DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/4/2026 has been entered.
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.
REJECTION BASED ON MULLER IN VIEW OF PRESLEY
Claim(s) 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 2018/0354574 to Muller in view of US Patent 1,974,628 to Presley.
Regarding claim 26, Muller discloses a bracket for releasably securing a lock to a wheeled cycle, the bracket comprising: a housing (Fig. 1) configured for mounting to a frame of the wheeled cycle, the housing comprising a base plate (rear portion of housing contacting the rear surface of the lock (at the end of lead line 15 in Fig. 1)) that partially defines a receiving space operable to receive the lock. Muller fails to disclose movable arms. However, Presley discloses a clamp including a pair of arms (20) movably mounted to a base plate in opposition to one another, wherein the arms are movable between inward positions (with arms clamped) to capture the held object and outward positions (with arms released) to release the held object; and a latch (32, 34) movably mounted to the base plate (Fig. 1), the latch having a latching position (Fig. 1 – with 34 secured to an inner portion of 32) in which the latch is operable to maintain the arms in the inward positions, the latch having an unlatching position (with 34 removed from 32, or at least secured to an outer portion of 32) in which the latch permits movement of the arms from the inward positions to the outward positions (the arms can move outward with 34 in these positions); wherein, for each of the arms, the inward position is offset from the outward position in a direction transverse to the base plate such that the arms slide translationally toward and away from the baseplate in the direction transverse to the base plate as the arms move between the inward positions and the outward positions (Fig. 1 – with arms moving to the outward released position, the arms ride along the lower inclined surfaces (14, 15) to translationally create more offset between the base plate and the retention flanges when compared to the inward clamped position); and wherein the arms are constrained to sliding translational movement between the inward positions and the outward positions (Fig. 1 – the arms 20 only move translationally as claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Presley’s clamp for Muller’s top latch device (21) because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent securing element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 27, the combination from claim 26 discloses wherein the arms are configured to move obliquely relative to the base plate as the arms slide translationally between the inward positions and the outward positions (Presley Fig. 1 – arms move obliquely as they clamp/unclamp).
Regarding claim 28, the combination from claim 26 discloses wherein each arm comprises a corresponding and respective engagement portion (Annotated Fig. 1 below) extending away from the base plate, and a corresponding and respective retention flange (Annotated Fig. 1) extending toward the other of the arms; wherein the retention flanges are offset from the base plate by a first offset distance when the arms are in the outer positions; wherein the retention flanges are offset from the base plate by a second offset distance when the arms are in the inner positions; and wherein the first offset distance is greater than the second offset distance (Presley Fig. 1 – flanges are farther away from the base plate in the unclamped position as compared to the clamped position).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Presley Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding claim 29, the combination from claim 26 discloses wherein the housing further comprises a basket (51 – Muller) operable to receive a portion of the lock.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller and Presley, further in view of US Patent 7,418,097 to Chang.
Regarding claim 46, the combination from claim 26 fails to disclose pads. However, Chang discloses a bracket for holding an object including arms that each have a pad (1512, 1612) in an area where the object is held. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included pads on each of the arms on the engagement portions so that damage to the lock or rattling of the lock is prevented.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller and Presley, further in view of DE 102013102009 to Leffler.
Regarding claim 47, the combination from claim 26 fails to disclose a strap. However, Leffler discloses a lock bracket that is held to the bicycle with a strap (20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a strap to secure the housing to the frame of the bicycle in the combination because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent bicycle mounting element for another to obtain predictable results.
REJECTION BASED ON MULLER IN VIEW OF CHANG
Claim(s) 30-35 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 2018/0354574 to Muller in view of US Patent 7,418,097 to Chang.
Regarding claim 30, Muller discloses a bracket for releasably securing a lock to a wheeled cycle, the bracket comprising: a housing (Fig. 1) configured for mounting to a frame of the wheeled cycle, wherein a first end portion of the housing comprises a basket (51) operable to receive a portion of the lock. Muller fails to disclose movable arms. However, Chang discloses a bracket for releasably securing a lock to a wheeled cycle (the bracket is capable of this intended use), the bracket comprising: a housing (11, 17) configured for mounting to the wheeled cycle (the housing is capable of mounting to a cycle); a first arm (15) mounted to the housing for movement between a first holding position to hold the lock and a first release position to release the lock, the first arm comprising a first arm shoulder (Fig. 3 – flat portion of rack gear 1521 engaging flat portion of 145); a second arm (16) mounted to the housing for movement between a second holding position to hold the lock and a second release position to release the lock, the second arm comprising a second arm shoulder (Fig. 3 – flat portion of rack gear 1621 engaging flat portion of 145); a latch (14) movably mounted to the housing, the latch having a latching position (Fig. 3) in which the latch is operable to maintain the first arm in the first holding position, the latch having an unlatching position (Fig. 5) in which the latch permits movement of the first arm from the first holding position toward the first release position; a bias mechanism (12) urging the latch toward the latching position; and a first ramp (slanted portion of rack gear 1521 to the right of the first shoulder) configured to urge the latch from the latching position toward the unlatching position against urging of the bias mechanism during movement of the first arm from the first release position toward the first holding position (the slanted portion of 1521 forces the latch upward as the two arms are brought together); wherein the bias mechanism is configured to return the latch to the latching position as the first arm approaches the first holding position (once the arms are pushed inward to the position in Fig. 3, the spring 12 forces the latch downward into the position shown in Fig. 3), wherein the latch comprises: a first latch shoulder (flat portion of 145 engaging the flat portion of rack gear 1521 to hold the arm 15 inward in Fig. 3) that abuts the first arm shoulder when the first arm is in the first holding position and the latch is in the latching position (Fig. 3) and a second latch shoulder (flat portion of 145 engaging the flat portion of rack gear 1621 to hold the arm 16 inward in Fig. 3) that abuts the second arm shoulder when the second arm is in the second holding position and the latch is in the latching position (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used Chang’s clamp for Muller’s top latch device (21) because the modification only involves a simple substitution of one known, equivalent securing element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 31, the combination from claim 30 discloses wherein one of the latch or the first arm comprises the first ramp (Chang Fig. 3 – first arm has the first ramp).
Regarding claim 32, the combination from claim 30 discloses wherein the other of the latch or the first arm comprises a second ramp (slanted portion of left 145 in Chang Fig. 3) configured to engage the first ramp during the movement of the first arm from the first release position toward the first holding position.
Regarding claim 33, the combination from claim 30 discloses a manual actuator (13 – Chang) operable to move the latch from the latching position to the unlatching position.
Regarding claim 34, the combination from claim 30 discloses wherein the latch is configured to move from the latching position to the unlatching position in a first direction (upward in Chang Fig. 3); wherein the manual actuator is mounted for movement in a second direction (right/left in Chang Fig. 3) transverse to the first direction; and wherein the bracket further comprises an additional ramp (132 – Chang) configured to cause movement of the latch in the first direction in response to movement of the manual actuator in the second direction.
Regarding claim 35, the combination from claim 30 discloses a second ramp (slanted portion of rack gear 1621 to the left of the second arm shoulder in Chang Fig. 3) configured to urge the latch from the latching position toward the unlatching position against urging of the bias mechanism during movement of the second arm from the second release position toward the second holding position (the slanted portion of 1621 forces the latch upward as the two arms are brought together – Chang); wherein the bias mechanism is configured to return the latch to the latching position as the second arm approaches the second holding position (once the arms are pushed inward to the position in Chang Fig. 3, the spring 12 forces the latch downward into the position shown in Chang Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 50, the combination from claim 30 discloses an arm spring (153 – Chang) urging the first arm toward the first release position (Chang Fig. 3); a latch spring (12 – Chang Fig. 3) separate from the arm spring, the latch spring urging the latch toward the latching position; and an actuator spring (130 – Chang Fig. 3) separate from the arm spring and the latch spring, the actuator spring urging a manual actuator toward a deactuating position (Chang Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller and Chang, further in view of CN 106347538 to Liu.
Regarding claim 36, the combination from claim 30 fails to disclose the first and second arms moving in unison. However, Liu discloses a bracket wherein the second arm is engaged with the first arm such that the first arm and the second arm move in unison between the holding positions thereof and the release positions thereof (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have linked the first and second arms together to allow them to move simultaneously, as taught by Liu (page 4, 5th paragraph).
Regarding claim 37, the combination from claim 36 discloses wherein the first arm comprises a first rack gear (Liu Fig. 3 – 23 on one arm); wherein the second arm comprises a second rack gear (Liu Fig. 3 – 23 on other arm); wherein the bracket further comprises a pinion (Liu – 6) engaged with each of the first rack gear and the second rack gear to thereby cause the first arm and the second arm to move in unison between the holding positions thereof and the release positions thereof.
Claim(s) 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller, Chang and Liu, further in view of US Patent 7,425,112 to Nowak.
Regarding claim 48, the combination from claim 36 discloses a pinion (6 – Liu Fig. 3) rotatably mounted in a chamber of the housing and engaged with the first arm and the second arm (Liu Figs. 2-3/Chang Fig. 2); and a cover (17 – Chang) secured to the housing and enclosing the chamber (Chang Fig. 1). The combination fails to disclose a screw or a head having a tamper-resistant recess. However, Nowak discloses that a screw having a head defining a tamper-resistant recess (Fig. 1) is a known type of fastener. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used a tamper resistant screw to secure the housing and cover together to prevent unauthorized disassembly of the bracket.
Regarding claim 49, the combination from claim 48 discloses wherein the tamper-resistant recess is neither slot shaped, nor hollow-cross shaped, nor hollow-star shaped, nor hollow-hexagon shaped (Nowak Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38-39 and 41-45 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that the arms move pivotally in Presley (page 11), the arms are brought together solely via translational movement by bolt (31). The bearing blocks (26) are pivotally attached to the ends of the arms to accommodate the held object. The arms themselves move translationally.
As to applicant’s argument that Chang fails to disclose a basket (page 11), see the new rejection above based on Muller in view of Chang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T MCNURLEN whose telephone number is (313)446-4898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/SCOTT T MCNURLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
