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 .
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 5, 6, 8 is 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.
In claim 5, lines 6-9, “the first partial region” and “the second partial region” lack antecedent basis since the partial regions are recited in claim 4 and the instant claim depends from claim 1. Accordingly, the functionality recited in claim 5 is not clearly understood.
In claim 6, line 3, “the rest of the anti-pull-out device” lacks clear antecedent basis.
In claim 8, line 3, the phrase defining the “leaf spring” as adapted to “the contour of the remaining anti-pull-out device” is not clearly ascertained within the confines of the claim, since “the contour of the remaining device” lacks clear antecedent basis. And furthermore, “the first and second protective element parts” lack clear antecedent basis since these parts are not recited in claim 1.
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) 1-7, 9, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated FR 3050222 (hereinafter FR222).
Re Claim 1. (Currently Amended)
FR222 discloses a locking device (Fig. 1-7) comprising: a stator (1), a rotor (5), and an anti-pull-out device (7,8) for preventing a key (12) from being pulled out over a rotational angle range, wherein the anti-pull-out device (7,8) is moved into a first position (Figs. 6-7) and into a second position (Figs. 4-5), wherein the anti-pull-out device has an elastic design (biased by elastic ring 4), wherein the elastic effect forces the anti-pull-out device into the second position (Fig. 4-5), wherein the anti-pull-out device has a bent annular region (77,87) for operatively connecting to the key (12), wherein the bent annular region comprises at least one gap (on the front surface thereof by virtue of the beveled edges 77,87) in the first position (Figs. 6-7) for introducing a key, wherein in the second position (Figs. 4-5) of the anti-pull-out device, the gap is modified such that the key is prevented from being inserted or from being pulled out wherein when the key is rotated with the rotor of the locking device, the key (12) assumes different rotational positions with respect to the stator and thus with respect to the anti-pull-out device, wherein in at least one rotational position, which corresponds to at least one start position, the key can be withdrawn, wherein in other rotational positions, which are designed as locking positions, the key is prevented from being withdrawn by the anti-pull-out device (see claim 1, lines 20-26).
Re Claim 2. (Currently Amended)
FR222 discloses the locking device according to claim 1, wherein the gap in the second position (Fig. 4) is formed with a smaller width than in the first position (Fig.6), wherein in the second position (Fig.4) the width of the gap
Re Claim 3. (Currently Amended)
FR222 discloses the locking device
Re Claim 4. (Currently Amended)
FR222 discloses the locking device
Re Claim 5. (Currently Amended)
As best understood, FR222 discloses the locking device according to claim 1, in that the annular bent region (77,87) comprises at least one stop (edge 70) with which a position of the annular bent region (77,87) the first partial region in a first direction and the second partial region in a second, opposite direction, wherein the first stop limits the movement of the first partial region in the first direction and the second stop limits the movement of the second partial region in the second direction.
Re Claim 6. (Currently Amended)
As best understood, FR222 discloses the locking device according to claim 1, wherein the anti-pull-out device comprises a spring device (4), wherein the spring device (4) forces the rest of the anti-pull-out device (7,8) into the second position (Fig. 4).
Re Claim 7. (Currently Amended)
FR222 discloses the locking device according to claim 1, wherein the anti-pull-out device comprises a first sliding surface (at 77) in order to be moved into the first position (Fig.6) against the elastic force (4), against the force of the spring device (4), when the key (12) is inserted and/or wherein the anti-pull-out device comprises a second sliding surface (at 87) in order to be moved into the first position (Fig.6) against the elastic force (4), by the force of the spring device (4), when the key (12) is withdrawn.
Re Claim 9. (Currently Amended)
FR222 discloses the locking device according to claim 1, wherein the anti-pull-out device is inserted in a groove (see Fig. 1) of the rotor (5), a first rotor element of the rotor.
Re Claim 14. (Currently Amended)
FR222 discloses a closing device (a door; see Title: Safety Lock for Door) with a locking device (Fig.1; 1) according to claim 1, wherein the closing device (a door) comprises a closing device housing (conventional door lock bore/housing), wherein the locking device (1)
Re Claim 15. (Currently Amended)
FR222 discloses a closing system (a door; see Title: Safety Lock for Door) with a locking device (Fig.1; 1) according to claim 1 or with a closing device (door) comprising a closing device housing (conventional door lock bore/housing), wherein the locking device is accommodated in the closing device housing and with a key (12).
It is noted with respect to claims 14 and 15, Official Notice is taken that a conventional door receives a lock within a housing or bore therein.
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 FR222 in view of FR 2922245 (hereinafter FR245).
Re Claim 8. (Currently Amended)
As best understood, FR222 discloses the locking device according to claim 1, wherein the spring device (4) is designed as a leaf spring adapted to the contour of the remaining anti-pull-out device, the first and second protective element parts.
FR222 fails to teach the use of a leaf spring, however, FR245 discloses the use of a well known leaf spring (9) to bias elements together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spring of FR222 to include a leaf spring as desired in order to enhance the desired functionality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 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.
It is noted that the rotationally fixed in the stator functionality of claim 10, the latching device and spring back functionality of claim 11, and the extension and blocking elements of claims 12-13 are not found or suggested in the prior art of record, in combination with the other claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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