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 .
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) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeitler (US 20220403688 A1) in view of Antrag (DE 10106121 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Zeitler teaches a rod lock with at least one rod (5) and an attachable shoe (2) which is connected to the rod via an attachment area (dashed line in fig. 4).
Zeitler does not explicitly teach wherein the attachment area is connected to the rod via a plurality of barbs.
Antrag teaches a similar locking mechanism utilizing connecting rods wherein the attachment area between the connection rods is connected via a plurality of barbs (35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zeitler and Antrag in order to utilize a plurality or barbs as an attachment method for attaching parts to a connecting rod. Utilizing a barbed connection allows for a push to connect fitting allowing for simple assembly requiring fewer tools. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Zeitler in view of Antrag teaches the rod lock according to claim 1, wherein the attachment area is connected to the rod without tools (no tools are required for the push to connect fitting of Antrag) and/or non detachably.
Regarding claim 3, Zeitler in view of Antrag teaches the rod lock according to claim 1, Antrag further teaches wherein the attachment area (40) for receiving the rod has an attachment opening (41) in which the barbs are arranged.
Regarding claim 4, Zeitler in view of Antrag teaches the rod lock according to claim 1, Antrag further teaches wherein the attachment opening has a row of barbs on each of two opposite sides extending parallel to an insertion direction of the rod (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Zeitler in view of Antrag teaches the rod lock according to claim 1, Antrag further teaches wherein the barbs extend in an at least one of an angled and/or curved manner in the insertion direction of the rod (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Zeitler in view of Antrag teaches the rod lock according to claim 1, Antrag further teaches wherein the attachment area (40) has a side opening extending transversely to an insertion direction of the rod (41).
Regarding claim 7, Zeitler in view of Antrag teaches the rod lock according to claim 1, Zeitler further teaches wherein the attachable shoe has a locking area (area which contacts 18) for locking the rod to a lock holder (18)
Regarding claim 8, Zeitler in view of Antrag teaches the rod lock according to claim 7, Zeitler further teaches wherein the locking area is aligned parallel to the rod (fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 9, Zeitler in view of Antrag teaches the rod lock according to claim 7, Zeitler further teaches wherein the locking area is axially offset to the rod (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Zeitler in view of Antrag teaches the rod lock according to claim 7, Zeitler further teaches wherein the locking area has a locking element (distal end of 2).
Regarding claim 11, Zeitler in view of Antrag teaches the rod lock according to claim 1, Antrag further teaches wherein a width of the rod in a plug on area (width at the thin end of the teeth) which can be inserted into the attachment area of the attachable shoe is smaller than the remaining width of the rod (width at the full width of the rod and full width of teeth at the widest point).
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeitler (US 20220403688 A1) in view of Antrag (DE 10106121 A1) and further in view of Minnich (US 20200386021 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Zeitler in view of Antrag teaches the rod lock according to claim 1, however the combination does not explicitly discuss the rod or attachable shoe being made of plastic.
Minnich teaches a similar rod lock wherein a connection member is made with a molded plastic. (para. 0044).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Zeitler and Antrag with those of Minnich in order to utilize a molded plastic to form the components of the rod lock mechanism. Utilizing an injection molding process allows for simpler manufacturing which in turn reduces manufacturing costs. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Zeitler in view of Antrag and further in view of Minnich teaches the rod lock according to claim 12, wherein the attachable shoe is formed as a plastic injection molded part and the barbs are formed in one piece or as a separate part on the attachable shoe (the barbs are formed in one piece as shown by Antrag, and the attachable shoe of Zeitler is being interpreted as being manufactured utilizing Minnich’s injection molded plastic process).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, 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.
/J.E.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights