DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to reply dated February 3, 2026. Claims 1 and 3-14 are currently pending.
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
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 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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird (US 2015/0096998 A1) in view of Holmes (US 2012/0253508 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bird discloses an anti-sweeping hook (see at least Figures 1-10 | [0023] note deter theft and prevent sweeping) comprising:
a display hook for storing retail merchandise, the display hook having a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see at least Figures 1-2, items 12, 20, 38, 36 and 40 | [0023-0025] note the anti-sweeping dispenser (12) stores merchandise (20) | [0026-0027] note the anti-sweeping dispenser (12) includes a rod (38) having two opposite ends, such as a c-shaped end (36) and a free end (40));
a helical coil disposed about the display hook and extending along a lengthwise portion of the display hook, the helical coil having a first coil end proximate the first end of the display hook, wherein rotation of the helical coil in a first direction loads the retail merchandise onto the display hook, and rotation of the helical coil in a second direction opposite the first direction removes the retail merchandise from the display hook (see at least Figures 1-2, items 42, 38 and 20 | [0028] note the helical coil (42), which has two opposite ends (44, 48), surrounds the rod (38) and dispenses and loads the merchandise (20) | [0038] note loading and dispensing of the merchandise (20) is performed by rotating the handle (46));
a rotating handle attached proximate the first end of the display hook and to the first coil end, wherein the rotating handle is configured to determine an extent of rotation for the rotating handle (see at least Figures 1-10, items 46, 22ꞌ and 54 | [0028] note the handle (46) | [0029] note the lockout device (22, 22ꞌ) | [0031] note the lockout device (22, 22ꞌ) locks the helical coil (42) | [0038] note loading and dispensing using the handle (46) | [0046-0047] note the housing (54) includes the handle (46) and houses the controller (72) which disables rotation in response to at least one dispensed piece of merchandise (20) | [0049] note a sensor (82) within the housing (54) detects rotation);
wherein the rotating handle includes an electrical connection disposed within a main housing of the rotating handle such that the electrical connection indicates some rotation of the rotating handle (see at least Figure 6, item 82 | [0049]).
However, Bird does not specifically disclose a first contact and a second contact such that an electrical connection between the first and second contacts indicates some rotation of the rotating handle.
It is known to detect rotation in different ways. For example, Holmes teaches an anti-sweeping hook that includes a first contact and a second contact such that an electrical connection between the first and second contacts indicates some rotation of the rotating handle (see at least Figures 19-20, items 274 and 314 | [0080] note a switch requires two electrical contacts or terminals | [0063] note the switch indicates that the rotating handle has rotated a quarter turn to remove a product).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Holmes into Bird. This provides a known alternative electro-mechanical sensor that can be used in place of Bird’s electro-mechanical sensor while providing predictable results (e.g., one that detects rotation of the rotating handle).
Regarding claim 3, Bird in view of Holmes teach wherein the rotating handle includes a circuit board with circuitry configured to count the electrical connections between the first and second contacts (see at least Figure 6, items 72 and 82 of Bird, note circuit boards or PCBs are used mechanically support and electrically connect the electrical components shown in Figure 6 | [0047-0049] of Bird, note the controller (72) counts that three pieces of merchandise (20) have been dispensed within a predetermined period of time via the electro-mechanical sensor (82) or via Holmes’ switch (314) | [0063] of Holmes).
Regarding claim 4, Bird in view of Holmes teach wherein the circuitry includes an MCU configured to trigger an alarm if a threshold number of electrical connections between the first and second contacts occurs within a predetermined time period (see at least Figure 6 of Bird | [0047-0049] of Bird, note the controller (72) counts that three pieces of merchandise (20) have been dispensed within a predetermined period of time via the electro-mechanical sensor (82) or via Holmes’ switch (314), and transmits an alarm signal to each other dispensers 12', broadcast to all the dispensers 12', or provided to a central controller).
Regarding claim 5, Bird in view of Holmes teach wherein the alarm is one of an audio alarm, a visual alarm, and a wired or wireless signal transmitted to a local or remotely-located receiving device (see at least [0048] of Bird, note an alarm signal is transmitted to each other dispenser 12', broadcast to all the dispensers 12', or provided to a central controller).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird (US 2015/0096998 A1) in view of Holmes (US 2012/0253508 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Ambrosina (US 6,418,797 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Bird in view of Holmes do not teach wherein the MCU enters a sleep mode if there is no electrical connection between the first and second contacts for the predetermined time period.
It is known for a battery powered rotating device to utilize sleep and wake modes. For example, Ambrosina teaches a rotating system wherein a computer enters a sleep mode if there is no electrical connection between first and second contacts for the predetermined time period (see at least col. 11, line 62 – col. 12, line 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Ambrosina into Bird in view of Holmes. This provides the ability to extend Bird in view of Holmes’ battery powered system (see [0034] of Bird).
Regarding claim 7, Bird in view of Holmes and Ambrosina teach wherein the MCU provides one of an audio indicator, a visual indicator, and a wired or wireless indicator signal transmitted to a local or remotely-located receiving device prior to entering sleep mode (see at least [0048] of Bird, note an alarm signal is transmitted to each other dispenser 12', broadcast to all the dispensers 12', or provided to a central controller).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird (US 2015/0096998 A1) in view of Holmes (US 2012/0253508 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bird discloses an anti-sweeping hook (see at least Figures 1-10 | [0023] note deter theft and prevent sweeping) comprising:
a display hook for storing retail merchandise, the display hook having a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see at least Figures 1-2, items 12, 20, 38, 36 and 40 | [0023-0025] note the anti-sweeping dispenser (12) stores merchandise (20) | [0026-0027] note the anti-sweeping dispenser (12) includes a rod (38) having two opposite ends, such as a c-shaped end (36) and a free end (40));
a helical coil disposed about the display hook and extending along a lengthwise portion of the display hook, the helical coil having a first coil end proximate the first end of the display hook, wherein rotation of the helical coil in a first direction loads the retail merchandise onto the display hook, and rotation of the helical coil in a second direction opposite the first direction removes the retail merchandise from the display hook (see at least Figures 1-2, items 42, 38 and 20 | [0028] note the helical coil (42), which has two opposite ends (44, 48), surrounds the rod (38) and dispenses and loads the merchandise (20) | [0038] note loading and dispensing of the merchandise (20) is performed by rotating the handle (46));
a rotating handle attached proximate the first end of the display hook and to the first coil end, wherein the rotating handle is configured to determine an extent of rotation for the rotating handle (see at least Figures 1-10, items 46, 22ꞌ and 54 | [0028] note the handle (46) | [0029] note the lockout device (22, 22ꞌ) | [0031] note the lockout device (22, 22ꞌ) locks the helical coil (42) | [0038] note loading and dispensing using the handle (46) | [0046-0047] note the housing (54) includes the handle (46) and houses the controller (72) which disables rotation in response to at least one dispensed piece of merchandise (20) | [0049] note a sensor (82) within the housing (54) detects rotation);
wherein the rotating handle includes a rotor, and the rotating handle is configured to prevent rotation of the rotor in the first direction, and configured to allow rotation of the rotor in the second direction (see at least [0047] of Bird, note the lock and rotor).
However, Bird does not specifically disclose a stator, the stator configured to prevent rotation of the rotor in the first direction, and configured to allow rotation of the rotor in the second direction.
It is known for a rotor to be associated with a stator. For example, Holmes teaches a system with rotor and a stator, the stator configured to prevent rotation of the rotor in the first direction, and configured to allow rotation of the rotor in the second direction (see at least Figure 20, items 310 and 294 of Holmes | | [0080] note a switch requires two electrical contacts or terminals | [0063] note the switch indicates that the rotating handle has rotated a quarter turn to remove a product).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Holmes into Bird. This provides the components to rotate and prevent rotation of Bird’s rotating handle.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird (US 2015/0096998 A1) in view of Rose (US 2021/0001785 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Bird discloses a rotating handle for an anti-sweeping retail display hook (see at least Figure 9 | [0023] note deter theft and prevent sweeping), the rotating handle comprising:
an electrical connection disposed within a main housing of the rotating handle such that the electrical connection indicates some rotation of the rotating handle (see at least Figure 6, item 82 | [0049]); and
an end of a helical coil and stator each disposed within the main housing of the rotating handle, the stator configured to prevent rotation of the end of the helical coil in a first direction, and configured to allow rotation of the end of the helical coil in a second direction (see at least [0047]).
However, Bird does not specifically disclose a first contact and a second contact such that an electrical connection between the first and second contacts indicates some rotation; and a rotor; the rotor and of the second contact in a first direction, and the rotor and of the second contact in a second direction.
It is known to detect rotation in different ways. For example, Rose teaches a rotor/stator arrangement that includes a first contact and a second contact such that an electrical connection between the first and second contacts indicates some rotation; and a rotor; the rotor and of the second contact in a first direction, and the rotor and of the second contact in a second direction (see at least Figures 7a-7b, items 6 | [0048]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Rose into Bird. This provides a known alternative electro-mechanical sensor that can be used in place of Bird’s electro-mechanical sensor while providing predictable results (e.g., one that detects rotation of the rotating handle).
Regarding claim 10, Bird in view of Rose teach wherein the rotating handle includes a circuit board with circuitry configured to count the electrical connections between the first and second contacts (see at least Figure 6, items 72 and 82 of Bird, note circuit boards or PCBs are used mechanically support and electrically connect the electrical components shown in Figure 6 | [0047-0049] of Bird, note the controller (72) counts that three pieces of merchandise (20) have been dispensed within a predetermined period of time via the electro-mechanical sensor (82) or via Rose’s switch (6) | Figures 7a-7b of Rose).
Regarding claim 11, Bird in view of Rose teach wherein the circuitry includes an MCU configured to trigger an alarm if a threshold number of electrical connections between the first and second contacts occurs within a predetermined time period (see at least Figure 6 of Bird | [0047-0049] of Bird, note the controller (72) counts that three pieces of merchandise (20) have been dispensed within a predetermined period of time via the electro-mechanical sensor (82) or via Rose’s switch (6), and transmits an alarm signal to each other dispensers 12', broadcast to all the dispensers 12', or provided to a central controller).
Regarding claim 12, Bird in view of Rose teach wherein the alarm is one of an audio alarm, a visual alarm, and a wired or wireless signal transmitted to a local or remotely-located receiving device (see at least [0048] of Bird, note an alarm signal is transmitted to each other dispenser 12', broadcast to all the dispensers 12', or provided to a central controller).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird (US 2015/0096998 A1) in view of Rose (US 2021/0001785 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Ambrosina (US 6,418,797 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Bird in view of Rose do not specifically teach wherein the MCU enters a sleep mode if there is no electrical connection between the first and second contacts for the predetermined time period.
It is known for a battery powered rotating device to utilize sleep and wake modes. For example, Ambrosina teaches a rotating system wherein a computer enters a sleep mode if there is no electrical connection between first and second contacts for the predetermined time period (see at least col. 11, line 62 – col. 12, line 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Ambrosina into Bird in view of Rose. This provides the ability to extend Bird in view of Rose’s battery powered system (see [0034] of Bird).
Regarding claim 14, Bird in view of Rose and Ambrosina teach wherein the MCU provides an audio indicator, a visual indicator, and a wired or wireless indicator signal transmitted to a local or remotely-located receiving device prior to entering sleep mode (see at least [0048] of Bird, note an alarm signal is transmitted to each other dispenser 12', broadcast to all the dispensers 12', or provided to a central controller).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts “With respect to the rejection of claim 2, Applicants submit that amended claim 1 should not be rejected due to the combination of Bird and Holmes. It is asserted that FIG. 6, item 82 and paragraph [0049] of Bird disclose an electrical connection within the main housing of the rotating handle, where the electrical connection indicates some rotation of the rotating handle.
Item 82 in FIG. 6 is a sensor, and paragraph [0049] of Bird explains that sensor 82 is an opto-electric sensor mounted to the backside of housing 54 that monitors the space between the backside and free end 40 of the rod 38 for a dispensation. Thus, it can be seen that sensor 82 is not configured to indicate rotation of the handle, instead using optical means to determine when an item is dispensed from the merchandise hook. Applicants further note that housing 54 is not a housing of the rotating handle, as required by amended claim 1 and by claims 3-5. In view of the foregoing, Applicants submit that Bird does not teach all of the limitations for which it is being relied upon.”
In response, paragraph [0049] of Bird clearly states the controller employs an electro-mechanical sensor mounted within the housing 54, and the sensor can detect the dispensing of a packaged item 20. It is noted that an electro-mechanical sensor is not an opto-electric sensor mounted to the backside of the housing 54. Additionally, detecting dispensing of a packaged item 20 is indicative of determining the extent of rotation of the handle. Bird’s system, see [0031], detects the dispensation of a predetermined number of packaged items within a predetermined period of time. Moreover, Bird clearly shows that housing 54 in Figure 9 is a housing of the rotating handle as required by amended claim 1 and by claims 3-5. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts “In FIGS. 19-20, items 274 and 314, as well as paragraphs [0080] and [0063], Holmes is asserted to teach a first and second contact where an electrical connection between the first and second contacts indicates some rotation of the rotating handle. As an initial matter, it should be noted that the switch referred to is from FIGS. 7 and 9 of Holmes. The switch 170 from these figures is not disposed in the housing of the rotating handle, as required by amended claim 1 and by claims 3-5. The switch 314 of FIG. 20 is located at the opposite end of the helical coil from the rotating handle 274. It should also be noted that neither Bird nor Holmes teaches a circuit board disposed in the rotating handle, as required by claims 3-5.”
In response, Bird, as outline above, clearly employs an electro-mechanical sensor mounted within the housing 54 of the rotating handle. Holmes simply illustrates the type of electro-mechanical sensor that Bird can use to track the dispensation of a predetermined number of packaged items within a predetermined period of time. In addition, Holmes’s switch 314 is clearly underneath the rotating handle 274 shown in Figures 19 and 20. With respect to the circuit board, Bird and Holmes circuitry is not shown hanging outside of the rotating handle 54. Circuit boards are a fundamental piece of circuitry that act as the backbone for the arrangement and interconnection of electrical components. Ambrosina illustrates what is known in the art, see Figures 4 and 13, items 338/438, col. 10, lines 40-50 and col. 12, lines 59-62, that is, circuit boards support electrical components. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks concerning claims 6 and 7, they are addressed as outlined above. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts “Ambrosina does not cure the above-described deficiencies of Bird and Holmes. Ambrosina is cited for teaching an MCU that enters a sleep mode if there is no electrical connection between the first and second contacts for the predetermined time period. Column 11, line 62 to column 12, line 3 are asserted to teach this limitation. This passage discloses an electronic unit 335 that has a sleep mode. However, the cited passage does not state that electronic unit 335 enters a sleep mode if there is no electrical connection between the first and second contacts for a predetermined time period. As such, Ambrosina does not teach all of the limitations for which it is relied upon.”
In response, Ambrosina clearly states the reed switch is activated as the wheel begins to turn and is used to turn the system on. This feature serves to activate the electronics unit from a sleep mode. A period of inactivity of the reed switch can start a timer in the computer, which turns the system off after a predetermined time-out period expires. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s asserts “Bird is cited for teaching the same limitations as cited for in the rejection of claim 1. As explained above, Bird does not teach first an electrical connection disposed within a main housing of the rotating handle, and does not teach that the electrical connection indicates some rotation of the rotating handle.
FIGS. 7a and 7b, item 6, and paragraphs [0048] of Rose is cited for teaching first and second contacts, where an electrical connection between the first and second contacts indicates some rotation of the rotating handle, and a rotor and stator each disposed within the main housing of the rotating handle, the stator configured to prevent rotation of the rotor and of the second contact in a first direction, and configured to allow rotation of the rotor and of the second contact in a second direction.
However, Applicants note that FIGS. 7a and 7b only show the dials of a camera, but the cited passage discloses no rotor or stator disposed within the main housing of the rotating handle, the stator configured to prevent rotation of the rotor in one direction, nor electrical contacts that indicate rotation of the rotating handle.
Moreover, neither Bird nor Rose teaches a circuit board, in the rotating handle, with circuitry configured to count the electrical connections between the first and second contacts, as required by claims 10-12.”
In response, Bird’s electro-mechanical sensor is in the housing of the rotating handle (see Figure 9 | [0047-0049]). The lockout device 22' includes a housing 54 within which the rotation mechanism 46 (i.e., the illustrated knob) is mounted and secured to the coil 42 through the housing 54 (i.e., there is a rotor and stator). If the rotation mechanism 46 is rotated too many times within a predetermine period of time, the rotation mechanism can be stopped via the stator’s lock. Rose is used to illustrate a type of electro-mechanical sensor with first and second contacts used to indicate some rotation via a rotor and stator (see Figures 7a-7b | [0048]). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks concerning claims 13 and 14, they are addressed as outlined above. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689