DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the lock assembly having both a slider unit (40) with a slider arm (42) that is movable by at least one hinge along with a lock slot (12) with a bearing cavity (34) for pivotally positioning a movable lock with a tooth as required by claims 21 and 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 character “12” has been used to designate both the lock slot in figure 2 and the angular lock slot in figure 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: movable tongue (s) (claims 18 and 19) .
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 12-22 are 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.
Regarding claim 12, line 4, “the vertical axis” lacks antecedence.
Regarding claim 12, lines 7-9 are misdescriptive. According to the specification, the movable lock’s (30) rotary movement is restricted when the surface opposite the pressure surface (38) comes into contact with the bottom surface of the module body (11). It is not restricted as stated in the limitation “the movable lock having an axis of rotation in which the rotary movement of the movable lock is restricted by contact between the movable lock and the pressure surface”.
Regarding claim 12, line 10, the limitation, “a tooth separated from a tooth slot by the axis of rotation in contact with the pressure surface” is misdescriptive. The tooth (32) is separated from a tooth slot (22) by rotation of the movable lock (30) when pressure is applied to the pressure surface (38). It is suggested that the limitation be changed to “a tooth can be separated from a tooth slot by applying pressure to the pressure surface to cause the movable lock to rotate about the axis of rotation” to correct the problem.
Regarding claims 18-19, it is misdescriptive to claim that the double-acting locking bearing allows double-acting locking by turning a movable tongue to ninety degrees. The claims are directed to a second embodiment of the invention as seen in figures 6 and 6A. There is no turning of the double-acting locking bearing in the use of this embodiment of the invention. This embodiment is just structurally different from the first embodiment with a single-acting locking bearing. The final structure involves no turning of the double-acting locking bearing. It is just a double-acting locking bearing with the axes oriented in the vertical direction. It is misdescriptive to claim the two distinct embodiments in the same claim, i.e., there is no disclosure of a lock assembly having a single movable lock in combination with the double acting movable tongues on a single module body.
Also, the phrase “in order to bear the movable tongue to the axis of rotation” is indefinite. The scope of the phrase “in order to bear” is not determinable. The structure inferred by the phrase is not determinable.
Regarding claim 20, line 2, “the axes of rotation” lacks antecedence. In line 4, it is misdescriptive to claim that “a cylindrical rotation projection extending f[o]rom a lower side of the lock slot”. As shown and disclosed, the cylindrical rotation projection (12.3) extends from the angular lock slot (12 in figure 6) and not from the lock slot (12 in figure 2, see objection to drawing for using the same reference number to define two distinct elements).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, these claims are misdescriptive. These claims are claiming a lock assembly that has both a slider unit, fixed knob and movable knob, with a movable lock and its details defined in claim 1. The drawings fail to disclose this combination. It is clear from the drawings that these two elements are two different embodiments of the invention. The movable lock (30) is directed to the second embodiment of the invention as shown in figures 2-5. The slider unit (40), fixed knob (44) and movable knob (45) is directed to the first embodiment of the invention as shown in figure 1.
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 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Pogharian, US 4924562. Pogharian discloses a lock assembly for a jewelry module having a module body (12) with an entry for a lock striker (22) on a horizontal axis, a movable lock (32) positionable along a vertical axis, a positioning area that conceals the movable lock, a lock slot (aperture extending through the module body) formed along the horizontal axis, the movable lock (32) is fixed by a bearing cavity for rotary movement, the movable lock (32) has an axis of rotation (about pin 36) and is restricted by contact between the movable lock and a side surface (see annotated drawing, figure 8), a tooth (30) separated from a tooth slot (space 28 between rack teeth on lock striker 22) by pressure applied to the surface (at 42) to rotate the movable lock (32).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
418
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Papharian discloses a bearing pin (36).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Papharian discloses a coil spring (40) as seen inbetween elements (38, 44) in the cavity of the module body (16).
Regarding claim 16, Papharian discloses a spine elevation with a channel (42, see annotated drawing).
Regarding claim 17, Papharian discloses pressure edges at edges of the pressure surface (around the surface near element 42).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new claims 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.
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 JACK W LAVINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 9-4pm (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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
JACK W. LAVINDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JACK W LAVINDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677