establish that the locking-ready relationship is wherein the locking mechanism can be engaged. However, in this position as shown in the figures the two arms are superimposed upon each other and can not further rotate towards each other. The Specification appears to also use the phrase “locking-ready” to indicate intermediate configurations as described in Paragraph 50 and shown in Fig. 7. It is unclear how this configuration can be considered a locking-ready relationship as currently described.
Regarding claims 16-23, Application has used the term “force” with respect to how the device is considered to be tamper resistant. While Applicant appears to be intending this to be understood as the Application of force by brute means (pry bars, cutting device, etc.), the force could also be understood as the application of force through a key turned within the locking mechanism. The term “force” is so broadly applied that it could encompass even more “force” applications than currently understood and renders the claims indefinite.
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.
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) 1, 2, 6-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voiculescu (US 6,254,041) in view of Klug (US 4,010,989).
Regarding claim 1, Voiculescu discloses an apparatus comprising:
a first arm (60), comprising a first locking counterpart (74) of a locking mechanism;
a second arm (40), comprising a second locking counterpart (77) of the locking mechanism;
a mandrel (44) configured to connect to a strap; and
a ratchet mechanism (20);
wherein:
the first arm, the second arm, the mandrel, and the ratchet mechanism are co-operatively configured such that:
in response to rotation of the first arm, relative to the second arm, in a first direction, the mandrel is rotated in the first direction, relative to the second arm, via the ratchet mechanism, such that, while the strap is connected to the mandrel, the rotation of the mandrel in the first direction is with effect that the strap is wound about the mandrel (the mechanism of Figs. 3 and 4 operates in this manner); and
in response to rotation of the first arm, relative to the second arm, in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, rotation of the mandrel, relative to the second arm, is opposed, via the ratchet mechanism (the mechanism of Figs. 3 and 4 operates in this manner);
the first and second arms are configurable for disposition in a locking-ready relationship, wherein, while the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, the locking mechanism is configurable for disposition in: (i) a locking effective configuration, and (ii) a locking ineffective configuration (when the arms are in the position as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 latch member 74 can be rotated between the positions shown in Figs. 4 and 5 to produce locking and locking ineffective positions);
wherein:
while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration, the first and second locking counterparts are co-operatively configured (Figs. 2-8 as shown) such that:
rotation of the first arm, relative to the second arm, in the first direction, is opposed by the first and second locking counterparts (Figs. 2-8 as shown);
while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking ineffective configuration, the first and second locking counterparts are co-operatively configured such that there is an absence of opposition of rotation of the first arm, relative to the second arm, in the first direction, by the first and second locking counterparts (Figs. 2-8 as shown).
Voiculescu fails to disclose rotation of the first arm, relative to the second arm, in the second direction is opposed by the first and second locking counterparts.
Krug teaches a locking mechanism with a closed slot (41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a closed slot on the second locking counterpart of Voiculescu such that the latch 74 is surrounded on opposed sides. Adding a closed slot by adding an additional layer to the structure 77 of Voiculescu would result in a more rigid lock that resists movement in opposed directions minimizing oscillating forces that could damage the mechanism over time. The modified configuration would prevent rotation of the first arm relative to the second arm in the second direction by opposition from the first and second locking counterparts.
Regarding claim 2, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration, the locking mechanism is transitionable to the locking ineffective configuration via actuation of one of the first locking counterpart and the second locking counterpart (Column 6, lines 43-65 describe wherein a key is used to transition between the configurations); and while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking ineffective configuration, the locking mechanism is transitionable to the locking effective configuration via actuation of the one of the first locking counterpart and the second locking counterpart (Column 6, lines 43-65 describe wherein a key is used to transition between the configurations).
Regarding claim 6, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking ineffective configuration, rotation of the first arm, relative to the second arm, in the second direction, is opposed by the second arm (Figs. 2-4 as shown).
Regarding claim 7, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, rotation of the first arm, relative to the second arm, in the second direction, is opposed by the second arm (Figs. 2-4 as shown).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking ineffective configuration, the first arm is rotatable, relative to the second arm, in the second direction (an intermediate angle between the arms would allow further rotation in the second direction).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, the first arm is rotatable, relative to the second arm, in the second direction (an intermediate angle between the arms would allow further rotation in the second direction).
Regarding claim 10, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, the first and second arms are disposed in opposing relationship (Figs. 2-4 as shown).
Regarding claim 11, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, at least a portion of the second arm is nested within the first arm (Figs. 3 and 4 as shown).
Regarding claim 12, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, an angle defined between: (i) a longitudinal axis of the first arm, and (ii) a longitudinal axis of the second arm, is an acute angle having a value of less than 15 degrees (Figs. 3 and 4 as shown).
Regarding claim 13, Voiculescu further discloses wherein; while the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, the angle defined between: (i) the longitudinal axis of the first arm, and (ii) the longitudinal axis of the second arm, is 0 degrees (Figs. 3 and 4 as shown in so much as it appears to be congruent with the angle shown in Fig. 8 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 15, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: the first locking counterpart includes a cam lock that includes a cam (74); the second locking counterpart includes a slot (81) configured for receiving the cam: wherein, while the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration, the cam is disposed in the slot; and while the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking ineffective configuration, there is an absence of disposition of the cam in the slot (Figs. 2-7 as shown).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration, the first arm and the second arm are co-operatively configured to oppose application of a force from an external source to at least one of the first locking counterpart or the second locking counterpart, wherein the application of the force is effective for defeating the locking effective configuration (Figs. 2-4 show wherein the latch mechanisms are occluded to prevent an external force from defeating the locking).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration, the first arm and the second arm are co-operatively configured to oppose application of a force from an external source to at least one of the first locking counterpart or the second locking counterpart (Figs. 2-4 show wherein the latch mechanisms are occluded to prevent an external force from defeating the locking), wherein the application of the force is effective for transitioning the locking mechanism from the locking effective configuration to the locking ineffective configuration (the occlusion would prevent an effective force from transitioning the latching mechanism).
Regarding claim 18, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: the first locking counterpart includes a cam lock that includes a cam (74); and the second locking counterpart includes a slot (81) configured for receiving the cam; wherein: while the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration, the cam is disposed in the slot; and while the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking ineffective configuration, there is an absence of disposition of the cam in the slot (Figs. 2-7 as shown); and while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration, the first arm and the second arm are co-operatively configured to oppose application of a force from an external source to the cam, wherein the application of the force is effective for defeating the locking effective configuration (Figs. 2-4 show wherein the latch mechanisms are occluded to prevent an external force effective for defeating the locking configuration from defeating the locking mechanism).
Regarding claim 19, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration, the first arm and the second arm are co-operatively configured to conceal the cam, such that the application of the force from the external source is opposed (Fig. 2 as shown).
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.
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voiculescu.
Regarding claim 20, Voiculescu discloses an apparatus comprising:
a first arm (60), comprising a first locking counterpart (74) of a locking mechanism;
a second arm (40), comprising a second locking counterpart (77) of the locking mechanism;
a mandrel (44) configured to connect to a strap; and
a ratchet mechanism (20);
wherein:
the first arm, the second arm, the mandrel, and the ratchet mechanism are co-operatively configured such that:
in response to rotation of the first arm, relative to the second arm, in a first direction, the mandrel is rotated in the first direction, relative to the second arm, via the ratchet mechanism, such that, while the strap is connected to the mandrel, the rotation of the mandrel in the first direction is with effect that the strap is wound about the mandrel (the mechanism of Figs. 3 and 4 operates in this manner); and
in response to rotation of the first arm, relative to the second arm, in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, rotation of the mandrel, relative to the second arm, is opposed, via the ratchet mechanism (the mechanism of Figs. 3 and 4 operates in this manner);
the first and second arms are configurable for disposition in a locking-ready relationship, wherein, while the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, the locking mechanism is configurable for disposition in: (i) a locking effective configuration, and (ii) a locking ineffective configuration (when the arms are in the position as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 latch member 74 can be rotated between the positions shown in Figs. 4 and 5 to produce locking and locking ineffective positions);
wherein:
while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration:
the first and second locking counterparts are co-operatively configured such that rotation of the first arm, relative to the second arm, is opposed by the first and second locking counterparts (Figs. 2-8 as shown); and
the first arm and the second arm are co-operatively configured to oppose application of a force from an external source to at least one of the first locking counterpart or the second locking counterpart, wherein the application of the force is effective for defeating the locking effective configuration (Figs. 2-4 show wherein the latch mechanisms are occluded to prevent an external force from defeating the locking);
while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking ineffective configuration, the first and second locking counterparts are co- operatively configured such that there is an absence of opposition of rotation of the first arm, relative to the second arm, in the first direction, by the first and second locking counterparts (Figs. 2-8 as shown).
Regarding claim 21 as best understood, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: the application of the force is effective for transitioning the locking mechanism from the locking effective configuration to the locking ineffective configuration (the occlusion would prevent an effective force from transitioning the latching mechanism).
Regarding claim 22, Voiculescu further discloses wherein:
the first locking counterpart includes a cam lock that includes a cam (74); and
the second locking counterpart includes a slot (81) configured for receiving the cam;
wherein:
while the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration, the cam is disposed in the slot; and while the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking ineffective configuration, there is an absence of disposition of the cam in the slot (Figs. 2-7 as shown); and
while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration, the first arm and the second arm are co-operatively configured to oppose application of a force from an external source to the cam, wherein the application of the force is effective for defeating the locking effective configuration (Figs. 2-4 show wherein the latch mechanisms are occluded to prevent an external force effective for defeating the locking configuration from defeating the locking mechanism).
Regarding claim 23, Voiculescu further discloses wherein: while: (i) the first and second arms are disposed in the locking-ready relationship, and (ii) the locking mechanism is disposed in the locking effective configuration, the first arm and the second arm are co-operatively configured to conceal the cam, such that the application of the force from the external source is opposed (Figs. 2-4 as shown).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Response to Rejections under 35 USC 112:
Applicant has referenced paragraphs 62-65 as describing an intermediate configuration. However, these paragraphs appear to further confuse what is being described. Paragraphs 62 and 63 lead off with the phrase “In some embodiments” and continue to both include, “locking-ready relationship (e.g. while the ratchet strap 100 is disposed in the closed configuration)”. A direct correlation is established between “locking-ready” and “closed configuration” as a subtext to “some embodiments”.
Alternatively, Paragraphs 64-65 appear to include the language Applicant is referencing regarding intermediate configuration. These paragraphs lead off with the phrase “In some embodiments” and continue to both include “(e.g. while the ratchet strap is disposed in the intermediate configuration)”. These combined paragraphs appear to then suggest that “locking-ready” is supposed to be understood as all configurations and angles between the two arms besides fully open. When this “locking-ready” language is understood in this broad manner, the conditional statements in at least claim 1 start to appear indefinite. Claim 1 introduces that when the arms are locking-ready and the locking mechanism is configurable to a locking effective configuration wherein the locking effective configuration is described as rotation in the first and second direction is opposed. This logic fails under the broad understanding noted in the Specification and described by Applicant’s arguments. Clearer usage and consistent application of this terminology is required for a better understanding of claims 8 and 9 alternatively all of the claims.
Regarding Applicant’s comments to claims 16-19, the original wording of the rejections has been updated as shown above to further address the indefinite application of the term “force”.
Applicant’s Response to Rejections under 35 USC 102:
Applicant has included comments regarding Voiculescu as it would apply to the amended language of claim 1. Klug has been introduced above to teach the shortcomings of Voiculescu. As noted above, an enclosed type latch mechanism is a known structure and slight modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant argues the male latch member is accessible in Figs. 2-4 of Voiculescu is accessible. Applicant has failed to clearly establish the current device include locking members that are inaccessible. Applicant has further failed to communicate what the metes and bounds for understanding application of force is opposed. Presumably, the device limits access to the interior structures, but Applicant’s own figures fail to exhibit this features. For instance, no underside view is provided to show edges of the second arm being covered by the first arm sufficient to prevent ingress of a tool. The instant device is not devoid of gaps or spaces. Applicant’s broad language does not appear to cover the current invention such that it would be impossible to conceive a tool that could access and defeat the locking mechanism. Currently, Voiculescu and the invention of this application appear to both equally prevent tampering.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Klug (US 4,010,989) is introduced to convey the state of the art of latch mechanisms.
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 MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights