DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1, Figures , claims 1-5, 7-12 and 15, in the reply filed on June 17, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search of multiple species would not impose a serious burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because Species 1 and 2 comprise patentably distinct features which require the search of different subclasses due to the claimed structural differences between such species. Examining multiple species together would impose a serious burden on the examiner, as such would require the search of multiple patentably distinct features that otherwise would not have to be searched for, applying appropriate prior art rejections and having to consider and respond to attorney arguments regarding such multiple patentably distinct features and rejections.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6, 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 17, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2 (line 3) “section, in particular between” should recite –section between--.
For the purpose of examining the application, it is assumed that appropriate correction has been made.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baus (US 8,821,061).
As to claim 1, Baus discloses a ball lock pin comprising:
a pin body 12 with a length axis, an inner accommodation, and at least one locking ball accommodation 22;
a blocking pin 14 that is at least partly arranged in the inner accommodation and movable along the length axis between a blocking position and a releasing position;
at least one locking ball 30 that is movably arranged in the at least one locking ball accommodation, wherein the at least one locking ball is biased into a locking position by the blocking pin if the blocking pin is in the blocking position, and wherein the at least one locking ball is released for moving into an unlocking position if the blocking pin is in the releasing position;
a primary spring element 18 that is arranged in the inner accommodation and biases the blocking pin into the blocking position; and
a redundant spring element 19 that is arranged in the inner accommodation and biases the blocking pin into the blocking position (Figures 3A-5C).
As to claim 2, Baus discloses a ball lock pin wherein the pin body 12 comprises an enlarged cup-shaped end section A (Figure 5B reprinted below with annotations, and wherein the primary spring element 18 is arranged in the enlarged cup-shaped end section between the blocking pin 14 and the enlarged cup-shaped end section (Figures 3A-5C).
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
365
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Baus discloses a ball lock pin comprising a closure cap A that closes the enlarged cup-shaped end section A (cap B closes the lower end of cup-shaped end section A; Figure 5B), wherein the closure cap comprises an opening, and wherein the blocking pin 14 comprises an actuatable end section that extends through the opening (Figures 3A-5C).
As to claim 4, Baus discloses a ball lock pin wherein the blocking pin 14 comprises a collar 14b that delimits the actuatable end section on the blocking pin, and wherein the primary spring element 18 biases the collar in the blocking position of the blocking pin against the closure cap B (Figures 3A-5C).
As to claim 5, Baus discloses a ball lock pin wherein the blocking pin 14 comprises at least one notch 24 for reception of the at least one locking ball 30 in the releasing position of the blocking pin, and wherein the at least one notch and the collar B are arranged on opposed axial ends of the blocking pin (Figures 3A-5C).
As to claim 7, Baus discloses a ball lock pin comprising at least one additional blocking pin 16 (Figures 3A-5C).
As to claim 8, Baus discloses a ball lock pin wherein the blocking pin 14 is tube-shaped and comprises an inner through hole, and wherein the at least one additional blocking pin 16 is at least partly accommodated in the inner through hole (Figures 3A-5C).
As to claim 9, Baus discloses a ball lock pin wherein the at least one additional blocking pin 16 comprises a collar 16 that abuts against the blocking pin 14 (Figures 3A-5C).
As to claim 10, Baus discloses a ball lock pin wherein the redundant spring element 19 biases the collar 16a of the at least one additional blocking pin 16 against the blocking pin 14 (Figures 3A-5C).
As to claim 12, Baus discloses a ball lock pin wherein the blocking pin 14 and the at least one additional blocking pin 16 are simultaneously actuatable via an associated actuation tool 20 (Figures 3A-5C).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baus in view of Mewse (US 3,0698,737).
As to claim 15, Baus fails to explicitly disclose that the ball lock pin is used within an aircraft.
Mewse teaches the use of a ball lock pin structurally and functionally similar to the ball lock pin disclosed by Buas used within an aircraft (Figures 1-5; C3 L36-40).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ball lock pin disclosed by Baus within an aircraft, as taught by Mewse, as the two ball lock pins are structural and functional equivalents within the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 11, Baus discloses the claimed ball lock pin with the exception of comprising at least one additional locking ball, wherein the pin body comprises at least one additional locking ball accommodation, wherein the at least one additional locking ball is movably arranged in the at least one additional locking ball accommodation, wherein the at least one additional locking ball is biased into an associated locking position by the at least one additional blocking pin if the at least one additional blocking pin is in an associated blocking position, wherein the at least one additional locking ball is released for moving into an associated unlocking position if the at least one additional blocking pin is in an associated releasing position, and wherein the at least one locking ball and the at least one additional locking ball form separate locking levels.
There is no teaching or suggestion, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ball lock pin disclosed Baus to have the above mentioned elemental features. Furthermore, such modifications would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
07/01/26
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights