DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23rd, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the R.C.E. filed on February 23rd, 2026 for application no. 18/926,623 filed on October 25th, 2024. Claims 1-5, 8-13 and 15 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1-2, 13 and 15 are amended, and claims 6-7 and 14 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 23rd, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
Examiner Note
Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections and/or rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 1 (lines 13-14), please change the recitation of “or 2) the spring element is a helical spring” to - - or 2) the spring element is [[a]] the helical spring - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (line 12).
Regarding Claim 2 (lines 18-19), please change the recitation of “or 2) the spring element is a helical spring” to - - or 2) the spring element is [[a]] the helical spring - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 2 (line 17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 8-13 and 15, the mixed embodiment recited in claims 8-13 and 15 lack proper written description. Independent claim 2 is now specific to the embodiments seen in Figs. 2-4 and 11, whereas the features recited in dependent claims 8-13 and 15 are specific to the embodiments seen in Figs. 5-10. See MPEP 2163(II)(A) - Read and Analyze the Specification for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claims 9-11, 13 and 15 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
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 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 1-2, 4-5, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pellmann (US 2019/0287705). Pellmann was cited on the IDS filed October 25th, 2024.
Regarding Claim 1, Pellmann teaches an electromagnet (Figs. 1-5, “bi-stable solenoids” 18) for a locking arrangement (“rocker arms” 16, “teeth” 86 and “gear” 14), the electromagnet (18) comprising:
an armature (“armature” 36), which can be fixed in at least one stable and permanent-magnetic end position (via “permanent magnet” 34; [0004] – “The present disclosure provides a bi-stable solenoid that includes an internally disposed spring, which allows for the bi-stable solenoid to enter a tooth butt, or intermediate position where a pin can engage a tooth of a gear, and remain biased toward an extended position”);
an armature rod (“pin” 22);
a selectively energizable coil (“wire coil” 55) for adjusting the armature (36); and
a spring element (“spring” 37);
wherein 1) the spring element is a helical spring which is supported at one end on the armature and at another end directly on the armature rod, or
2) the spring element (37) is a helical spring which is supported at the one end on the armature (36) and at the another end on a supporting part (“snap ring” 82) fixedly connected to the armature rod (22);
wherein the armature rod (22), the supporting part (82), or both the armature rod (22) and the supporting part (82) is movable relative to the armature (36; see Fig. 4) i) while the selectively energizable coil (55) is not energized, ii) during the at least one stable and permanent-magnetic end position of the armature (36), or iii) both i) and ii) (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Pellmann teaches a locking arrangement (Figs. 1-5; 16, 86 and 14) comprising:
an electromagnet (18) having an armature (36) and an armature rod (22);
a component (14) which is rotatable about an axis in a first direction of rotation and in an opposite second direction of rotation (see Fig. 1), wherein the component (14) has circumferential engagements (between 86);
a latching means (16) having a restoring surface (see Figs. 1-4), wherein the latching means (16) is connected to the armature rod (22) and is adjustable between a latching position (position seen in Fig. 3) and a release position (Fig. 4; [0015] – “The rocker arms 16 can be configured to engage and disengage the gear 14 to selectively prevent or allow rotation of the gear 14 in either of the clockwise or counter-clockwise directions”),
wherein in the latching position (Fig. 3) the latching means (16) engages in one of the circumferential engagements (between 86) for preventing rotation in the first direction of rotation of the component (14),
wherein in the release position (Fig. 4; see [0015]), the latching means (16) comes out of engagement with the one of the circumferential engagements (between 86) to release rotation in the opposite second direction of rotation of the component (14); and
a spring element (37) that pretensions the latching means (37) into the latching position (Fig. 3) and allows the latching means (16) to be restored into the release position (see Fig. 4; [0028] – “In some instances, the pin 22 may encounter an intermediate position (see, e.g., FIG. 4) where the pin 22 is temporarily prevented from fully extending from the retracted position to the extended position due to an obstruction. As will be described, the design and properties of the bi-stable solenoid 18 enable the pin 22 to encounter the intermediate position and eventually reach the desired extended position without requiring energization of the wire coil 55”);
wherein 1) the spring element is a helical spring which is supported at one end on the armature and at another end directly on the armature rod, or
2) the spring element (37) is a helical spring which is supported at the one end on the armature (36) and at the another end on a supporting part (82) fixedly connected to the armature rod (22);
wherein the component (14) can act on the restoring surface of the latching means (16) during rotation in the opposite second direction of rotation in order to bring the latching means (16) into the release position (Fig. 4) that is counter to a spring force of the spring element (37; see [0015] and [0028]).
Regarding Claim 4, Pellmann teaches the locking arrangement according to Claim 2,
wherein the armature (Figs. 1-5, 36) is movably mounted relative to the armature rod (22; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Pellmann teaches the locking arrangement according to Claim 2,
wherein the armature rod (Figs. 1-5, 22) has or forms an armature stop (Figs. 1-4, “shoulder” 76 or Fig. 5, “second snap ring” 80) that strikes against the armature (36).
Regarding Claim 8, Pellmann teaches the locking arrangement according to Claim 2,
wherein the latching means (Figs. 1-5, 16) is a one-part pawl (16), or the latching means (16) is movably mounted at one end relative to the armature rod (22), or the latching means (16) is a one-part pawl (16) that is movably mounted at one end relative to the armature rod (22; see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Pellmann teaches the locking arrangement according to Claim 2,
wherein the latching means (Figs. 1-5, 16) is a multi-part pawl (16 and “rocker arm spring” 92), or the latching means (16) is movably mounted at one end movably relative to the armature rod (22), or the latching means (16) is a multi-part pawl (16, 92) and is movably mounted at one end relative to the armature rod (22).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed February 23rd, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed November 3rd, 2025 and the interview conducted on January 6th, 2026. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Objections
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Applicant’s amendment addresses various minor informalities previously indicated in the latest Office Action. As such, the relevant claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding Claims 1-5, Applicant’s amendment is supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure. As such, the relevant 112(a) rejections previously indicated in the latest Office Action are withdrawn.
Regarding Claims 8-13 and 15, the mixed embodiment recited in claims 8-13 and 15 lack proper written description. Independent claim 2 is now specific to the embodiments seen in Figs. 2-4 and 11, whereas the features recited in dependent claims 8-13 and 15 are specific to the embodiments seen in Figs. 5-10. Examiner recommends drafting separate independent claims corresponding to the various embodiments.
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 10, Applicant’s amendment has clarified the invention. As such, the relevant 112(b) rejections previously indicated in the latest Office Action are withdrawn.
In conclusion, amended claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-13 and 15 are rejected. See detailed and relevant rejections set forth above. Amended claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 2. See allowable subject matter set forth below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 9-11, 13 and 15, a determination of allowability will be considered after Applicant’s response to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) presented above.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Lowry (US 2003/0196867) and Grabovac (US 5,099,678) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar locking arrangements comprising armature rods related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655