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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 6-8, 15, and 17-19 are amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome every objection and rejection previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 19 Nov. 2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawatani et al., US 2004/0017088 A1, in view of Yamauchi, US 2011/0049145 A1.
Claim 6: Sawatani discloses a latch for a bench (the latch is capable of being used with a bench) (a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus has all the structural limitations for the claim. See MPEP 2114), comprising:
a bracket (1);
a dual cam (2) positioned in a compartment of the bracket (Fig. 10), the dual cam comprising a first ramp surface and a second ramp surface (depicted in Fig. 4B);
a handle (4), the handle is pivotally engaged to the bracket ([0043]);
a first bolt and a second bolt (depicted in Fig. 1) are configured to extend and retract from the bracket (shown by movement between Fig. 11A and Fig. 12A);
the first bolt is configured to engage a first striker (Fig. 11A illustrates the first bolt is structured to engage a first striker);
the second bolt is configured to engage a second striker (Fig. 11A illustrates the second bolt is structured to engage a first striker);
wherein the handle is configured to drive the dual cam upward (the “upward” direction is a result of mounting orientation (see Fig. 11A below);
wherein the first ramp surface is configured to drive the first bolt inward (shown by movement between Fig. 11A and Fig. 12A), and wherein the second ramp surface is configured to drive the second bolt inward (shown by movement between Fig. 11A and Fig. 12A); and
wherein the dual cam defines a first opening adjacent to the first ramp surface and a second opening adjacent to the second ramp surface (Fig. 4B illustrates first and second openings 18; [0042]).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sawatani is silent to the first opening and the second opening being configured to provide space for the inward travel or movement of the first bolt and the second bolt without engaging the first ramp surface and the second ramp surface.
Yamauchi teaches a cam comprising a ramp surface (21a3, Fig. 12), wherein the dual cam defines an opening adjacent to the ramp surface (21a, Fig. 12), wherein the opening provides space for the inward travel or movement of a bolt without engaging the ramp surface ([0078]; [0082]; movement from Fig. 18 to Fig. 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second openings of the dual cam disclosed by Sawatani to provide space for inward travel or movement of the first and second bolts without engaging the first and second ramp surfaces, as taught by Yamauchi, in order to reduce the load on the first and second bolts when pushed inward (Yamauchi [0078]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of Applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 1-5 and 7-20.
Regarding claim 1, while the individual structural elements may be found in references of record, the examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references that would not require the use of impermissible hindsight to define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application.
Sawatani et al. (US 2004/0017088 A1) teaches a latch for a bench comprising a dual cam positioned in a compartment of a bracket, the dual cam comprising first and second ramp surfaces, a handle pivotally engaged to the bracket, wherein the handle is configured to drive the dual cam upward and wherein the first ramp surface is configured to drive a first bolt inward and the second ramp surface is configured to drive a second bolt inward. However, Sawatani et al. teaches the dual cam moves upward when the handle is pulled in the opposite direction and is silent to the handle being configured to be pulled upward, wherein the handle is configured to drive the dual cam upward when the handle is pulled upward. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the handle disclosed by Sawatani et al. to be configured to be pulled upward and drive the dual cam upward without use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the intended structure of the device.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 11-16, the prior art fails to disclose each and every limitation of claim 1 from which the claims depend.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 allowed for the reasons presented in the Non-final Office Action mailed 19 Nov. 2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/EGB/Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675