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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 27, 2024 and June 19, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 4 and 8-12 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 4 recites the limitation "the locking direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the locking direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the locking direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which has a 112 (b) issue. Therefore, claim 10 has the same 112(b) defect.
Claim 11 depends from claim 10, which is dependent on claim 9 with the 112 (b) issue. Therefore, claim 11, has the same 112(b) defect.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 is dependent from claim 1. Claim 13 appears to recite similar claimed language as in claim 1. Claim 14 appears to recite similar claimed language as in claim 3. Claim 15 appears to recite similar claimed language as in claim 5. Claim 16 appears to recite similar claimed language as in claim 8. Claim 17 appears to recite similar claimed language as in claim 9. Claim 18 appears to recite similar claimed language as in claim 10. Claim 19 appears to recite similar claimed language as in claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/136926A1.
As to claims 1 and 13, WO 2021/136926A1 discloses a coupling system, as illustrated in Figures 1-17F, for lifting a heavy load (discussed relevancy under Background in lines 11-15 on page 1), comprising a male part (170) and a female part (110) which are lockable to each other, wherein the male part has a frame (150), a locking pin (180) which is connected to the frame and movable with respect to the frame along a longitudinal axis (24) of the locking pin in a locking direction (21,23) (see Figure 3) and a plurality of latches (160) which are movably connected to the frame and arranged around the longitudinal axis of the locking pin, wherein an outer side of the locking pin and inner sides of the latches cooperate with each other such that upon moving the locking pin in the locking direction along the inner sides of the latches the locking pin pushes the latches outwardly in transverse direction of the longitudinal axis of the locking pin from retracted positions (see Figure 3) to extended positions (see Figure 8) of the latches, wherein the female part has a hole (114) surrounded by a rim (144) which allows the latches to penetrate into the hole in their retracted positions and behind which the latches hook in their extended positions so as to lock the male part and the female part to each other.
With claim 2, the latches are distributed evenly about the longitudinal axis of the locking pin.
With claims 3 and 14, each of the latches has a locking surface (164) which contacts a bearing surface (116) of the female part next to the rim when the male part and the female part are locked to each other, which the locking surface is angled with respect to the longitudinal axis of the locking pin.
With claim 4, it is best interpreted that the locking surface is directed opposite to a locking direction of the locking pin.
With claims 5 and 15, each of the latches is tiltable with respect to the frame about an axis of rotation which is angled with respect to the longitudinal axis of the locking pin and extending remote from the locking surface.
With claims 8 and 16, the locking surfaces of the latches are located beyond the corresponding axes of rotation as seen in a locking direction of the locking pin.
With claims 9 and 17, the outer side of the locking pin and the inner sides of the latches are adapted configured such that upon moving the locking pin in an unlocking direction, which is opposite to a locking direction, the locking pin forces the latches from their extended positions to their retracted positions.
With claims 10 and 18, in the retracted positions of the latches, the locking pin contacts each of the latches at a location which lies beyond the axis of rotation as seen from the locking surface to the axis of rotation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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 11-12 and 19 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carmel, Watson, Shin, Kirchen, and Harper are cited as being relevant art, because each prior art discloses a coupling system comprising a male part and a female part.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
STEPHEN VU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/STEPHEN A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights