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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, line 3, “…and spaced first openings in the wall thereof on one side…“ should be changed to “…and spaced first openings in a wall thereof on one side…” to avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Regarding Claim 1, line 8, “…two sides of which plate engage the inner wall of the housing…” should be changed to “…two sides of which plate engage an inner wall of the housing…” to avoid any antecedent basis issues.
Regarding Claim 3, line 3, “…a foot portion of a shackle leg…” should be changed to “…the foot portion of the shackle leg…” to avoid any antecedent basis issues.
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 7-13 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.
Regarding Claim 7, line 2, “…matching openings aligned with the foot openings…” is unclear. It is not understood which openings “the foot openings” is referring to. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “…matching openings aligned with the first openings…”
Regarding Claim 8, line 2, “…wherein a separate said plate is aligned with each foot opening…” is unclear. It is not understood which openings “each foot opening” is referring to. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “…wherein a separate said plate is aligned with each first opening…”.
Regarding Claim 9, line 2, “wherein two sides of the or each plate engage the inner housing wall” is unclear. It is not understood if this claim is supposed to depend from a different claim, or if there is supposed to be another plate not mentioned previously in claim 1. Currently this limitation is already stated in said claim 1. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein there is a second plate which engages the inner housing wall”.
Regarding Claim 10, lines 1-2, “…wherein the or each plate has two parallel sides engaging the inner wall of the housing” is unclear. It is not understood if this claim is supposed to depend from a different claim, or if there is supposed to be another plate not mentioned previously in claims 9 or 1 from which this claim depends. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as “…wherein the second plate has two parallel sides engaging the inner wall of the housing”.
Regarding Claim 11, lines 1-2, “…wherein the or each plate…” is unclear. It is not understood if this claim is supposed to depend from a different claim, or if there is supposed to be another plate not mentioned previously in claims 10, 9, or 1, from which this claim depends. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as “…wherein the second plate has a maximum lateral dimension…”.
Regarding Claim 12, line 2, “…wherein the or each plate is secured within the housing” is unclear. It is not understood if this claim is supposed to depend from a different claim, or if there is supposed to be another plate not mentioned previously in claim 1, from which this claim depends. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as “…wherein the second plate is secured within the housing”.
Regarding Claim 13, lines 2-3, “…and the or each plate is housed within the locking mechanism unit…” is unclear. It is not understood if this claim is supposed to depend from a different claim, or if there is supposed to be another plate not mentioned previously in claim 1, from which this claim depends. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as “… and the second plate is attached to the locking mechanism unit…”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a mechanism for locking the foot portions in the hold position mentioned in claim 1 (Applicant’s specification lists the mechanism as 24 in Fig 6, however there is no element that fits that description labeled as 24 in Fig 6), a deadbolt selectively moveable within the housing to engage a groove extending laterally in a foot portion of a shackle leg mentioned in claim 2, and the locking mechanism is a unit disposed in the housing cavity and the or each plate is housed within the locking mechanism unit mentioned in claim 13 (Applicant’s specification lists the mechanism as 24 in Fig 6, however there is no element that fits that description labeled as 24 in Fig 6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diaz US 7389659 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, Diaz teaches: A locking device (10) comprising a shackle (11) having a body portion (Fig 4, top portion of 11 that is curved into a u-shape) and legs extending therefrom (Fig 4, left and right straight portions of 11 that extend from the curved u-shape portion of 11 that is the body) with distal ends each having a foot portion (Fig 4, 12 and 13); a tubular housing (Fig 9, 58) having an internal cavity (Fig 8 shows the internal cavity of 58) and spaced first openings (Fig 8, 61 and 62) in the wall thereof (Fig 8, 59) on one side (Fig 8, 61 and 62 are located on the top of sidewall 59 on the same side, the top side), the openings being adapted to receive the foot portion of the legs (described in Col 4 L13-15 and shown in Fig 9) in a shackle hold position (shown in Fig 3 and described in Col 3 L15-20), wherein each foot portion has an anti-rotation portion (bottom portions of 12 and 13) of non-circular cross section (Fig 4 shows that the bottom portions of 12 and 13 are rectangular and therefore have a non-circular cross section); a plate within the housing cavity (17, shown unlabeled in housing cavity in Fig 8) having an opening of matching non-circular cross section (Fig 4, 38 and 39 are shown to have matching rectangular cross section to bottom portions of 12 and 13) aligned with each of the respective first openings (shown unlabeled in Fig 8 and described in Col 4 L13-15) for receiving the anti-rotation portion of a foot portion in said hold position (this is shown when comparing Figs 1, 3, and 4), two sides of which plate engage the inner wall of the housing to restrict its rotation about the axis of said foot portion (shown in Fig 8, plate 17 engages inner walls of housing 58 to restrict the rotation of the foot portion about the axis of said foot portion); and a mechanism (Fig 4, 22, 23, 24) for locking the foot portions in the hold position (shown in Fig 3 and described in Col 3 L15-20).
Regarding Claim 7, Diaz teaches: The locking device according to Claim 1, wherein a single said plate has two said matching openings (Fig 4 shows plate 17 with each opening 38 and 39, being a matched opening at the top and bottom of the plate) aligned with the foot openings (Fig 8 shows the two matching openings of 38 and 39 aligned with the first openings 61 and 62) for receiving the anti-rotation portions of the foot portions (shown in Figs 1, and 8-9).
Regarding Claim 8, Diaz teaches: The locking device according to claim 1,wherein a separate said plate (Fig 4, 18) is aligned with each foot opening (shown in Fig 8, the first openings 61 and 62 are aligned with each opening in separate plate 18) for receiving the anti- rotation portion of the respective foot portion (shown in Figs 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Diaz teaches: The locking device according to claim 1, wherein two sides of the or each plate engage the inner housing wall (See 112(b) rejection and limitation interpretation above. Fig 8 shows a second plate 18, that has two side which engage the inner wall housing, specifically the longitudinal sides engage the inner wall of housing 58 as shown in the Figure).
Regarding Claim 10, Diaz teaches: The locking device according to Claim 9, wherein the or each plate has two parallel sides engaging the inner wall of the housing (See 112(b) rejection above. Second plate 18 has two longitudinal sides that are parallel to each other which engage the inner wall of the housing 58 as shown in Fig 8).
Regarding Claim 11, Diaz teaches: The locking device according to Claim 10, wherein the or each plate has a maximum lateral dimension substantially equal to the internal diameter of the housing (See 112(b) rejection above. Fig 8 shows second plate 18 with a maximum lateral dimension substantially equal to the internal diameter of the housing).
Regarding Claim 12, Diaz teaches: The locking device according to claim 1, wherein the or each plate is secured within the housing (See 112(b) rejection above. Fig 8 shows the second plate 18 secured within the housing 58).
Regarding Claim 13, Diaz teaches: The locking device according to claim 1 wherein the locking mechanism is a unit (22, 23, 24) disposed in the housing cavity (shown in Fig 8) and the or each plate is housed within the locking mechanism unit (See 112(b) rejection above Figs 1, 4, and 5 show that second plate 18 is attached to 22, 23, and 24 of the locking mechanism unit).
Regarding Claim 14, Diaz teaches: The locking device according to claim 1, wherein the matching non-circular cross sections of the anti-rotation portion and the plate have parallel sides (This is shown in Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Diaz teaches: The locking device according to claim 1, wherein the cross section of the anti-rotation portion is wholly within the cross-section of the foot portion (This is shown in Fig 4).
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iu US 5417092 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Iu teaches: A locking device (Fig 4) comprising a shackle (5) having a body portion (Fig 4, the u-shaped portion of 5) and legs extending therefrom (Fig 4, 50) with distal ends each having a foot portion (Fig 4, bottom portions of 50), a rectangular housing (3) having an internal cavity (shown in Fig 4) and spaced first openings (Fig 4, 31) in the wall thereof (Fig 4, the top wall of 3) on one side (Fig 4, the first openings of 31 are spaced along the same side of housing 3, this being the top side of 3), the openings being adapted to receive the foot portion of the legs (shown in Fig 5) in a shackle hold position (shown in Fig 7 and described in Col 2 L14-56), wherein each foot portion has an anti-rotation portion (Figs 4 and 5, sections of bottom portions of 50 where a side groove 51 and inner groove 52 are located) of non-circular cross section (Fig 6 shows the cross section of the anti-rotation portions where 51 and 52 are located, result in a non-circular cross section); a plate (Fig 4, 20) within the housing cavity (shown in Fig 5) having an opening of matching non-circular cross section (Fig 4 shows 20 has an opening 2000,2001) aligned with each of the respective first openings (Fig 7 shows that the openings of matching non-circular cross section align with first openings 31 as these are the holes the legs 50 of shackle 5 are inserted through, so that they are able to engage with the anti-rotation portions 51) for receiving the anti-rotation portion of a foot portion in said hold position (Col 2 L32-36), two sides of which plate engage the inner wall of the housing to restrict its rotation about the axis of said foot portion (Fig 4 and 5 show the longitudinal sides of plate 20 contacting the inner wall of the housing 3, thereby restricting its rotation about the axis of said foot portion); and a mechanism (2, 10, 22, 20) for locking the foot portions in the hold position (Fig 4 and 7, shows 2 and 10 are used to drive plates 20 to engage with the anti-rotation portions 51 of bottom portion of 15 that are the foot portions, to lock said foot portions in the hold position as described in Col 2 L56). Iu does not teach: the housing being tubular. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention that the housing could be changed to a tubular shape, since it has been held that it’s a simple matter of design choice which only involves routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Furthermore Applicant’s specification, page 2 L7-7, states that “The cross section of the tubular housing is normally substantially circular, but this is not essential” therefore expressing lack of criticality to the shape of the housing.
Regarding Claim 2, Iu teaches: The locking device according to Claim 1, wherein each leg has a tip portion (Fig 4, bottom portion of leg 50 where there is a smaller diameter tip at the bottom of leg 50) at the distal end of the foot portion (the smaller diameter tip at the bottom of legs 50 is the distal end of the bottom portion of 50 that is the foot portion), and the wall of the tubular housing has second openings in the wall thereof (shown in Figs 5, matching openings on the bottom surface of housing 3 create the holes in the housing that are 31) opposite and aligned with the first openings (shown in Fig 5, the first openings on the top surface of housing 3 are aligned with the second openings on the bottom surface of housing 3, resulting in the through holes 31 in housing 3 that the shackle tip portions are inserted through), the tip portions extending into the second openings in the shackle hold position (shown in Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 3, Iu teaches: The locking device according to Claim 2, wherein the locking mechanism comprises a deadbolt (Fig 7 shows plate 20 is a part of the locking mechanism) selectively movable within the housing (shown in Fig 7 in solid and ghost lines) to engage a groove extending laterally (Fig 4, 51 that is the anti-rotation portion is a groove that extends laterally) in a foot portion of a shackle leg (shown in Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Iu teaches: The locking device according to claim 3, wherein the anti-rotation portion is between the tip portion and the groove (Fig 5 shows at least one section of the bottom portion of 50 that includes side groove 51 and inner groove 52, located between the the bottom portion of leg 50 where there is a smaller diameter tip at the bottom of leg 50 that is the tip portion, and the upper groove 51 that is engaged with locking mechanism 20).
Regarding Claim 5, Iu teaches: The locking device according to Claim 3, wherein the cross section of the tip portion of each leg is smaller than that of the foot portion (this is shown in Figs 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Iu teaches: The locking device according to claim 3, wherein the cross section of each leg foot and tip portion is circular (Fig 4 shows the cross section of each tip portion is circular, and Fig 6 shows the cross section of each leg foot is also circular as it matches the circular cross section of legs 50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER F CALLAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon through Thur 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, 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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675