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
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-11, 17, and 19 were previously objected to. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 03/10/2026. Accordingly, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn. However, a new objection is made.
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11, lines 12, “configured to matched” should be “configured to match” or “configured to be matched”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 were previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendments filed on 03/10/2026. Accordingly, the rejection to the claims have been withdrawn. However, some of the antecedent basis issues have not been addressed.
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 7-8 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the elastic element” in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 2651750 to Jean.
Regarding claim 1, Jean discloses:
An anti-theft method for wire lock (fig 1), the method comprising: when a lock hole (10) of the wire lock (1) is inserted for a first time (fig 2b), the structure of the lock body is changed (17 is deformed, 14 is removed, and the lock body changes to fig 2c), and then a wire rope of the wire lock cannot be inserted into the lock hole (fig 2c); before the lock hole is inserted, the lock hole is in a state where the wire rope configured to be inserted (fig 2a), a blocking element (12) is blocked by a supporting element (14, 17) and located outside a wire rope channel (see figs 2a and 2b); wherein the supporting element is a rotating element (17 rotates when its compressed), the rotating element is configured to rotate around a rotating shaft (14), and the rotating element holding against the blocking element (via 14); an abutting part (top part of 17) of the rotating element and an abutting part (top left end of 12 is tapered convexly) of the blocking element are configured to matched through concave and convex surfaces (top portion of 17 is concave and top left end of 12 is convex).
Regarding claim 2, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft method according to claim 1, wherein when the lock hole is inserted for the first time, at least a portion of the supporting element is displaced (17 is displaced, see figs 2a/b).
Regarding claim 3, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft method according to claim 1, wherein when the lock hole is inserted for the first time, the supporting element rotates under an effect of an inserted object (17 rotates as it is compressed).
Regarding claim 4, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft method according to claim 1, wherein when the lock hole is inserted for the first time, the supporting element undergoes deformation (17 is deformed as 6 pushes it down).
Regarding claim 5, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft method according to claim 1, wherein when the lock hole is inserted for the first time, the supporting element is at least partially detached from the wire rope channel (see 14 in fig 2b).
Regarding claim 6, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft method according to claim 1, wherein after an inserted object is removed, the blocking element enters into the wire rope channel, and at least part of a passage area of the wire rope channel is blocked (fig 2c).
Regarding claim 7, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft method according to claim 1, wherein the blocking element is held against the elastic element (13) which is in a compressed state (fig 2a); and after an inserted object is removed, the blocking element is pushed into the wire rope channel by the elastic element (fig 2c).
Regarding claim 8, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft method according to claim 7, wherein the elastic element is a spring (13 is a spring).
Regarding claim 9, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft method according to claim 1, wherein the supporting element is a stop block (14 is a stop block); and an initial state of the stop block is held against the blocking element (fig 2a); when the lock hole is inserted for the first time, the stop block is separated from an inner wall of the lock hole (see fig 2c).
Regarding claim 10, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft method according to claim 1, wherein the supporting element is a rotating element (17 rotates as 6 pushes it down); and an initial state of the rotating element is held against the blocking element (fig 2a); when the lock hole is inserted for the first time, the rotating element rotates to release the blocking element (fig 2c).
Regarding claim 11, Jean discloses:
An anti-theft wire lock (fig 1), comprising: a lock body (1), the lock body is provided with a lock hole (10); a wire rope (4), one end (5) of the wire rope is connected to the lock body, and the other end (6) is used to insert into the lock hole for locking (fig 2b); the lock body is provided with a supporting element (14,17) and a blocking element (12, 13) inside, before the other end of the wire rope is inserted into lock hole, the supporting element holds against the blocking element (fig 2a); when the insert is pulled out, the blocking element blocks the lock hole (fig 2c); wherein the supporting element is a rotating element (17 rotates when its compressed), the rotating element is configured to rotate around a rotating shaft (14), and the rotating element holding against the blocking element (via 14); an abutting part (top part of 17) of the rotating element and an abutting part (top left end of 12 is tapered convexly) of the blocking element are configured to matched through concave and convex surfaces (top portion of 17 is concave and top left end of 12 is convex).
Regarding claim 12, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft wire lock according to claim 11, wherein the blocking element has elasticity (via 13); when the insert is pulled out, the blocking element releases elastic force to block the lock hole (see movement from fig 2b to 2c, 13 blocks the channel by releasing elastic force and pushing 12).
Regarding claim 13, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft wire lock according to claim 11, wherein the blocking element (12) is connected with an elastic element (13); when an inserted object is pulled out, the blocking element is pushed by the elastic element to block the lock hole (fig 2c).
Regarding claim 14, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft wire lock according to claim 12, wherein the elastic element is a spring (fig 2c).
Regarding claim 15, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft wire lock according to claim 13, wherein the lock body further comprises a sliding sleeve (11) inside, the blocking element and the elastic element are provided inside the sliding sleeve (figs 2a/b).
Regarding claim 17, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft wire lock according to claim 11, wherein the supporting element is a stop block (14), one end (bottom end) of the stop block is fixed to an inner wall (15) of the lock hole (fig 2a), and the other end (top end) of the stop block is held against the blocking element (figs 2a/b); when the lock hole is inserted for the first time, the stop block is separated from the inner wall of the lock hole (fig 2c).
Regarding claim 19, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft wire lock according to claim 11, wherein a positioning component (16) is provided inside the lock body, and one end (bottom end) of the rotating element is held against the blocking element (via 14), and the other end (top end) of the rotating element is held against the positioning component (fig 2a); the abutting part of the rotating element and the abutting part of the positioning component (left portion of 16) are matched through concave (17) and convex surfaces (convex portion of 16).
Regarding claim 20, Jean discloses:
The anti-theft wire lock according to claim 18, wherein the rotating element is L-shaped (fig 2a, 17 is an L shape).
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2651750 to Jean.
Regarding claim 16, Jean does not explicitly disclose:
The anti-theft wire lock according to claim 13, wherein the blocking element is cylindrical.
Jean is silent as to the cross sectional geometry of the blocking element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cylindrical blocking element into the assembly of Jean at least because doing is a simple change of shape and requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a blocking element. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Jean does not disclose concave and convex portions that are matched, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Jean does not teach a convex and concave portion that directly mate, the claims only require a convex and concave surface to be matched. Examiner suggests adding the intended limitations in the claim. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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.
/Y.S./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights