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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 7-8 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/22/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III (fig. 21) of the door and Species IV (figs. 10-11) of the compression bar in the reply filed on 4/22/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 12: Line 9 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the compressive force” should be --the longitudinal compressive force-- for consistency of the claim language.
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 2 and 10-11 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.
With regard to claim 2: Line 6 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a plane” is referencing the previously recited plane. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the plane--.
With regard to claim 10: Line 7 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a plane” is referencing the previously recited plane. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --the plane--.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aake (SE 525438 C2).
With regard to claim 1: Aake discloses a security device (figs. 1, 3, 6 and 7), comprising:
a hollow casing (rectangular casing 7) having a casing interior space with a longitudinal axis (figs 6-7), and first and second casing ends (left and right ends);
parallel first and second rods (protective members 2) in the casing interior space (figs. 1, 3, 6 and 7);
a first spring (ones of the right springs 3) in the casing interior space, the first spring (one of the right springs 3) positioned to exert longitudinal compressive force on the first rod (2) (figs. 1, 3, 6 and 7); and
a second spring (one of the left springs 3) in the casing interior space, the second spring (one of the left springs 3) positioned to exert longitudinal compressive force on the second rod (2) (fig. 7);
wherein the first and second springs (one of the right springs 3 and one of the left springs 3) do not overlap with respect to a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aake (SE 525438 C2) in view Langer (US 1,944,185).
With regard to claim 12: Aake discloses a security device, comprising:
a hollow casing (casing 1) having a casing interior space with a longitudinal axis, and first and second casing ends (left and right ends) (figs. 1-5);
parallel first and second rods (2a and 2b) in the casing interior space (figs. 1-5); and
a first spring (3) in the casing interior space, the first spring (3) positioned to exert longitudinal compressive force on the first rod (2a) (fig. 1-5);
an end plug (4 or 5) sized and shaped to fit in the casing interior space.
Aake does not disclose that the end plug having a threaded opening; and a set screw received in the threaded opening, the compressive force adjustable by the set screw.
However, Langer discloses device having an end plug (7) having a threaded opening (at boss 22); and a set screw (16 and 18) received in the threaded opening, the compressive force adjustable by the set screw (18) (figs. 2 and 4; pg. 1, lines 96-109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the security device of Aake to have the end plug include a threaded opening; and a set screw received in the threaded opening such as taught by Langer in order to provide a means of adjusting the compressing force of the spring. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 13: Aake discloses a second spring (3’) in the casing interior space, the second spring (3’) positioned to exert longitudinal compressive force on the second rod (2b) (figs. 1-5);
wherein the first and second springs (3 and 3’) do not overlap with respect to a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (fig. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2 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.
Claims 10-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 9: The combination of all the elements of the claimed security device, in particular the second rod assembly comprising second and third rods parallel to the first rod, and a third spring positioned between the second and third rods, wherein the third spring exerts longitudinal compressive force; and wherein the third spring does not overlap the first or second springs with respect to a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
With regard to claims 2, 4-6 and 14-16: The combination of all the elements of the claimed security device including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to security devices and/or devices having casings with springs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights