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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claim 1, the preamble recites a locking mechanism for a hold open rod with the hold open rod recited merely as an intended use, however, the body of the claim contains positive recitations of the hold open rod. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim the subcombination of the locking mechanism or the locking mechanism in combination with the hold open rod. Furthermore, it is understood from the specification that the locking mechanism is part of the hold open rod and not a device separate, as suggested by the claim language. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claims are drawn to the combination and the claims will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims. If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitations of the combination. Applicant’s intention in regards to the scope of the claim must be clearly established by the claim language. See claim objections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 1, line 1, the phrase “A locking mechanism for a hold open rod, the hold open rod comprising” should be changed to “A hold open rod comprising,” in line 5, the word “and” should be inserted after the phrase “a first surface,” in line 6, the phrase “the locking mechanism” should be changed to “a locking mechanism,” in line 10, the phrase “a locking member” should be changed to “at least one locking member,” in line 13, a comma should be inserted after the phrase “to the second configuration,” and in lines 17, 22, 24, and 25, each instance of the phrase “the locking member” should be changed to “the at least one locking member.”
In regards to claim 2, line 1, the phrase “The locking mechanism for a hold open rod” should be changed to “The hold open rod,” and in line 3, the phrase “the locking member” should be changed to “the at least one locking member.”
In regards to claim 3, line 1, the phrase “The locking mechanism for a hold open rod” should be changed to “The hold open rod,” in lines 2 and 3, the phrase “the locking member” should be changed to “the at least one locking member,” in line 3, the phrase “the longitudinal axis” should be changed to “a longitudinal axis,” and in line 4, the phrase “the locking member” should be changed to “the at least one locking member.”
In regards to claim 4, line 1, the phrase “The locking mechanism for a hold open rod” should be changed to “The hold open rod,” and in lines 3 and 5, each instance of the phrase “the locking member” should be changed to “the at least one locking member.”
In regards to claim 5, line 1, the phrase “The locking mechanism for a hold open rod” should be changed to “The hold open rod,” in line 2, the phrase “the locking member” should be changed to “the at least one locking member,” in line 3, the phrase “and/or” should be changed to “and,” and in line 4, the phrase “the locking member” should be changed to “the at least one locking member.”
In regards to claim 6, line 1, the phrase “The locking mechanism for a hold open rod” should be changed to “The hold open rod,” and in lines 4 and 6, each instance of the phrase “the locking member” should be changed to “the at least one locking member.”
In regards to claim 7, line 1, the phrase “The locking mechanism for a hold open rod” should be changed to “The hold open rod,” in line 2, the phrase “wherein the third member is moveable between a first position and a second position” should be removed, and in lines 4 and 7, each instance of the phrase “the locking member” should be changed to “the at least one locking member.”
In regards to claims 8-14, line 1 of each claim, the phrase “The locking mechanism for a hold open rod” should be changed to “The hold open rod.”
In regards to claim 15, line 1, the phrase “A locking member for a hold open rod” should be changed to “The hold open rod.”
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear how the device can include a single locking member, when the specification and drawings disclose the device to include more than one locking member or at least one locking member. For examination purposes, the claims will be examined as reciting “at least one locking member.” See claim objections above.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 6, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Specifically, claim 5 recites that the third member holding the at least one locking member in the first position and the second position is recited in the alternative in claim 5 because of the phrase “and/or,” and therefore, there is no antecedent basis for the third member to hold the at least one locking member in both the first and second positions, as recited in claim 6. For examination purposes, claim 5 will be examined with the word “and” instead of “and/or.” See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 7, it is unclear how the phrase “wherein the third member is moveable between a first position and a second position,” as recited in line 2 of claim 7, when claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, already recites this limitation. For examination purposes, claim 7 will be examined without the limitation in line 2. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 2, 4, 5, and 8-15, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metz et al. (US-7654371).
In regards to claim 1, Metz et al. discloses a hold open rod comprising: a first elongate member 50 and a second elongate member 52, slidably arranged to move between a first configuration (Figures 1 and 5) and a second configuration (Figure 13), the second configuration being extended relative to the first configuration (apparent from Figures 1 and 13), wherein the first elongate member comprises a first surface 126; and a locking mechanism (Figure 1) operable between a locked state (Figure 13) and an unlocked state (Figure 5) and arranged, in the locked state, to prevent the first and second elongate members from returning to the first configuration (Figure 13); wherein the locking mechanism comprises: at least one locking member 60 moveable between a first position (Figure 5) and a second position (Figure 13), the locking member comprising a second surface 212; wherein, as the first and second elongate members move from the first configuration to the second configuration, the first surface moves from an unlocking region of the second elongate member to a locking region of the second elongate member (see Figure 5 below); wherein, the locking mechanism is arranged such that when the first surface is in the unlocking region, the at least one locking member is held in the first position (held by recess 70 and sleeve 90, Figure 5); wherein, the locking mechanism is arranged such that the locking mechanism is operable to the locked state only when the first surface is in the locking region (Figures 6-13); wherein, in the first position, the at least one locking member is held out of contact with the first elongate member (held by recess 70 and sleeve 90, Figure 5); and wherein, in the second position, the second surface of the at least one locking member is configured to block movement of the first surface into the unlocking region (blocks movement of the first surface upwards in Figure 13 or blocks movement upwards into the unlocking region).
PNG
media_image1.png
491
904
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Metz et al. discloses that the first surface of the first elongate member and the second surface of the at least one locking member are configured to abut when the at least one locking member is in the locked state (Figure 13).
In regards to claim 3, Metz et al. discloses that the first surface of the first elongate member and the second surface of the at least one locking member abut at an angle of less than 90 degrees (see Figure 13 below) to a longitudinal axis of the second elongate member, such that the at least one locking member is hooked over the first elongate member (see Figure 13 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
567
1007
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 4, Metz et al. discloses that the locking mechanism further comprises a third member 54; wherein the third member is configured to cause the at least one locking member to move from the first position to the second position (Figures 5-17); and/or wherein the third member is configured to cause the at least one locking member to move from the second position to the first position (Figures 5-17).
In regards to claim 5, Metz et al. discloses that the third member is configured to hold the at least one locking member in the first position when the first surface is in the unlocking region (Figure 5); and wherein the third member is configured to hold the at least one locking member in the second position when the locking mechanism is in the locked state (Figure 13).
In regards to claim 6, Metz et al. discloses that the third member is moveable between a first position (Figure 5) and a second position (Figure 13); wherein the third member is arranged such that when the third member is in the first position, the at least one locking member is held in the first position (Figure 5); and wherein the third member is arranged such that when the third member is in the second position, the at least one locking member is held in the second position (Figure 13).
In regards to claim 7, Metz et al. discloses that as the third member moves from the first position to the second position, the third member is configured to cause the at least one locking member to move from the first position to the second position (Figures 5-13); and/or wherein, as the third member moves from the second position to the first position, the third member is configured to cause the at least one locking member to move from the second position to the first position (Figures 14-17).
In regards to claim 8, Metz et al. discloses that the locking mechanism comprises a first biasing 100 member configured to bias the third member towards the second position.
In regards to claim 14, Metz et al. discloses that the third member is a sleeve (Figure 1); and wherein the third member circumferentially surrounds the second elongate member (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 15, Metz et al. discloses that the third member is moveable between a first position (Figure 5) and a second position (Figure 13); wherein the first position of the third member comprises a first axial position and a first angular position (the first axial position is the location of the third member relative to the length of the first and second elongate members, as shown in Figure 5, with the first angular position being zero, such that recess 70 is located on top of the first and second elongate members, as shown in Figure 5); and wherein the second position of the third member comprises a second axial position (the first axial position is the location of the third member relative to the length of the first and second elongate members, as shown in Figure 13, with the second angular position being zero, such that the recess 70 is located on top of the first and second elongate members, as shown in Figure 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claim 9.
In regards to claim 9, Metz et al. (US-7654371) fails to disclose that the locking mechanism further comprises a blocking member situated in an aperture of the second elongate member and moveable between a first position and a second position; wherein, when the blocking member is in the first position, the blocking member is configured to prevent relative movement between the second elongate member and the third member. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Metz et al. without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights