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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, the word, “axially” appears to be misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the feature “respective ramps interfacing one another” lacks an antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 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. The coupler assembly is understood to be received within the receiving element. It is not clear how the receiving element may have a smaller diameter. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huddleston, U.S. Patent No. 5,520,164, in view of Hubner, German Patent Application No. DE 102016106485. As to Claim 1, Huddleston teaches a quick mount system (210, 212), Col. 3, ln. 41-45 and see Figure 2. The system may comprise a first interacting component (212) having receiving element (242, 232, 233), Col. 4, ln. 7-12. A second interfacing component (210) may have a coupler assembly (222,230) configured to mate with the receiving element in a first position (inserted in bore) and rotate (twisting motion) into an engagement position (projections rest in recesses) relative to the first interfacing component, Col. 4 ln. 7-12. Huddleston is silent as to a magnetic coupler. Hubner teaches a coupler (BV) comprising a first interfacing component (ZH) and a second interfacing component (EH), paragraph 0029. The components may be configured to mate and rotate to engagement position, paragraph 0030. Hubner teaches a magnetic coupler (N, S) to maintain interfacing components in engagement position, paragraphs 0029, 0030. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Huddleston with a magnetic coupler, as taught by Hubner, to provide Huddleston, with an additional mating component, to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of attaching an accessory to a mounting structure. As to Claim 9, Hubner teaches that the magnetic coupler may generate a magnetic force between a magnet on the first interfacing component and a corresponding magnet on the second interfacing component, paragraph 0030, noting that components are pulled together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the mount system such that the magnetic coupler generates a magnetic force between magnets on the first and second interfacing components, as taught by Hubner, to provide Huddleston, as modified, with magnetic force coupling to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of coupling the first and second interfacing components. As to Claims 10 and 11, Hubner teaches that the one magnet and the one corresponding magnet are substantially axially aligned in the engagement position, with magnetic fields substantially parallel to the axis rotation, paragraph 0042 and see Figures 10a and 10b, noting that each north pole oriented magnet is directly opposite each south pole oriented magnet and the axis of rotation perpendicular to the drawing sheet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the magnets in axial alignment, as taught by Hubner, to provide Huddleston, as modified, with a known substitute arrangement of attracting magnets.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huddleston, in view of Hubner, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fiedler et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0057420. Huddleston, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 2, Huddleston, as modified, is silent as to an interference interface limiting rotation. Fiedler teaches a mount system (1), for attaching an accessory (smart phone), paragraph 0055. An interference interface (threaded engagement) may be provided between a first interfacing component (3) and a second interfacing component (2), the interference interface limiting rotation between first and second interfacing components relative to each other, paragraph 0057, noting first threads (221) and second threads (321) screw connectable by rotation, paragraph 0057. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Huddleston, as modified, with an interference interface, as taught by Fiedler, to provide Huddleston, as modified, with first and second interfacing components configured to establish an interference interface, to yield the predictable result of limiting rotation of the system. As to Claim 3, Fiedler teaches a ramp (321) on a receiving element (32) formed in the first interfacing component and a corresponding ramp (221) on a coupler assembly (22) of a second interfacing component, paragraphs 0058 and 0059 and see Figure 1A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the interference interface with a ramp and a corresponding ramp, as taught by Fiedler, to provide Huddleston, as modified, with a known substitute interference interface configuration. As to Claims 4 and 5, Fiedler teaches that the ramp on the receiving element may mate with the corresponding ramp on the coupler assembly and tighten together with rotation, paragraph 0058, noting screw-connecting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Huddleston, as modified, with a ramp and corresponding ramp configured to tighten together when rotated in a first direction, as taught by Fiedler, to provide Huddleston, as modified, with a known substitute configuration for tightening mating components. With particular regard to Claim 5, the examiner finds it inherent that rotation in an opposite direction would loosen the connection between first and second interfacing components. As to Claim 6, Fiedler teaches that the ramp on the receiving element has a generally circular shape such that the first and second interfacing components axially align, paragraph 0056 and see Figure 1A, noting receiving element (32) and coupling assembly (22) aligned around a closing direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the receiving element ramp in generally circular shape with first and second interfacing components axially aligned, as taught by Fiedler, to provide Huddleston, as modified, with a known substitute configuration of mating interfacing components. Further, Fiedler teaches that the receiving element may comprise a stop (331) limiting axial rotation to less than one revolution, paragraph 0064. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Huddleston, as modified, with a feature limiting rotation to less than one revolution, as taught by Fiedler, to provide Huddleston, as modified, with a stop limiting the degree of rotation to yield the predictable result of rapid coupling and decoupling. Huddleston, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for specifically indicating a circular shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the receiving element ramp with a circular shape since it has been held that configuration of parts of an invention is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration was significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As to Claim 7, Fiedler is applied as in Claim 6, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable, with regard to the corresponding ramp of the coupling assembly, noting that the coupling assembly and the receiving element mate in alignment around a closing direction. Fiedler does not specify an elliptical shape for the corresponding ramp on the coupler assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the coupler assembly ramp with an elliptical shape since it has been held that configuration of parts of an invention is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration was significant, In re Dailey, supra.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huddleston, in view of Hubner, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamkens et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0226786. As to Claim 12, Huddleston, as modified by Hubner, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Huddleston, as modified, is silent as to a secondary locking mechanism. Hamkens teaches a coupling mechanism comprising a first interfacing component (17) and a second interfacing component (11), the first interfacing component having a receiving element (32) and the second interfacing component having a coupling assembly (31), paragraph 0055 and see Figure 1. Hamkens teaches a secondary locking mechanism (55, 54) operable to prevent the first interfacing component from rotating relative to the second interfacing component when in an engagement position, paragraph 0063 and see Figure 2b. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Huddleston, as modified, with a secondary locking mechanism, to provide Huddleston, as modified, with an additional securing component to yield the predictable result of further securing the interfacing components in an engaged position.
Claim(s) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huddleston, in view of Hubner and in further view of Fiedler and Hamkens. As to Claim 13, Huddleston, in view of Hubner, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Fiedler is applied as in Claims 3 and 4 with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. The examiner finds that the receiving ramp element and the respective ramps interfacing one another may be considered as counterparts of the ramp on the receiving element and the corresponding ramp on the coupling assembly. Hamkens is applied as in Claim 12 with regard to a secondary locking mechanism, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 14, Hamkens teaches that the secondary locking mechanism may comprise a set screw (55), paragraph 0063. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the secondary locking mechanism as a set screw, as taught by Hamkens, to provide Huddleston, as modified, with a known substitute locking component. Fiedler is applied as in Claim 2 with regard to the interference interface to limit rotation, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Fiedler is applied as in Claim 3 with regard to the one ramp and corresponding ramp with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 15, Fiedler is applied as in Claims 4 and 5 with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 16, Hamkens teaches a countersink (54) receiving a locking fastener (55) mating with the countersink beyond a mating surface, paragraph 0063 and see drawing below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Huddleston, as modified, with a fastener passing thorough a countersink beyond a mating surface, as taught by Hamkens, to provide Huddleston, as modified, with a known substitute configuration for locking engaged interfacing components.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 17, Fiedler is applied as in Claims 6 and 7 with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 18, Hubner is applied as in Claim 9, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 19, Hubner is applied as in Claim 10, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 20, Hubner is applied as in Claim 11 with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/775,074 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 21 April 2026
Prosecution Insights