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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 22, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to claims 1, 14, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on Kuroda, JP H08312214 A , which was replaced by Kitagawa, JP H05340145 A. The Kitagawa reference was discussed in the May 15, 2026 interview when proposed amendments were initially discussed.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, line 3, “the locking mechanism” is recited. The “the” should likely be an “a” because the “locking mechanism” has not previously recited within the claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a locking mechanism”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa, JP H05340145 A, in view of Liang, US 9840860 B2. (Note: paragraph and page numbers are from the attached USPTO machine translation of JP-H05340145-A.
Regarding claim 1, Kitagawa teaches a magnetic lock system [0005] for an enclosure (box body 1001; swing door 1003; engaging portion 1005; Fig 10), the magnetic lock system comprising:
a receiver (engaged portion 1011) disposed within the enclosure (Fig 11);
a locking mechanism (1005) coupled to an interior surface of the enclosure (Figs 10;11 depicts 1005 coupled to an interior surface of the enclosure), the lock mechanism including:
a latch rotatable (movable member 1015) around a pivot axis (Fig 11 depicts the pivot axis to be formed by shaft 1017) and including a main portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa) and a latching portion (key-shaped portion 1023) extending from a first end of the main portion at a single angle (Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa depicts 1023 extending from a first end of the main portion at a single angle), the latching portion configured to engage with the receiver in the locked orientation (Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa depicts 1023 engaged with 1011 in a locked orientation);
a tension device (engaging spring 1019) coupled to the latch (see Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa) and configured to exert a force on the latch to maintain it in the locked orientation (page 6); the tension device engaging a bottom of the latch to cause the latch to pivot around the pivot axis (Fig 11; page 6), and
a magnet (engaging magnet 1021) coupled to the latch (see Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa), the magnet configured to interact with a magnetic key (opening and closing magnet 1031) to overcome the force of the tension device and transition the latch to an unlocked position (page 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa
Kitagawa doesn’t teach the tension device axially aligned with the pivot axis.
Liang teaches a rotating window sash lock (stop assembly 10) with a rotating latch (tumbler 40) which is biased by a tension element in the form of a torsion spring (biasing member 60) axially aligned with the pivot axis (pivot axis defined by post 52 of 40; Fig 7); and further teaches and identifies a finite number of predictable solutions for biasing a member such as the torsion spring or a compression spring or a leaf spring (col 11, lines 6-20) such that Liang teaches the tension device axially aligned with the pivot axis.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify Kitagawa’s biasing structure with the biasing structure of Liang. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art to bias a member. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to bias a member with a tension element (e.g. compression springs, leaf springs, torsion springs). Instant specification paragraph [0049] discusses the torsion spring configuration being preferred and [0058] discusses the tension element not being limited to a coil spring aligned with the pivot axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to try different spring structures in order to improve the efficacy or the manufacturing of the apparatus biasing structure. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Liang, and redesigned Kitagawa from a compression spring to a torsion spring with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of biasing structure.
Regarding claim 2, Kitagawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 1, wherein the latch further comprises: a magnet portion extending from a second end of the main portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa depicts the magnet portion extending from the second end of the main portion), the magnet portion having the magnet (1021) coupled thereto.
Regarding claim 8, Kitagawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 1, wherein the enclosure (Kitagawa, 1001; 1003; 1005; Fig 10) further comprises a housing (Kitagawa, 1001; 1003), the housing including: a number of sidewalls formed in any shape; a top wall attached to the sidewalls; a bottom wall attached to the side walls; and a back plate attached to the bottom wall, top wall, and sidewalls; wherein the housing surrounds an inner volume of the enclosure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Kitagawa).
Regarding claim 15, Kitagawa teaches an enclosure (box body 1001; swing door 1003; engaging portion 1005; Fig 10) comprising:
a housing (1001; 1003) surrounding an inner volume of the enclosure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Kitagawa), the housing including:
a number of sidewalls (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Kitagawa);
a top wall attached to the sidewalls;
a bottom wall attached to the sidewalls (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Kitagawa);
a back plate attached to the bottom wall, top wall, and sidewalls (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Kitagawa); and
a door (hinged door 1003) pivotably attached to the at least one of the bottom wall, top wall, and sidewalls (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Kitagawa);
a lock indicator(knob position instruction mark 1013) disposed on the door of the housing (see Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Kitagawa);
a magnetic lock system [0005] including:
a receiver (engaged portion 1011) disposed within the housing (Fig 11);
a locking mechanism (1005) coupled to an interior surface of the enclosure (Figs 10;11 depicts 1005 coupled to an interior surface of the enclosure), the locking mechanism including:
a latch (movable member 1015) rotatable around a pivot axis (Fig 11 depicts the pivot axis to be formed by shaft 1017) and configured to engage the receiver in a locked orientation (Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa depicts 1023 engaged with 1011 in a locked orientation), the latch including a main portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa) and a latching portion (key-shaped portion 1023) extending from a first end of the main portion at a single angle (Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa depicts 1023 extending from a first end of the main portion at a single angle), the main portion and the latching portion configured to rotate at the same rate about the pivot axis (Annotated excerpt Fig 1-Kitagawa depicts 1015 to be rigid so that the main portion and 1023 rotate at the same rate around 1017), and the latching portion configured to engage the receiver in the locked orientation (Fig 11);
a tension device (engaging spring 1019) coupled to the latch (see Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa) and configured to exert a force on the latch to maintain it in the locked orientation (page 6), the tension device engaging a bottom of the latch to cause the latch to pivot around the pivot axis (Fig 11; page 6); and
a magnet (engaging magnet 1021) coupled to the latch (see Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa), the magnet configured to interact with a magnetic key (opening and closing magnet 1031) to overcome the force of the tension device and transition the latch to an unlocked position when the magnetic key is aligned with the lock indicator (page 6).
Kitagawa doesn’t teach the tension device axially aligned with the pivot axis.
Liang teaches a rotating window sash lock (stop assembly 10) with a rotating latch (tumbler 40) which is biased by a tension element in the form of a torsion spring (biasing member 60) axially aligned with the pivot axis (pivot axis defined by post 52 of 40; Fig 7); and further teaches and identifies a finite number of predictable solutions for biasing a member such as the torsion spring or a compression spring or a leaf spring (col 11, lines 6-20) such that Liang teaches the tension device axially aligned with the pivot axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale E, to modify Kitagawa’s biasing structure with the biasing structure of Liang. At the time of the invention, there had been a recognized design need in the art to bias a member. There had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need to bias a member with a tension element (e.g. compression springs, leaf springs, torsion springs). Instant specification paragraph [0049] discusses the torsion spring configuration being preferred and [0058] discusses the tension element not being limited to a coil spring aligned with the pivot axis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to try different spring structures in order to improve the efficacy or the manufacturing of the apparatus biasing structure. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, as taught by Liang, and redesigned Kitagawa from a compression spring to a torsion spring with a reasonable expectation of success resulting a predictable change of biasing structure.
Regarding claim 16, Kitagawa in view of Liang teaches the enclosure of claim 15, wherein the latch further comprises: a magnet portion extending from a second end of the main portion (Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa depicts the magnet portion extending from the second end of the main portion), the magnet portion having the magnet coupled thereto (ss Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa).
PNG
media_image2.png
586
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 10-Kitagawa
Claims 5, 6, 7, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa, JP H05340145 A, in view of Liang, US 9840860 B2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kreitenberg, US 5611579 A.
Regarding claim 5, Kitagawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 1, where the latch (1015) is mounted to an interior surface of the enclosure (Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa depicts 1015 mounted to an interior of 1001;1003) and the latch is pivotably coupled to the mounting and each other via a pin (shaft 1017) associated with the pivot axis (Fig 11 depicts the pivot axis to be formed by shaft 1017).
Kitagawa in view of Liang is silent on the mounting structure of the latch (1015) while showing the latch mounted on a hinged door (1003; Figs 10;11), further comprising a mounting plate coupled to the interior surface of the enclosure; wherein the mounting plate and the latch are pivotably coupled to each other via a pin associated with the pivot axis.
Kreitenberg teaches it is known in the magnetic safety latch art (col 1, lines 15-27; Fig 4 depicts a safety latch with magnetized counterweight 17) for a latch to comprise a mounting plate (housing 10), further comprising the mounting plate coupled to the interior surface of the enclosure (col 3, lines 32-48 discusses the enclosure to be the cabinet comprising door 27 and sidewalls 28 and 29; Fig 4 shows these features as 7, 8, and 9); wherein the mounting plate and the latch are pivotably coupled to each other via a pin (posted 16) associated with the pivot axis (Fig 4 depicts 10 mounted on 8 and 9, with 16 associated with a pivot axis formed by post hole 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the silent mounting structure disclosed by Kitagawa with the explicit mounting structure of Kreitenberg. The prior art contains a latch assembly which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a structure (the silent mounting of Kitagawa’s latch) with another structure (the housing with pin mounted pivoting latch of Kreitenberg). Pivoting latches mounted to enclosures are known in the art, as evidenced by Kreitenberg and Kitagawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to clearly specify the mounting structure for their latch in order to ensure secure and reliable mounting to support latching efficacy. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a pivoting latch secured to a mounting plate secured to an enclosure that is configured to function in the same manner as the latch apparatus disclosed by Kitagawa.
Regarding claim 6, Kitagawa in view of Liang and Kreitenberg teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 5, wherein the mounting plate (Kreitenberg, 10) includes a base plate and a plurality of extensions extending upward from the base plate (see Annotated excerpts Figs 4,5-Kreitenberg); wherein each extension includes an opening formed therein (Kreitenberg, post holes 15), the opening configured to receive a pin (Kreitenberg, post 16) aligned with the pivot axis (see Annotated excerpts Figs 4,5-Kreitenberg); and wherein the tension device (Liang, 60) is disposed around the pin (Kitagawa, 1017).
PNG
media_image3.png
522
773
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpts Figs 4,5-Kreitenberg
Regarding claim 7, Kitagawa in view of Liang and Kreitenberg teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 5, wherein the mounting plate (Kreitenberg, 10) further includes a stopper element (Kreitenberg, set peg 14) configured to limit the pivot of the latch (Annotated excerpts Figs 4,5-Kreitenberg depicts 14 limiting the pivot of latch 19; col 5, lines 8-13).
Regarding claim 13, Kitagawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 1, wherein the enclosure (Kitagawa, 1001; 1003; 1005; Fig 10) further comprises: a pin (Kitagawa, shaft 1017) that couples the latch to the enclosure (see Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa) and acts as the pivot axis for the latch (Kitagawa, page 5).
Kitagawa in view of Liang is silent on the mounting structure of the latch (1015) while showing the latch mounted on a hinged door (1003; Figs 10;11), further comprises: a mounting plate coupled to the interior surface of the enclosure, the mounting plate including: a base plate; and a number of extensions extending upward from the base plate, wherein each extension may include an opening formed therein configured to receive the pin.
Kreitenberg teaches it is known in the magnetic safety latch art (col 1, lines 15-27; Fig 4 depicts a safety latch with magnetized counterweight 17) for a latch to comprise a mounting plate (housing 10), further comprises: the mounting plate coupled to the interior surface of the enclosure (col 3, lines 32-48 discusses the enclosure to be the cabinet comprising door 27 and sidewalls 28 and 29; Fig 4 shows these features as 7, 8, and 9), the mounting plate including: a base plate; and a number of extensions extending upward from the base plate (see Annotated excerpts Figs 4,5-Kreitenberg), wherein each extension may (the Examiner notes the limitations that follow “may” are considered optional limitations rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention and, thus, not necessary for rejection) include an opening formed therein configured to receive the pin.
Regarding claim 19, Kitagawa in view of Liang teaches the enclosure of claim 15, where the latch (1015) is mounted to an interior surface of the enclosure (Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa depicts 1015 mounted to an interior of 1001;1003) and the latch is pivotably coupled to the mounting and each other via a pin (shaft 1017) associated with the pivot axis (Fig 11 depicts the pivot axis to be formed by shaft 1017).
Kitagawa in view of Liang is silent on the mounting structure of the latch (1015) while showing the latch mounted on a hinged door (1003; Figs 10;11), further comprising a mounting plate coupled to the interior surface of the enclosure; wherein the mounting plate and the latch are pivotably coupled to each other via a pin associated with the pivot axis.
Kreitenberg teaches it is known in the magnetic safety latch art (col 1, lines 15-27; Fig 4 depicts a safety latch with magnetized counterweight 17) for a latch to comprise a mounting plate (housing 10), further comprising the mounting plate coupled to the interior surface of the enclosure (col 3, lines 32-48 discusses the enclosure to be the cabinet comprising door 27 and sidewalls 28 and 29; Fig 4 shows these features as 7, 8, and 9); wherein the mounting plate and the latch are pivotably coupled to each other via a pin (posted 16) associated with the pivot axis (Fig 4 depicts 10 mounted on 8 and 9, with 16 associated with a pivot axis formed by post hole 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the silent mounting structure disclosed by Kitagawa with the explicit mounting structure of Kreitenberg. The prior art contains a latch assembly which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a structure (the silent mounting of Kitagawa’s latch) with another structure (the housing with pin mounted pivoting latch of Kreitenberg). Pivoting latches mounted to enclosures are known in the art, as evidenced by Kreitenberg and Kitagawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to clearly specify the mounting structure for their latch in order to ensure secure and reliable mounting to support latching efficacy. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a pivoting latch secured to a mounting plate secured to an enclosure that is configured to function in the same manner as the latch apparatus disclosed by Kitagawa.
Regarding claim 20, Kitagawa in view of Liang and Kreitenberg teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 19, wherein the mounting plate (Kreitenberg, 10) includes a base plate and a plurality of extensions extending upward from the base plate (see Annotated excerpts Figs 4,5-Kreitenberg), each extension including an opening formed therein (Kreitenberg, post holes 15) and configured to receive a pin (Kreitenberg, post 16) aligned with the pivot axis (see Annotated excerpts Figs 4,5-Kreitenberg); and a tab (Kreitenberg, set peg 14) extending upward from the base plate and configured to limit the pivot of the latch (Annotated excerpts Figs 4,5-Kreitenberg depicts 14 limiting the pivot of latch 19; col 5, lines 8-13).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa, JP H05340145 A, in view of Liang, US 9840860 B2, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wyant, US 3713561 A.
Regarding claim 9, Kitagawa in view of Liang teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 8, wherein the housing (Kitagawa, 1001; 1003) of the enclosure (Kitagawa, 1001; 1003; 1005; Fig 10 further comprises: a lock indicator (Kitagawa, knob position mark 1013) that indicates the location where the magnetic key must be placed by a user to transition the magnetic lock of the enclosure from the locked orientation to the unlocked orientation (Kitagawa, page 5).
Kitagawa in view of Liang does not teach an indicator slot that may be either completely open to the inner volume of the enclosure or that includes a clear barrier that is visually open to the inner volume of the enclosure such that a user may inspect the enclosure to determine if additional dispensing product is needed.
Wyant teaches it is known in the art for an enclosure (Fig 1 depicts the enclosure to be 10) comprising an indicator slot (slot 20) that may (the Examiner notes the limitations that follow “may” are considered optional limitations rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention and, thus, not necessary for rejection) be either completely open to the inner volume of the enclosure or that includes a clear barrier that is visually open to the inner volume of the enclosure such that a user may inspect the enclosure to determine if additional dispensing product is needed (col 2, lines 37-57 discusses the purpose of 20 to determine the amount of toweling still in the dispense).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale A, to modify Kitagawa’s housing to have Wyant’s indicator slot. The prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add an indicator slot to allow viewing of enclosure contents in order to facilitate restocking operations as taught by Wyant. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with a reasonable expectation of success and, that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and further recognized the results of the combination were predictable, namely an enclosure housing with a slot to view enclosure contents.
Regarding claim 10, Kitagawa in view of Liang and Wyant teaches the magnetic lock system of claim 9, wherein the receiver (Kitagwa, 1011) is in the form of a locking plate (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; the instant specification discusses locking plate 15 times and does not state an significance to the plate structure, Kitagawa’s 1011 comprises a flat plate-like surface which engages with the latch to secure the enclosure in a similar manner to the instant invention, therefore Kitagawa teaches a locking plate) that extends from the housing in any direction toward the locking mechanism associated with the lock indicator (Annotated excerpt Fig 11-Kitagawa depicts the flat engagement face of 1011 to extend from 1001 towards 1005 which is associated with 1013); and wherein the distal end of the locking plate may (the Examiner notes the limitations that follow “may” are considered optional limitations rather than structural limitations of the claimed invention and, thus, not necessary for rejection) include a locking tab configured to interact with the locking mechanism.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (FP 7.43)
Regarding claim 3, while Liang, CN 208040066 U, teaches it is known in the art for a magnetic lock system to comprise a latch, wherein the latch further comprises a plurality of sidewalls extending downward from opposite ends of the main portion; wherein each sidewall includes an opening formed therein and configured to receive a pin aligned with the pivot axis, the pin being oriented perpendicular to the sidewalls; and wherein the tension device is disposed underneath the pin, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Kitagawa in view of Liang as claimed in the instant application wherein the latch further comprises a plurality of sidewalls extending downward from opposite ends of the main portion; wherein each sidewall includes an opening formed therein and configured to receive a pin aligned with the pivot axis, the pin being oriented perpendicular to the sidewalls; and wherein the tension device is disposed around the pin; without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the references.
Regarding claim 4, it would be allowable because it pends from claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, while Prevot, US 4856832 A, teaches it is known in the art for a lock component mountings to comprise a mounting plate, a bracket mount, and fasteners, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Kitagawa in view of Liang as claimed in the instant application wherein the enclosure further comprises: a mounting plate coupled to the interior surface of the enclosure; a bracket mount, extending from each side of a bracket and associated components, configured to mount the bracket and its associated components to the mounting plate; the bracket; a pin secured to the bracket, the pin being configured to comprise the pivot axis about which the latch may rotate; and a fastener attaching each bracket mount to the mounting plate; .without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the references.
Regarding claim 12, it would be allowable because it pends from claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, while Liang, CN 208040066 U, teaches it is known in the art for a magnetic lock system to comprise a latch, wherein the latch further comprises a plurality of sidewalls extending downward from opposite ends of the main portion; wherein each sidewall includes an opening formed therein and configured to receive a pin aligned with the pivot axis, the pin being oriented perpendicular to the sidewalls; and wherein the tension device is disposed underneath the pin, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Kitagawa in view of Liang as claimed in the instant application wherein the latch further comprises a plurality of sidewalls extending downward from opposite ends of the main portion; wherein each sidewall includes an opening formed therein and configured to receive a pin aligned with the pivot axis, the pin being oriented perpendicular to the sidewalls; and wherein the tension device is disposed around the pin; without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the references.
Regarding claim 18, it would be allowable because it pends from claim 17.
Claim 14 is allowed.
Regarding claim 14, the Examiner notes that the instant method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. When the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious by the prior art, therefore, while Kitagawa in view of Liang teaches a method of operating a magnetic lock system for an enclosure, the method comprising: providing a housing, a lock indicator, a magnet key element, a magnet within a locking mechanism, a tension element within the locking mechanism, a latch within the locking mechanism, a pin within the locking mechanism, the tension device axially aligned with the pin, and a locking tab within the locking mechanism in order to maintain the magnetic lock system in a locked orientation; placing the magnet key element on the lock indicator; generating an interaction between the magnet key element and the magnet of the locking mechanism, the interaction between the magnet key element and the magnet of the locking mechanism configured to overcome a force of the tension element of the locking mechanism; causing the latch of the locking mechanism to rotate about the pin of the locking mechanism such that the latch is no longer disposed against the locking tab, the latch including a main portion and a latching portion extending from a first end of the main portion at a single angle, the main portion and the latching portion configured to rotate at the same rate about the pin; and in response to the latch no longer being within the opening of the locking tab, transitioning the magnetic lock system from the locked orientation to an unlocked orientation, and Schwenk, US 1214227 A, teaches it is known in the art for locking mechanism locking tabs to contain an opening to contain a latch, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Kitagawa in view of Liang further in view of Schwenk as claimed in the instant application wherein a locking mechanism comprises a locking tab within the locking mechanism that contains an opening fitted to be able to contain the latch, and wherein the latch is caused to rotate about the pin of the locking mechanism such that the latch is no longer disposed within the opening of the locking tab; without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for magnetic lock systems and enclosures.
Kreuger et al., US 2830728 A, teaches a paper towel dispenser with an indicator slot.
McCoy-Deedler, US 20090109575 A1, teaches a magnetic latch assembly with a pivoting one piece latch extending at a single angle.
Varney et al., US 8397546 B2, teaches a cabinet security system with a magnetic latch assembly.
Shimizu, JP 2000248790 A, teaches a magnet structure lock mechanism with a deflecting magnetic latch extending at a single angle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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 on (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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights