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 .
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 claim 4 “inclined plane in the area of contact between the bolt and the strike plate on the part nearest the passive element“ must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Instant figures 1-3 depict inclined plane 8 on bolt 3 furthest away from passive element 2. Instant figure 4 appears to depicts this same structure. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 5, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, line 3, the limitation “the part” is recited. The “the” should likely be an “a” because the “part” has not been previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “a part”.
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 5, line 2, the term “it” is used as the basis for a subsequent claim limitation. The term “it” should be replaced with the specific part name rather than the indeterminant third-person singular pronoun. For claims 3 and 4, “it” appears to refer to bolt (3) as inclined plane (8) is depicted to be on bolt (3) in Figures 1;2. For claim 5, “it” appears to refer to the claimed vehicle lock apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, line 2, the claim recites “springs in at least one spindle”. The instant figures depict the springs mounted on the spindles. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “springs on at least one spindle”.
Regarding claim 8, line 2, the claim recites “springs in at least one spindle”. The instant figures depict the springs mounted on the spindles. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “springs on at least one spindle”.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, lines 2-3, the phrase “both sides” of “at least one spindle (6) on both sides of the strike plate (1)” can be interpreted three different ways, 1) the top and bottom sides of strike plate (1) as depicted in Fig 1A with regards to the two rightmost positions of (6); or 2) the left and right sides of strike plate (1) as depicted in Fig 1A with regards to the two positions of (6) marked with the reference character 6; or 3) the upper and lower sides of strike plate (1) as depicted in Fig 4B with the spring engaged with the upper side. It is the Examiner’s best understanding of the instant invention that the third interpretation is what is being discussed in the instant specification page 5, lines 25-29, but this configuration is not depicted in the Figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the preamble of claim 1, the transitional phrase appears to be the word “with”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the phrase to be open ended and not exclude additional or unrecited elements. This is based on the discussion of the invention in the specification and the embodiments depicted in the figures.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102()(1) as being anticipated by Holmberg, US 4076294 A.
Regarding claim 1, Holmberg teaches a vehicle lock for doors (impact absorbing lock apparatus 10; latch bolt 64; in re: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing 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 teaches all the structural limitations of the claim) with a moving leaf (door 21), with a strike plate (bracket 12; keeper 24) attached to a passive element (door jamb 22; Fig 1), to which a bolt (64) attached to the moving leaf is connected (Fig 3 depicts 64 attached to 21), wherein one or more perpendicular spindles (screws 36; 38; Fig 2 depicts 36;38 extending perpendicular to a face of 22), along which the strike plate slides (Fig 2 depicts movement of 24 along 36;38 between solid and dashed lines), emerge from the passive element )Fig 2 depicts 36;38 extending from 22).
Regarding claim 2, Holmberg teaches the vehicle lock, according to claim 1, wherein at least one spindle (36; 38) includes a spring (spring 52) to push the strike plate (24) against the passive element (22; Fig 2 depicts 52 biased to push 24 against 22; col 3, lines 39-49).
Regarding claim 3, Holmberg teaches the vehicle lock, according to claim 1, wherein it consists of an inclined plane (Fig 3 depicts the inclined plane to be the planar surface of 64 facing towards 68 and away from 12 which makes an apparent 180 degree angle with the flat plane of 22 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster adjective 2b definition for inclined and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) in the area of contact between the bolt (64) and the strike plate (12; 24) on a (see claim interpretation under Claim Objection for claim 3) part (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Holmberg depicts the part to be the outer end of bolt 64) furthest from the passive element (12; Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Holmberg depicts the inclined plane contacting 24 furthest from 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Holmberg
Regarding claim 4, Holmberg teaches the vehicle lock, according to claim 3, wherein it also consists of an inclined plane (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Holmberg depicts the inclined plane to be the planar surface of 64 facing towards 12 which makes an apparent 45 degree angle with the flat plane of 12 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition for inclined plane and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) in the area of contact between the bolt (64) and the strike plate (12; 24) on the part (Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Holmberg depicts the part to be the outer end of bolt 64) nearest the passive element (22; Annotated excerpt Fig 3-Holmberg depicts the inclined plane contacting 12 nearest 22).
Regarding claim 5, Holmberg teaches the vehicle lock, according to claim 2, wherein it consists of springs (52) on (see claim interpretation under Claim Objection for claim 5) at least one spindle (36; 38) on both sides of the strike plate (12; 24; Fig 1 depicts 52 mounted on 36;38 in a similar manner to the instant invention in Fig. 1 on two sides of 24 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster adjective definition of both and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
Regarding claim 6, Holmberg teaches the vehicle lock, according to claim 1, wherein the strike plate (12; 24) has a fixed part (12) attached to the passive element (22), and a moving part (24) on the spindles (36; 38; Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Holmberg teaches the vehicle lock, according to claim 1, wherein the spindles (36; 38) are attached to the fixed part (12) of the strike plate (12;24; Fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Holmberg teaches vehicle lock, according to claim 4, wherein it consists of springs (52) on (see claim interpretation under Claim Objection for claim 8) at least one spindle (36; 38) on both sides of the strike plate (12; 24; Fig 1 depicts 52 mounted on 36;38 in a similar manner to the instant invention in Fig 1 on two sides of 24 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster adjective definition of both and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term).
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 door latches and locks.
Thompson et al., US 8938916 B2, teaches a self-locating door interlock apparatus and enclosures, assemblies, and methods including the same with a movable leaf mounted bolt, a passive element mounted strike, and one or more perpendicular spindles along which the strike plate slides.
Buckner, US 5312143 A, teaches an earthquake safety cabinet latch with a movable leaf mounted bolt, a passive element mounted strike, and one or more perpendicular spindles along which the strike plate slides.
Krishnan, US 9140039 B1, teaches an adjustable striker for a vehicle closure with a movable leaf mounted bolt, a passive element mounted strike, and one or more perpendicular spindles along which the strike plate slides.
Mahdi, US 8272169 B2, teaches a locking device with a movable leaf mounted bolt, a passive element mounted strike, and one or more perpendicular spindles along which the strike plate slides.
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