DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,822,840. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are broader than that of U.S. Patent No. 10,822,840 as the mating portion can be comprised of various shapes, structures and elements, including, but not limited to a flange.
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 1-3 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the proximal distal ends" in line 7. It is unclear what is meant by the aforementioned limitation, as proximal and distal are defined opposite directional terms, and it is uncertain how one can modify the other.
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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 7,197,905 to Ely et al.
Ely et al. disclose an apparatus (10) adapted to be mounted to secure at least one enclosure (12, 14, 16), the apparatus comprising: first and second enclosure locking members (42) comprising a body portion (60) and a mating portion (62); and a securing member (40) having first and second ends with the securing member comprising a securing bar (44, 48) and first and second coupling members (80) with each being pivotally attachable to the proximal and the distal ends of the securing bar (column 4, lines 29-43), wherein the first and second coupling members are slidably mateable with the mating portion of each of the respective first and second enclosure locking members (column 4, line 29-51), as in claim 1.
Ely et al. disclose the at least one enclosure has a wall and sidewall (20, 22) and a cover (12) oriented generally perpendicularly to the sidewall, wherein the body portion of each of the first and second enclosure locking members forms a recess (recess that receives 68), the recess being adapted to receive a fastening member (68) for fastening the enclosure locking member to the wall or sidewall (figure 3), as in claim 2, wherein the recess is further adapted to receive a barrel lock (66) comprising a generally cylindrical body with one or more retractable locking elements (88) extending therefrom, wherein the barrel lock may be received and secured in the body portion in such a way as to protect the fastener from tampering (figure 3), as in claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 6, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the argument, as best understood, that Ely et al. does not disclose the first and second coupling members are slidably mateable with the mating portion of each of the respective first and second enclosure locking members, the examiner respectfully disagrees. A new interpretation of the components of Ely et al. disclose the first and second coupling members being pivotally attached to the ends of the securing bar, and the first and second coupling members being slidably mateable with the mating portion of the first and second enclosure locking members.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7054. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9-4; F 9-12.
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 at 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BOSWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
CJB /cb/
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights