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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “5” has been used to designate a guide member in figure 1 and a case in figures 3 and 4.
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. 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 § 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 1-19 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 1 requires the terms “upright manner” and “lying manner”. At the instant, it is unclear what is claimed with those terms.
Upright manner appears to be referring to be upright and lying manner to be placed or resting against a surface.
If that is the case, then the claims are indefinite since, as shown in the drawings, for example figs 5-7, the 1st rod 2 is actually connected to the rod adapter to the 1st fastening area 7 “in a lying manner”, since the 1st rod 2 is just lying or resting against the surface 7.1; and the 2nd rod 3 is connected to the rod adapter at the 2nd fastening area in an upright manner.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, a very broad interpretation will be given. Correction and explanation are required.
Claim 16 requires a shape of the second rod. At the instant, without claiming that the fastening area defines the corresponding shape, so that the second rod is fitted in to the fastening area, see figure 9, the limitation is just a shape without any function.
Therefore, in order to continue with the examination, the claim will be interpreted as mentioned above. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by DE 8601884 (DE 884).
PNG
media_image1.png
1003
1881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, DE 884 discloses a rod lock for locking a door (1) with a first rod (18) and a second rod (7) firmly connected to the first rod via a rod adapter (22).
The rod adapter has a first fastening area (27) and a second fastening area (30).
The first rod (18) is connected to the rod adapter in an upright manner in the first fastening area (27) and the second rod (7) is connected to the rod adapter in a lying manner in the second fastening area (30).
As to claim 2, DE 884 discloses that the first rod and the second rod are arranged so as to be axially movable via an operating element (10).
As to claim 3, DE 884 discloses that the first rod (18) is movably received in a lock case which is operatively connected to the operating element.
As to claim 4, DE 884 discloses that the first fastening area (27) and the first rod (18) are connected to one another via a latching connection (20).
As to claim 5, DE 884 discloses that the first fastening area (27) has a fastening tab (28) with a fastening opening (29).
As to claim 9, DE 884 discloses that the second fastening area (30) and the second rod (7) are connected to one another via a latching connection.
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 8601884 (DE 884) in view of US Pat No 2,069,883 to Hennicke.
As to claim 6, DE 884 discloses that the first rod (27) has a rod connector at its free end that interacts with the fastening tab.
However, DE 884 fails to disclose that the fastening tab will be inserted into the connector. DE 884 discloses that the connector is lying against the fastening tab.
PNG
media_image2.png
907
867
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hennicke teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a connection that an end will be inserted into a connector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the connection between the connector and the fastening tab described by DE 884, as one that is inserted, as taught by Hennicke, in order to guide and mount the fastening tab so as to be secured.
As to claim 7, DE 884, as modified by Hennicke, teaches that the rod connector is integrally connected to the rod.
As to claim 8, DE 884, as modified by Hennicke, teaches that the fastening tab is inserted upright into the rod connector and is latched to the latter rod connector via the fastening opening.
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 8601884 (DE 884) in view of US Pat No 10,941,594 to Liu et al (Liu).
As to claim 10, DE 884 fails to disclose that the second rod has a latching receptacle for receiving a latching element arranged on the second fastening area. DE 884 discloses a different engagement having the second rod with an inward ramp (38, 39) that receives a latching element (31) on the second fastening area.
PNG
media_image3.png
415
729
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Liu teaches that it is well known in the art to provide an engagement between a rod (118) and an adapter (132) as a latching element (148) received into a latching receptacle (150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the connection between the adapter and the rod described by DE 884, as one of a latching element/latching receptacle, as taught by Liu, in order to be able to secure the two members and for easy disconnection in case of replacement, etc.
As to claim 17, DE 884, as modified by Liu, teaches that the latching receptacle is arranged at a free end of the second rod.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 8601884 (DE 884) in view of US Pat Application Publication No 20110012373 to Ramsauer.
As to claim 10, DE 884 fails to disclose that the second rod has a latching receptacle for receiving a latching element arranged on the second fastening area. DE 884 discloses a different engagement having the second rod with an inward ramp (38, 39) that receives a latching element (31) on the second fastening area.
PNG
media_image4.png
800
1533
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ramsauer teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a connection as a ramp (76)/receptacle (74) connection or as a latching bolt (56)/latch receptacle (58) between two members of a lock rod.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the connection between the adapter and the rod described by DE 884, as one of a latching element/latching receptacle, as taught by Ramsauer, in order to be able to secure the two members and for easy disconnection in case of replacement, etc.
As to claim 11, Ramsauer teaches that the latching element is designed as a latching bolt (56) and in that wherein the latching receptacle (58) encloses the latching bolt in the latched position by an angular amount capable of being of more than 180⁰, in particular more than 200⁰.
As to claim 12, Ramsauer teaches that the second fastening area has a mounting opening.
As to claim 17, DE 884, as modified by Ramsauer, teaches that the latching receptacle is arranged at a free end of the second rod.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14 and 16, as interpreted above, 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.
Claims 15, 18 and 19 would also be allowed since the claims depend from claim 14 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS LUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-7058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/Carlos Lugo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675
July 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights