DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the amendment filed on 08 June 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14, and 15 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, and 9-12 were amended.
Claims 7, 8, and 13 were cancelled.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were previously objected to for informalities. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the claim amendments submitted on 08 June 2026. Accordingly, all previous objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 were previously objected to because of informalities. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendment filed on 08 June 2026. Accordingly, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
However, as amended, Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 8 of claim 1, the phrase “a plate within the housing cavity” should read “a plurality of plates within the housing cavity”
In lines 13-14 of claim 1, the phrase “wherein a separate said plate is aligned with each first opening for receiving the anti-rotation portion of the respective foot portion” should read “wherein each plate of the plurality of plates is aligned with a respective first opening for receiving the anti-rotation portion of a respective foot portion”
In line 2 of claim 3, the phrase “locking mechanism comprises” should read “locking device further comprises”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7-13 were previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendment filed on 08 June 2026. Accordingly, the rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 9-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diaz (US 7389659 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Diaz discloses 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 a 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); and 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 an 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); wherein a separate said plate (Fig 4, 18) is aligned with each first 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 discloses the locking device according to claim 1, wherein two sides of each plate engage the inner housing wall (Fig 8 shows each plate 17, 18 having two sides 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 discloses the locking device according to Claim 9, wherein each plate has two parallel sides engaging the inner wall of the housing (each plate 17, 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 discloses the locking device according to Claim 10, wherein each plate has a maximum lateral dimension substantially equal to the internal diameter of the housing (Fig 8 shows each plate 17, 18 with a maximum lateral dimension substantially equal to the internal diameter of the housing).
Regarding Claim 12, Diaz discloses the locking device according to claim 1, wherein each plate is secured within the housing (Fig 8 shows each plate 17, 18 secured within the housing 58).
Regarding Claim 14, Diaz discloses 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 (see Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Diaz discloses 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 (see 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iu (US 5417092 A).
Regarding claim 1, Iu discloses 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 a 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); and a plate (Fig 4, left 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 an 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); wherein a separate said plate (Fig 4, right 20) is aligned with each first opening (see Figs 5 & 7) for receiving the anti-rotation portion of the respective foot portion (see Figs 5 & 7).
Iu does not disclose the housing being tubular. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the housing could be changed to a tubular shape to prevent corners of the housing from damaging the object to be secured, 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 discloses 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 opposite 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 discloses the locking device according to Claim 2, wherein the locking mechanism comprises a groove extending laterally (Fig 4, 51 that is the anti-rotation portion is a groove that extends laterally) in the foot portion of the shackle leg (shown in Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Iu discloses 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 20).
Regarding Claim 5, Iu discloses 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 discloses 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the device of Diaz does not disclose or suggest at least the following features recited in amended claim 1 – “wherein a separate said plate is aligned with each first opening for receiving the anti-rotation portion of the respective foot portion,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language does not preclude each plate aligning with more than one first opening. Plates 17, 18 of Diaz are separate plates and each plate aligns with a first opening; therefore, Diaz reads on the claim language as currently written.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner notes that the prior art cited on PTO-892 but not relied upon for this rejection discloses locking devices relevant in scope and structure to the claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Christine M Mills whose telephone number is (571) 272-8322. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 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, Namrata Boveja, can be reached on (571) 272-8105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights