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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "13" and "80” have both been used to designate the push button (see page 9, last line and Figs. 1, 2-6). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "24" and "200" have both been used to designate the mount (see page 10). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “100”, "150" and "151” have all been used to designate the platform 100 (see page 13 discussion of Fig. 5B). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “100” , “51”, in Figs. 1-5, also “50” and “60” in Fig.1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the reference numerals “100” and “51” are not shown in Figure 1 as indicated in the specification (page 9 and throughout). In addition, the drawing objections listed above should be corrected in conjunction with the specification.
Also, on page 7, line 5, delete “re”.
On page 11, line 3, “plat” should be amended to -plate--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 12, "the device" lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Touratech Product Manual for Garmin Zumo XT (Examiner cited NPL - U).
PNG
media_image1.png
2065
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 1.
As shown above, Touratech discloses a locking platform for receiving a mount (in first Figure) comprising: a plate (gray chassis and plate under mount in Fig.1) containing a lock mechanism (at key region) that engages and disengages at least one locking member; wherein a first face of the plate receives the mount and the first face of the plate has an opening through which the at least one locking member (tab adjacent key lock cylinder) projects to engage with a mount release mechanism (extended edge portion of mount); and retracts to disengage from the mount release mechanism; and a second opposed face of the plate is adapted to receive a base (base bracket 1-3 shown on second page) whereby in use at least part of the plate is sandwiched between the mount and the base; at least one aperture is provided through the plate, between the first and second faces of the plate, to receive an attachment means (upper and lower fasteners) for joining the plate to the mount and the base; and a key region (at key in Fig.1) is provided on the same face of the platform that receives the device so that a user facing portion of the device and the key region are accessed from the same direction by a user.
Re Claim 2.
Touratech discloses a locking platform according to claim 1 wherein the lock mechanism is disengaged and/or engaged by a mechanical key (shown in Fig.1) at the key region.
Re Claim 3.
Touratech discloses a locking platform according to claim 1 wherein the lock mechanism is disengaged and/or engaged by an electrical or digital key at the key region. Touratech is silent as to the type of key shown in the figures, however, Official Notice is taken that the use of a digital electrical or mechanical key would have been old and well known in the lock art as an obvious matter of design choice.
Re Claim 6.
Touratech discloses a locking platform according to claim 1 wherein the attachment means comprises at least one threaded bolt (see fasteners in manual figures above).
Re Claim 7.
Touratech discloses a locking platform according to claim 2 wherein the plate has an arm that spaces apart the first face of the plate, on which the mount is received, from the region which receives the key (see arm housing the key region in Fig.1 above).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Touratech in view of Official Notice.
Re Claim 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the lock art to provide a cable clip on the platform of Touratech as an obvious matter of design choice in securing cables to an item, such as the locking platform according to claim 1 including at least one cable clip.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
As in claims 4 and 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a locking platform according to claim 1 including a push mechanism (button) which is operative to contact the lock mechanism to engage the at least one locking member and further wherein wherein the push mechanism has a travel ratio of 1:0.3 in respect of the push mechanism travel relative to the locking member travel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note especially, as a possible reference for an alternative rejection, US 9,663,976, Figures 7-9 disclosing a mount platform plate and lock 71 to receive a mount.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUZANNE DINO BARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7053. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
SUZANNE DINO BARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675B
Sdb
/SUZANNE L BARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
